THE LAW CONCERNING LEPROSY
THE LAW CONCERNING LEPROSY
JT The description of leprosy and the working of it, is lengthy. We can well understand the necessity for this, for it is a type of sin. It might be worth while to point out the divisions of this chapter. Verses 1 and 2 read “When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising or a scab, or bright spot”, verse 9, “When a sore as of leprosy is in a man”, verse 18, “when in the skin thereof cometh a boil”, verse 24, “a burning inflammation”, verse 29, “a sore on the head or on the beard”, verse 38, “white bright spots”, These are typical of the different appearances of the working of sin in a person. Then in verse 47 we have sin in one’s circumstances; that is, garments.
PHP In chapter 14 it is seen in the house.
AFM Say a word as to what leprosy is, as to its significance as a type.
JT It is a very loathsome disease and well known in the East. I suppose it is selected by the Spirit of God to typify sin, to bring it to our attention according to what it is, the loathsomeness and the infectiousness of it.
LTF It expresses the condition of man before God; he is unclean.
JT It does. The chapter shows that, as the disease is pronounced to be in a man. It is said, “And as to the leper in whom the sore is, — his garments shall be rent, and his head shall be uncovered, and he shall put a covering on his beard, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean! All the days that the sore shall be in him he shall be unclean: he is unclean; he shall dwell apart; outside the camp shall his dwelling be”, verses 45 - 46. In that way his condition is defined, and he [p. 182] acknowledges it in the announcement by his own lips; he “shall cry, Unclean, unclean”!
RSS It is a question of state, not of guilt. You get an illustration of it in Naaman, who was a great man, and brought in a great deliverance, but he was a leper. It was a question of what he was, not what he had done. His ways were good in one way.
JT The Lord even used him.
WLP There seems to be uncleanness in the head, which would refer to the working of his mind.
AFM Do you think that leprosy suggests the energy of will as well?
JT Yes. The first evidence of it; we have to deal here with evidence of its presence in “a rising or a scab, or bright spot”, so that would show some outburst of the will, I suppose.
BTF Something like “the passions of sins” spoken of in Romans 7:5?
JT I suppose so. There is some evidence of its presence, for it is usually active.
BTF The matter was to be brought to the priest; “he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests”.
JT The function of the priest is very prominent in this book. Here it is a question of discerning and dealing with sin. When Aaron is mentioned, I suppose it is the Lord Himself that is in view in type, the Lord as over the house of God as Priest. Under Him discernment of sin and the judgment of it are seen in the house of God.
RSS Moses and Aaron are addressed in verse 1. Why Moses?
JT As representing the authority of Christ, and when Aaron is associated with him it is to represent Christ as Priest.
Ques Does Moses represent headship?
JT I think he represents divine authority in [p. 183] Exodus and Numbers; that is an important feature of the government of the house; these books have the house in view and also the authority that is vested in Christ. In dealing with sin, the lordship of Christ is in evidence, as we see in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
ANW It is also said, “or unto one of his sons the priests”.
JT That makes room for the function of the saints in dealing with sin, but all is necessarily under Christ, the “great priest over the house of God”, Hebrews 10:21.
ANW I think it is remarkable that leprosy is not dealt with until it rises to the skin. You said it is never latent, and I suppose the Lord would discern it working even before it rises to the skin, but in these cases it is when it comes to light, and not until then, that the priests deal with it.
JT It is not formally taken account of until there is evidence of its existence. This evidence is represented by a rising, scab, or bright spot on the surface.
LTF The responsibility of the man comes in there; he is hardly responsible for having sin, for he is born in sin, but for allowing it to act.
JT It is the eruption on the surface that leads to the disease being dealt with. The skin reveals that a sore of leprosy is in a man.
BTF The examination is to discover whether the thing is active or inactive.
JT In Scripture sin is recognised as present in the Christian, but it should be inactive, 1 John 1:8. It is rendered inactive by the activity of the Spirit. Similarly there was leaven in the “new oblation” (Leviticus 23:16); the “loaves” were baken with leaven, but through the action of the fire the leaven was rendered inactive.
BB-w Is it not sin in the believer that is in view [p. 184] here?
JT In these books the people are recognised as already related to God, so that here it is sin breaking out in such.
RSS Would you not say that they are looked upon as redeemed from the time of the passover, and that all these books, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, look at them as such? but it is a question of maintaining them there.
CAM So that the teaching in type points to the Christian company.
JT It is in relation to the house of God.
CAM In Matthew 8 it seems to be more in relation to the testimony. The cleansed man was sent to the priest to offer a gift for a testimony to them.
JT It was for a testimony there; the principle of going to the priest is right; the instruction here is for us, we should go to the priest. I think that the second letter to the Corinthians somewhat corresponds with going to the priest; the first letter is the priest discovering the evil.
AFM In connection with the discernment of sin, are we to discern it ourselves, or is it the work of another? What answers to the sons of Aaron?
JT I think it is the saints as dealing with evil in one of their number. The leper himself is not viewed as a priest. It would show that in some cases of sin, the thing is not so apparent, whereas in others it is quite apparent. In Corinthians there was no need of further waiting, the apostle said it was there; it was of such a character that any one should be able to discern it.
BTF Would you say that the saints should be always able to discern sin now? Does it apply in that way?
JT The saints are called upon in the house of God to discern sin, and not only that, but to aid in the cleansing. The apostle’s second letter to the [p. 185] Corinthians calls upon them to restore the man, whereas in his first letter he says: “(ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ), ... to deliver him,[I say,] [being] such, to Satan” (1 Corinthians 5:4 - 5); there they were occupied with judging it.
BTF The priestly function is seen in both epistles.
JT Exactly. Paul represents Moses and Aaron, because as apostle he represents the authority of Christ, and then he represents the priestly function in that he discerns the sin that was there. He calls upon them to judge it, and in the second epistle he calls upon them to restore the man.
LTF The instructions here suggest that there should be care in dealing with one who may sin.
JT There should not be hurry, but when the sin is manifest, then there is to be no delay.
RSS The Lord waited a long time until the leprosy in Judas, so to speak, came out. He knew of it when others did not.
JT He waited until it showed itself.
RSS That would illustrate the principle, would it not? So that although there may be consciousness that there is something wrong, and exercise about it, yet there should be waiting until the sin is manifested.
ANW The Lord discerned Judas the whole time. He said that he was a devil long before.
ARS In that connection you would say that it is not the part of the saints to ferret out sin, but wait until it is manifested?
JT It will show itself in some way, and then investigation should be made.
ARS The world employs a detective, but faith would not have a detective.
JT Faith waits on God, who will bring all to light; but when it is brought to light it should be dealt with, it should not be allowed [p. 186] to drag.
BTF This would show judgment commencing at the house of God.
JT I think it shows how sin is dealt with in the house of God. We have the high priest in Aaron, and the authority of Christ in Moses, and then in the sons of Aaron we have the saints viewed as priests, all these show that there is provision for the maintenance of the holiness of the house of God.
LTF Why so much reference to the hair?
JT It is very remarkable the hair turning white; that would raise an interesting line of thought as to what the hair represents. I suppose that as on the head it would suggest ornamentation, and in its natural colour it denotes vigour and health.
AFM Here it mentions black hair specifically.
JT Yes. This would be its natural colour. The black would suggest health and vitality; grey hair denotes that natural vitality is on the wane; I suppose spiritual vitality being on the wane in any of us would show that the Spirit is grieved, vital energy has declined or ceased.
PHP On the other hand white hair is regarded as the result of experience; an elder has white hair.
JT If grey hairs appear in the way of righteousness, they are to be honoured, but that is normal. But if they appear abnormally, it shows lack of vitality.
BTF Decay has set in.
JT Yes, the nourishment is gone.
AFM Yellow is another colour.
JT That would be worse still; another colour taken on. White is loss of vitality, but yellow is some other element in the person, it might be apostasy, or something different from what the man has been. I think the hair in a general way is an ornamentation, and indicates vitality of person, so that a change would denote the opposite [p. 187] of that.
RSS Would you say that by nature we are all leprous?
JT I think that is right, only that nature is dealt with in Leviticus 12; that is, at the outset nature is corrupt, our uncleanness is there.
ANW Chapter 12 has only eight verses, whereas this has fifty-nine!
JT While we are born in sin, yet leprosy is something different from that, and refers rather to man’s responsibility the uncleanness in chapter 12 is not the same as leprosy.
AFM Leprosy is more the energy of will.
JT Breaking out in the form of a scab, boil, sore, or burning inflammation.
RSS “Sin is lawlessness”, 1 John 3:4.
WLP What does verse 13 mean; the disease covering the leper?
JT Nothing is kept inside, it has all come out. Sin is wholly and unsparingly judged and acknowledged; there is transparency. He acknowledges it. There is no part of him that is not covered, it has all come out.
PHP Peter in Luke 5 is a good illustration, “I am a sinful man, Lord”, Luke 5:8.
JT He is a very good illustration, and his conversion comes in immediately before the cleansing of the leper in verse 12.
HBG What does baldness denote?
JT I think it is the same principle we have been considering, that the moisture and nourishment for the hair has ceased; it is more negative. Baldness does not render a man unclean, but it is called attention to as abnormal; a negative effect raises a question.
ANW There is a liability of a sore of leprosy in the bald head.
JT Leprosy in the head was the most serious of all; verses 40 - 44. It is the only instance in which we have the expression “utterly unclean” in the chapter. This shows the seriousness of it.
PHP The leprosy is in his head, the highest part is touched.
ANW It may be regarded as originating with the man, it is not contracted. It affects his mind; it might be bad doctrine. It seems to be very serious.
JT Yellow “thin hair”, as in verse 30, would mark a person off very distinctively; yellow would be very noticeable.
CM How would you discover it in a practical way?
JT I think it would come out in that he is diverse. “Contrary to the doctrine which ye have learnt”, Romans 16:17. Heresy, I should say, is what would distinguish a man or his followers.
ANW Why is woman introduced in connection with this form of disease?
JT I suppose it probably might represent the development of sin in the way of heresy in the church.
ANW The “woman Jezebel”. The hair of a woman is her glory.
JT There is order in the chapter. The subject typified is sin and the various forms in which it manifests itself. We have to remember that in these chapters the Spirit of God is occupied typically with the assembly; and it is the working of sin in that way, I think. The yellow hair appearing in the head, either in man or woman, would denote the introduction of some moral leprosy or false teaching by which the people of God would be diverted, and caused to take on a different appearance from what is normal. The yellow hair indicates that something foreign has been introduced.
RSS And Satan very often uses a woman to bring that [p. 189] in.
CAM What would answer to the shutting up and waiting to see if the thing develops?
JT I think that indicates the deliberation which is becoming in the administration of the house of God. God is dwelling there, and the instruction here is to the end that His people might be suitable to Him. “Be ye holy, for I am holy”, 1 Peter 1:16. The first thought is to have things according to God; and secondly, “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump” (1 Corinthians 5:7), and along with that, that the flesh in the one who sins may be destroyed, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
RSS There are two things in view then, the holiness of God’s house to be maintained, and the restoration of the one who sins.
JT So that the teaching in these two chapters, Leviticus 13 and 14, shows that there is no other thought than that the leper should be cleansed.
CHB It is important that there should be priestly scrutiny amongst the Lord’s people.
LTF How should a leper be shut up? What answers to that in the present day?
JT I do not know except that it suggests the general principle of patient waiting on the Lord, for we are so apt to misjudge if we act in a hurry. I do not think it is a formal act of discipline by the assembly that is typified here; it is rather the way you regard one whose ways are doubtful.
LTF Is that by withdrawing yourself from him?
JT There would be that in principle, but it is only when his leprosy is determined that the leper is put outside the camp.
LTF Here is one shut up seven days, how is that done? Is it by the saints acting in reserve toward him?
JT Yes. It is the state of their minds toward him, how they [p. 190] regard him.
CAM He is made conscious of that, and he feels sure it may be made apparent some way or other?
JT Yes. He is not yet regarded as a leper, but he is under suspicion because there is the sore, and as the saints wait and show diligence and care, the true state of the man comes to light.
RSS Do not act towards a person as though you are judging him guilty. There is a little danger of taking an attitude which really amounts to a judgment.
JT But a certain thing has happened by this sore or scab which he cannot deny. You are not sure of the course, or what it may lead to, so that there is a certain amount of justification for your attitude toward him. He knows the saints are concerned about him, and that a certain thing has happened which gives them occasion for it. The question is whether the sin develops or stays.
BTF Whether it works inward or outward.
,J.T. Verses 5 and 6 show that such watchfulness may lead to the sin being checked, so that the person may be pronounced clean.
ANW ‘He shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests’ ; it does not say his sons, but one of his sons.
JT I think if a man is given an opportunity it suggests grace. It is not only stated that the priest pronounced him clean; it says, “he shall wash his garments and be clean”; that is what he does, showing that he is now adjusting matters.
AFM In 2 Thessalonians 3:14 we get the principle which underlies that verse.
JT The brother is concerned now about his circumstances, he washes his garments. This has not happened without purpose, and so he takes account of it and adjusts himself and meets the conscience of the saints in every way.
LTF As practically holy we are able to [p. 191] discern.
JT The name priest suggests holiness. Aaron is the only one, I think, in the Old Testament who is formally called a saint; that is, a holy one. “Aaron, the saint of Jehovah”, Psalm 106:16. He was marked out as separated to God, to maintain what is due to Him in the sanctuary.
AFM What of “a trace of raw flesh” in verse 10?
JT Verses 10 and 11 speak of “an old leprosy”. I suppose such a man had never really judged sin in the flesh, and it is now active. This is the result of not apprehending Romans 7 in our souls.
AFM If we do not judge the root of the sin, there is sure to be a recurrence of it in ourselves.
AP Romans 7 is more a normal experience?
JT What I mean is that each one of us should discover by experience that sin is in us as a principle. “I myself with the mind serve God’s law; but with the flesh sin’s law”, Romans 7:25. The experience gone through leads to this grand result. The believer loves to serve the law of God, but if the flesh acts, it serves sin, it should not therefore be allowed to act.
BTF The epistle of John says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves”, 1 John 1:8.
JT That is it, but the man in Romans 7 discovered sin in himself. It is an admitted fact, and in him Satan is defeated, for he serves the law of God. In Romans 6 it is “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law but under grace”. In Romans 7 it is the man himself, “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”, Romans 7:25. With his mind he serves God’s law, wholly repudiating the flesh.
Rem Such a man could not have the outburst of sin suggested here.
JT Romans 8 gives the power, which is the Spirit, by which the believer, as recognising the sin, is superior [p. 192] to it.
RSS An illustration of a cleansed leper would be the publican who smote on his breast and said, “O God have compassion on me, the sinner”, Luke 18:13. That man was justified.
JT And so here — when the leprosy covered the man all over, he is clean. The Lord said of the woman in Luke 7, “her many sins” He took account of them all; He had judged them all, but He says, “are forgiven”; As Priest, the Lord looks at us, and sees us through and through; and seeing that all is owned, He pronounces us clean. How encouraging to think of the Lord taking account of one who owns all his guilt, who hides nothing; he pronounces him clean, and he is clean.
BTF The disease is not in any way working in that man.
JT It is not working when it is all out. He is clean.
AFM Chapter 14 is necessary to complete the work of cleansing.
JT That is really being brought to God, but the statement in verse 13, that “he is clean”, refers to what is moral; verses 12 and 13 involve self-judgment. The man is clean on this account, but the teaching of chapter 14 is required in order that he should be consciously suitable to God. The prodigal was clothed before going into the house.
AW In this case, in verse 13, it is not said that he must wash his garments; in the other case, in verse 6, he washes his garments and is clean, but in this case “he is clean”.
JT I think it refers to what is moral. As he is going to wash himself he is morally clean, but to actually remove the dirt he has to use water. So in chapter 14 every trace of leprosy being removed from the man he is anointed and set up before God in all the value of the sacrifices.
PHP Transparent people are the happiest.