When It Comes to Being Declared Ceremonially Clean, the Rules Have Changed and I'm Glad

Clean or Unclean? It’s the Priest’s Call.

Leviticus 13:9-17 

⁹ “When the infection of leprosy is on a man, then he shall be brought to the priest.¹⁰ The priest shall then look, and if there is a white swelling in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and there is quick raw flesh in the swelling, ¹¹ it is a chronic leprosy on the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he shall not isolate him, for he is unclean. ¹² If the leprosy breaks out farther on the skin, and the leprosy covers all the skin of him who has the infection from his head even to his feet, as far as the priest can see, ¹³ then the priest shall look, and behold, if the leprosy has covered all his body, he shall pronounce clean him who has the infection; it has all turned white and he is clean. ¹⁴ But whenever raw flesh appears on him, he shall be unclean. ¹⁵ The priest shall look at the raw flesh, and he shall pronounce him unclean; the raw flesh is unclean, it is leprosy. ¹⁶ Or if the raw flesh turns again and is changed to white, then he shall come to the priest,¹⁷ and the priest shall look at him, and behold, if the infection has turned to white, then the priest shall pronounce clean him who has the infection; he is clean.

Thoughts on the Passage

In this part of Leviticus 13, we see that the fate of someone infected with leprosy depends on two things. First, the progress of the infection on his/her body and second, the accurate and fair diagnosis of the Priest doing the inspection. It is thus one is deemed to be “clean” or “unclean”.  You don’t isolate an ‘unclean’ person. Isolation is for remedial purposes and there’s no chance a chronic leper will heal.

There is an interesting twist in verse 12, however.  Here the indication is that if the leprosy is deemed to have covered the entire body, the infected person is to be cleaned, while the skin remains white, and he is deemed ceremoniously ‘clean’.

Verse 14 describes the serious physical situation of the appearance of “raw flesh” in which case the individual is definitely unclean and a leper.  Verse 16 offers the opportunity for such raw flesh to change color and become white, thus after further examination by the priest, the individual may be pronounced ‘clean’.

What strikes me in this passage is, as mentioned above, one’s “ceremonial cleanliness” for the Israelites in the wilderness depended on the condition of one’s skin and/or the judgement of the Priest examining them. And that decision had an incredible impact on how that individual would live the rest of his/her life.

But thank God that today we know that only the blood of Jesus Christ and His grace and mercy can make as ‘ceremonially’ and ‘spiritually’ clean. The condition or color of our skin does not matter one iota.  Neither does what a local priest or pastor or anyone else may think of us.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

What The Mosaic Law's Test for Leprosy Was All About

Examination of People and Garments

Leviticus 13

A Test for Leprosy

Leviticus 13:1- 8

¹ Then the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, ² “When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling or a scab or a bright spot, and it becomes an infection of leprosy on the skin of his body, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests. ³ The priest shall look at the mark on the skin of the body, and if the hair in the infection has turned white and the infection appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is an infection of leprosy; when the priest has looked at him, he shall pronounce him unclean. ⁴ But if the bright spot is white on the skin of his body, and it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and the hair on it has not turned white, then the priest shall isolate him who has the infection for seven days. ⁵ The priest shall look at him on the seventh day, and if in his eyes the infection has not changed and the infection has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall isolate him for seven more days. ⁶ The priest shall look at him again on the seventh day, and if the infection has faded and the mark has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scab. And he shall wash his clothes and be clean.

⁷ “But if the scab spreads farther on the skin after he has shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall appear again to the priest. ⁸ The priest shall look, and if the scab has spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is leprosy.

Thoughts on the Passage

Leprosy was a terrible thing to strike a person or a family for the Israelites in the dessert. And, in the absence of medics, it was the priests that were in charge of determining that it was leprosy, and if it wasn’t when the person who was afflicted could be deemed clean again. What is important to note is that this illness, in a practical sense, was identified with being ‘unclean’.

Chuck Smith says, “God wanted them to be very careful to, number one, if it was leprosy, to isolate them from the people to keep this disease from spreading. And so, it was a quarantine kind of thing. But secondly, the careful examination so that no one would be isolated who was not truly a leper. So, God wanted them to be careful in both directions. Make sure it's leprosy so that in case it is leprosy, the person can be isolated from the community so that the disease would not spread. But secondly, make sure if it isn't, that this person doesn't have this isolation from the community itself.”

I often feel that today we deal with the same dilemmas in other parts of life – sending children to school when they are sick because both parents have to work; or letting accused individuals go on one's own recognizance without posting bail because the ‘judge’ deems him/her to not be a danger to society; or whether a pit bull is a pit bull and it doesn’t matter that one particular dog of that kind has not killed a child yet.

Clearly, the priests, with these limited instructions from God as to what to look for, had a very difficult decision to make in each case.  The ramifications of error for the individual, the family, and the whole camp were severe.

David Guzik says, “The methodology in this passage erred on the side of safety. If a person could not be pronounced ‘clean’ with certainty, they were then isolated until they could be pronounced clean.” He maintains judgments “were made more with the idea of protecting the community from the outbreak of disease than with the idea of the rights of the individual.”

Of course, we do the opposite today in most cases – Charters of Rights or equivalents in many countries give the individual total say in what happens to him/her in many situations and what he/her can do, even if there is solid evidence that the likelihood of harming others exists.

Guzik also quotes Harrison who says, “The Hebrew priest-physicians appear to have been the first in the ancient world to isolate persons suspected of infectious or contagious diseases.” The reason for this was that smallpox, measles, and scarlet fever might start out with a skin condition considered to be leprosy – and the person would be isolated for the necessary time until the condition cleared up. God once again put this quarantine in place to prevent the spread of these diseases among His people.

Robert Jamieson says that the fact that the test for leprosy was incorporated in the Mosaic laws indicates leprosy was becoming rampant in the camp and that it happened soon after they left Egypt indicating that country where it was endemic was the source. He believes this was not hereditary with the Israelites, but rather that they got it from intercourse with the Egyptians and from the unfavorable circumstances of their condition in the house of bondage. Jamieson gives us the most “Dr. Luke-like treatment” to leprosy of all the commentators I turned to and you can read more of his comments here Jamison on Leprosy and Leviticus 13.

Matthew Henry takes a little different approach to leprosy. He sees it more as ‘uncleanliness’ rather than an illness. His argument is that the law involved priests not physicians (although I am not convinced they had any doctors traveling with them), thus indicating it had to do with being spiritually clean. He argues that Christ cleansed lepers, rather than heal them. Are we quibbling over words here?

He goes on to say we need to note it was a plague inflicted immediately by the hand of God, and not by natural causes as other diseases – thus requiring management by divine law, not medicine. He goes on to say, the leprosies of Miriam, Gehazi, and King Uzziah were all as a result of the punishments for particular sins.

He goes on to give more rationale for his thinking. Those interested should refer to Henry on Leprosy and Leviticus 13.

I think we got a lot more out of this passage than I originally thought we would.  Stay tuned as we what happens to those that were in fact pronounced to be lepers and thus were ‘unclean’.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

If Any Passage of Scripture Could Be Arguably Sexist, This Might Be It. Or Perhaps Not.

Laws Concerning Childbirth

Leviticus 12

Leviticus 12:1- 8

¹Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ² “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying:

‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. ³ On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. ⁴ Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. ⁵ But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.

⁶ ‘When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one-year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. ⁷ Then he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female. ⁸ But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

Thoughts on the Passage

My initial thought in reading this passage this time around was that if ever there was a portion of Scripture that the women’s lib movement could call sexist, this was it.

At face value, the passage clearly distinguishes between having a male and a female child. When a male child is born, the woman is ‘unclean’ for seven days and then she remains unwashed for thirty-three days, not allowed to touch any consecrated thing nor enter into a place of worship during that time. Meanwhile, the son will have been circumcised on the eighth day.

If the woman has a female child, she is deemed unclean for twice as long (two weeks) and also remains unwashed for twice as long (sixty-six days).  One assumes the restrictions for that period are the same as for when she has a male child.

When those respective periods are over, the mother is to somehow acquire a one-year old lamb and take it to the priest for burnt offering, as well as a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.  The priest offers these to God and makes atonement for her (I suppose for having a child, or perhaps for being unclean), after which she is or can be cleansed from her blood. 

The passage ends with the provision to double up on the pigeons or doves if the woman cannot afford to purchase a one-year old lamb. Throughout the entire chapter there is no mention of the father or husband. One can easily see the argument that anti-sexists can make.

In the New Testament, in Luke chapter 2, verse 24 we read that Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the end of her period of purification, after having given birth to Jesus, offered a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons for the sacrifice that needed to be made. This was an indication that young Joseph and his wife were not from a wealthy family.

Now let’s see what we can make of this whole passage:

Robert Jamieson writes (regarding the days of the mother being purified), “Though the occasion was of a festive character, yet the sacrifices appointed were not a peace offering, but a burnt offering and sin offering, in order to impress the mind of the parent with recollections of the origin of sin, and that the child inherited a fallen and sinful nature.”

David Guzik has many good thoughts on this passage.  He writes:

“The commanded time of ceremonial impurity should not be regarded as a negative attitude towards birth or childbearing on God's part. God commands childbearing, in that man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), children are regarded as a gift from God (Psalm 127:3), and a woman with many kids is considered blessed (Psalm 128:3).

“The key to understanding this ceremony is to understand the idea of original sin. As wonderful as a new baby is, God wanted it to be remembered that with every birth another sinner was brought into the world, and the woman was here symbolically responsible for bringing a new sinner into the world. Perhaps just as importantly, the time of ceremonial impurity gave the new mother a time of rest and seclusion.” Something that might be welcomed by many.

On the issue of why the purification time requirements were twice as long for a female child, Guzik suggests the following:

“The longer period of ceremonial uncleanness for the birth of a daughter should not be understood as a penalty. Instead, it is linked to the idea stated in the previous verses – that the time of impurity is for the symbolic responsibility of bringing other sinners into the world. When giving birth to a female, a mother brings a sinner into the world who will bring still other sinners into the world.”  I understand how, when many have thrown out the idea of sin altogether today, this would not make a lot of sense.  But I believe, symbolically, what Guzik offers here is a possible explanation of the passage.

Guzik also tells us that some “also suggest the longer period of time in connection with the birth of a girl was because girls are usually smaller at birth, and this would allow more time for the mother's focused care and attention on the child. As well, since sons were more prized, the longer time at home for a mother with a newborn girl would force the family to bond more deeply, over a more extended period of time.” Perhaps.

Matthew Henry on the other hand, offers no reason for the difference in treatment between a male and female child, except for “the will of the Maker” since God created them male and female from the beginning, as equals. I personally like Guzik’s efforts to at least attribute some cause to God’s deliberate distinctions here, even if as humans, we may never know fully what God had in mind. Suffice it for me that there is an explanation.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

The purpose of Dietary Laws in the Old Testament

The Purpose of Dietary Laws

Leviticus 11:41-47 

⁴¹ ‘Now every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten. ⁴² Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable. ⁴³ Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean. ⁴⁴ For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. ⁴⁵ For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.’”
⁴⁶ This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, ⁴⁷ to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.

Thoughts on the Passage

There are certain things God did not want the Israelites to eat.  These included anything that “swarms” on the earth. There are things that do swarm that elsewhere God okays for eating – birds, locusts, etc.  So, it is only those things that swarm and crawl on their bellies, or walk on all fours, or have many feet – it is those swarming things that God says are ‘detestable’.  Eating any of those things would make people detestable and unclean.

But it is more than that.  God told the Israelites to do that because He was the Lord their God. Instead, He wanted them to consecrate themselves in order to be holy because He is holy. And being holy is what is required He says by the God who brought them up from the land of Egypt where they were slaves.

The passage ends by Moses saying, that this is a law that enables God’s people to distinguish between what is clean and what is unclean; and thus, between what can be eaten and what cannot (or should not) be eaten.

On this passage, David Guzik says, “God claims the right to speak to every area of our life, including what we eat. He had the right to tell Israel what to eat and what not to eat. One great purpose of the dietary laws of Israel was to sanctify – to set them apart – from other nations. It made fellowship with those who di dnot serve god far more difficult.”

This also reminds us of the story in Daniel chapter 1 where Daniel and his friends refused to eat the unkosher food at the king of Babylon’s table – and God blesses them for being set apart for His righteousness. 

Guzik quotes Harris in saying, “"In general it can be said that the laws protected Israel from bad diet, dangerous vermin, and communicable diseases."

Are we expected to follow a strict kosher diet today?  No, that issue was settled in Acts 15 where it was decided that this was not necessary to follow Jesus. In I Timothy 4:1, 3-5, Paul further gives us the liberty to eat what we want. Having said that, however, we also have to deal with the wisdom of I Corinthians 9:24-27 where we are shown that some things are not beneficial to us for certain personal reasons. Each person knows his or her own dietary needs to stay healthy or to be able to sleep well at night. Guzik reminds us that “no one should think themselves more right with God because they eat or don't eat certain things.”

Matthew Henry reminds us that the key objective of all this was first and foremost to make us holy as our God is holy, not necessarily to dictate our diet.  We need to know the difference between good and evil, clean and unclean. We need to be constantly aware of divine laws in our lives. And to be different from, or set apart from, our neighbors in these respects.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Read It As A Story; Then Decide How It Will Impact You

This Beautiful Book: An Exploration of the Bible’s Incredible Story Line and Why it Matters Today

Author: Steve Green, with Bill High

Publisher: Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI., 2019

This is a book that the son of billionaire entrepreneur David Green did not have to write in order to put bread on his table. Steve Green wrote it because he is deeply passionate about the subject. That passion was self-discovered. And Steve wants to make sure millions more have the opportunity to make that same discovery.

Green was moved to write the book for several reasons which he shares in the introduction. One of those was that his own study of the Bible let him see it as one continuous story with each chapter and book woven intrinsically into the whole. And what he saw was beautiful.  Another reason was that he noticed that while still the number one seller of all time, more and more people were ignorant of the Bible’s content and story. He wanted to try and change that – at least for his readers.

His style is most refreshing. He takes nothing for granted. And forces nothing on the reader.  All he asks is that you consider the Bible as a story – just like you would any other book. And let the story impact you in whatever way it does. He often admits and shares the same questions and thoughts that come to his mind as he believes would come to yours. He admits there are differences of opinion – between believers and non-believers in the Bible, but also among believers themselves.

I found the read most enjoyable. It has much for those that have never held a Bible in their hands and a good bit for those that have studied it for years. With reference to how he came to enjoy the musical Les Misérables, Green shows us how we need to both see the big picture of the Bible story by paying attention to some of the most innocuous details. His account of the story of Mephibosheth is a case in point.

Green does an excellent job of simplifying the big picture of the Bible for his readers. He identifies just five major characters – Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah and Jesus. He gives us the approximate timing of their physical existence in big round numbers. He doesn’t want us quibbling over certain details.

There is a great chapter on “Letting God Be God” in which he shares the main attributes of God taken right from the story itself. Two more chapters cover the Rescue Plan that God has established for His people and clearly describes the roles played in that Plan by some of the other key players like Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. The chapter on Mysterious Messengers gives a great lesson with superb content on prophecy and prophets and what they’re all about, as well as how to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

And while we’re at it – reading the Bible as a Beautiful Story that is – and knowing that most story readers like poetry and words of wisdom, he touches on the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes while focusing on the Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.  He saves two chapters for the role of Christ, the Bible’s main character and the last chapter for the Bible’s Claims.  This is so well written that even people who sit under the leadership of preachers weekly need to check it out.

At the very end of the book, he shares with his readers what his personal conclusion on whether the Bible is a great story, a Beautiful Book, and nothing more, or whether it is true. Admitting that many millions fall on both sides of the decision, he invites his readers to pick a side.

As I read this book, I thought about its potential uses, aside from what Green intended – that you and I would be challenged to get into the Bible itself, or as a minimum understand what it is all about.

These uses include having the book as a great companion to any Alpha Program that a church may offer.  It would make a great follow-up read to anyone taking that program.

It would also serve as a great “first resource” for churches to hand out to new believers.  It could be distributed as an Easter and/or Christmas gift to those twice-a-year visitors to your church. Finally, I think it’s a great resource for parents and grandparents to hand out, for co-workers to share; for friends to read and discuss. I’m sure, once you read it, you can come up with your own unique use.

One thing is for sure, Steve Green, with the help of his co-writer, Bill High, managed to accomplish their goal of having more people think about the Beautiful Book in a new and refreshing way.

Highly recommended.

n  Ken B. Godevenos, President, Accord Resolutions Services Inc., Toronto, Ontario, January 5, 2020, www.accordconsulting.com

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.