Section III Laws Concerning Uncleanness

Leviticus 11:1—15:33

Israel was to be a holy people. This was because they were in covenant with the Lord, the Holy One. That covenant demanded that their total life be brought into conformity with God's demands. Those demands as far as worship was concerned were spelled out in Leviticus 1—7. The establishment of the priesthood and the beginning of their ministry is given in the second section (8—10). The priests were to teach the difference between the holy and the unholy, the clean and the unclean (10:10). Now, in the third section of the book, what this covenant meant in terms of daily living is revealed (cc. 11—15). That revelation is in terms of what is clean and what is not. Matters of diet, contact with carcasses of animals, the uncleanness of persons, garments, furniture, and houses is dealt with. The purpose of all of this is clearly stated: that Israel should not defile itself (11:44).

A. UNCLEANNESS FROM ANIMALS, 11:1-47

The key words in this section are clean, unclean, abomination, defile, sanctify, and holy. A quick glance through c. 11 to count the occurrences of these words will underscore the purpose of this section; it was given in order to make s difference between the clean and the unclean. In cc. 11—15 the word “unclean” alone occurs some 100 times.

The differentiation made in these chapters seems strange to the modern man who reads and knows little of the ancient world. Perhaps the most important thing is not the specifications of what is clean and unclean but the underlying motivation that demanded the drawing of such a line. The truth here is that God is concerned with the total life of His people, that nothing is beyond His concern. However, according to the NT understanding of God's requirements it is obvious that many items mentioned have no moral or ethical significance.

Gen. 7:2 makes it clear that this custom of differentiating the clean and the unclean is much older than Moses. The study of other ancient peoples reveals a similar system. The old proverb, “The same thing done by two different people is not the same thing,” may be applicable here. Eichrodt points out that these restrictions, so unusual to us, may have had far more religious, and thus ultimately more moral, significance than one first thinks. He suggests that through these laws everything which had to do with alien gods or their worship was condemned as unclean. Animals such as the pig figured in Canaanite sacrificial rites. Also mice, serpents, and hares—which were regarded as possessing special magical power—could thus be precluded.1

The processes of the sexual life and the practices connected with the dead were looked upon as having magical and spiritual significance. The identification of Canaanite gods and goddesses with generation and birth and of the Egyptian gods with the cult of the dead may help explain legal demands in things relating to these functions. The drinking of blood as a part of the worship of certain animals or as a means of inducing ecstatic prophecy or as a part of orgiastic rites in idolatrous contexts may bear upon the laws relating to blood. Diseases that forced the separation of men from their social group and thus cut off the Israelite from the community of the Lord were looked upon as defiling. This led Eichrodt to say that such ritual purity could easily be a symbol, an outward expression, of spiritual wholeness or moral perfection.2 Certainly it can be said that the modern Church has not demonstrated sufficient ability to discriminate between the holy and the unholy and to commit itself with single mind to the former.

B. UNCLEANNESS FROM CHILDBIRTH, 12:1-8

This chapter has traditionally been a difficult one for the commentators. The problem is to explain why childbirth should be associated with uncleanness. Fruitfulness was obedience to divine command according to Gen. 1:28. Children were looked upon as good gifts from God (Gen. 33:5) and were to be prized highly (Psalms 127—128). The woman who was fruitful was considered blessed, while the woman who had no children was looked upon as under a curse.

Some scholars have seen here a latent dualism which felt that human flesh was associated with evil. Others have thought that uncleanness in childbirth was the result of the fall of man and is a witness to the fact that man is born to sin and lostness unless he finds God.

The key to an understanding here may lie in the association of childbirth with the mystery of sex, of life and with the emissions accompanying parturition. This discussion is in the same section of Leviticus as c. 15, which deals with the uncleanness attendant upon various emissions. Perhaps this treatment has a close association, particularly with 15:19-27. It must be remembered that there was infinitely more mystery in life for ancient man than for the modern mind. Micklem has paraphrased vv. 2-4: “When a woman has borne a son, proper feeling requires that she remain in seclusion for a week; then the child is to be circumcised; even then she is to stay at home for a month, and her first journey abroad is to be to church.”3 In a society like ours where much of the danger of childbirth has been removed by modern medicine and the mystery removed by biological knowledge, who is to say that some customs are not needed to restore the element of gracious mystery and sacredness to such events?

The close identification of some Canaanite deities with generation and birth may have contributed to the intensification of the Levitical legislation regarding uncleanness in connection with birth processes. The association of birth with magical and demonic powers among Israel's neighbors could likewise have been a factor. It should be said, though, that impurity in the Levitical texts is never a demonic power in itself. As Kaufmann has pointed out. impurity is nothing more than a condition and in contrast to pagan conceptions is not in itself a source of danger since it has no divine or demonic roots.4 Thus, a passage as strange to modern ears as this one was from an ancient Near Eastern point of view quite understandable. The danger was that of bringing the impure into contact with holiness. Destructive power lay in the source of holiness. Thus some act was appropriate to restore the unclean one to redemptive fellowship with the covenant community and the covenant God. In this case it permitted the mother to return to participation in covenant fellowship and worship.

If the child was a male, he was to be circumcised the eighth day. Jesus' mother followed carefully this pattern (Luke 2:21). It was the sign of participation in the covenant that was given to Abraham. Critical scholars have said that circumcision became the symbol of initiation into Israel only during and after the Exile.5 Genesis 17; Exod. 4:25; and this passage would indicate otherwise. To appreciate the significance of circumcision in the old covenant one should note the comparison with baptism under the new covenant as described by Paul in Col. 2:10-15.

C. UNCLEANNESS FROM LEPROSY, 13:1—14:57

The matter under discussion here is called in the Hebrew tsara'at. The LXX translated this term lepra. The result is that a collection of things here is subsumed under the English word derived from the LXX term, our word leprosy. This includes plagues that appear in the skin of human flesh, in garments that men wear, or in houses in which they live. The concern of the section has to do with the question of cleanness and uncleanness and thus limits the information to this aspect.

The term commonly used here is plague (13:2; lit., “stroke”). The uncleanness is serious enough that the person contaminated must be excluded from the camp (13:45-46). If it is in a garment, either the whole garment or the infected part must be burned (13:52, 57). If it is in a house, the stones contaminated must be taken out of the house to an unclean place outside the city (14:40). If the contamination is not arrested, the house must be broken down and the stones, timbers, and mortar carried away (14:45).

No mention is made of treatment of the diseased person. Some have drawn from this the deduction that the disease was incurable. The concern of this chapter, though, is primarily to identify the disease and make provision for dealing with the uncleanness involved. The reference to cleansing (14:2) seems clearly to indicate that it was curable. Waterson feels that leprosy here may involve a variety of infectious conditions including true leprosy.6

1. The Diagnosis (13:1-59)

It was the duty of the priest to determine the presence of leprosy and instruct concerning the handling of uncleanness attending it. In this section information is given so that the priest can identify leprosy in the human body (1-46), in a garment (47-59), and in a house (14:33-48). It would seem that the leprosy in the garment was some kind of mildew or fungus. The leprosy in the house was probably a form of dry rot in the timbers or a contaminating lichen in the stone.

a. Leprosy in the body (13:1-44). Six different cases are dealt with here: a scab (2-8), a spot after a boil (18-23), after a burning (24-28), a plague in the hair or beard (29-37), spots in the skin (38-39), a sore in a man's bald head (42-44).

If the priest is able to diagnose the case immediately as leprosy, the person shall immediately be pronounced unclean (3). If the priest is uncertain, he shall shut the man up for seven days (4). If the plague has not spread after seven days, he shall be shut up for seven days more (5). If the disease has not spread then, the priest shall pronounce him clean. The man shall wash his clothes, and be clean (6). If the scab spreads … the priest shall pronounce him leprous (7-8). If he has quick raw flesh … the priest shall pronounce him leprous (10-11). If the raw flesh turn … white, or if the man becomes white all over, he shall be pronounced clean (16-17). In the case of the burning, if it has not spread after seven days, he shall be considered clean (28). A scall (30-37) refers to a spot or scabby disease of the scalp. Natural baldness was not a sign of uncleanness (40-41).

b. The isolation of leprosy (13:45-46). The person with leprosy was to separate himself from society. His clothes were to be torn, his hair let go loose (cf. “Let the hair of his head hang loose,” RSV), and his upper lip was to be covered (45). These were signs of mourning (10:6). Banished from the fellowship of his people, he was to warn all who approached of his uncleanness. He was not only socially “dead” but the bearer of a contagion that would bring the same “death” to those who were yet socially “alive.” No ritual is given here for cleansing the leper, but provision is made to pronounce him clean if he is free of the disease. The fact that Jesus let a leper touch Him is an indication of His own estimate of himself. He transcended the laws of ceremonial uncleanness that He urged others to observe. Also the cleansing of lepers is indicative of the radical ministry of Jesus' healings (Matt. 11:5).

c. Leprosy in garments (13:47-59). This was probably a fungus which appeared in clothes. These could be linen, woollen, or leather (47-48). If the garment had greenish or reddish spots in it (49), the priest was to remove the garment from use for seven days (50). If the plague had spread (51), it was leprous. The garment must be burned. Fretting leprosy (52) is “malignant leprosy” (RSV), and therefore contagious. If the plague had not spread, the garment was to be washed and put aside for seven days more. If it had not changed … colour then, the infected areas were to be burned. If the plague had changed color, the spots were to be torn from the garment. If the plague had spread, the garment was burned (53-57). If when the garment had been washed the plague disappeared, the garment was washed again and pronounced clean (58).

2. The Law of Cleansing (14:1-57)

This section is divided into two portions. The first deals with the regular law of cleansing for the leper himself. The second concerns the poor man who is unable to meet the usual requirements for cleansing. A third section prescribes the ritual for the cleansing of a house, following instructions for diagnosing “leprosy” in houses.

a. The regular ritual for cleansing (14:1-20). The procedure here given in detail reminds one of the consecration of the priest (cc. 7—9) and the ritual for the Day of Atonement (c. 16). Just as there had been a day when the leper was pronounced unclean, now there is a ritual and time for the restoration of the leper to the community. This ritual was not looked upon as a means of cleansing but of attesting cleanness.

The person who had the disease was brought to the priest, who met him outside the camp (2-3). The leper could not enter the camp until pronounced clean. If the priest found the disease healed, the unclean person was to take two birds, some cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop (4). One of the birds was to be killed over an earthen vessel of running (fresh) water (5). The living bird (6), the cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop were to be dipped in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. With these the priest was to sprinkle the unclean man seven times (7). Then the priest was to pronounce the man clean and release the living bird … into the open field. The man formerly unclean was to wash his clothes, shave his hair, bathe himself, and remain outside his tent for seven days (8). On the seventh day (9) he was to shave again all of his hair … wash his clothes, carefully bathe his body, and be restored to his family and society.

On the eighth day (10) sacrifices were to be made for the one formerly unclean. These included the full gamut of Levitical sacrifices: a guilt offering, a sin offering, a burnt offering, and a meal offering. Three tenth deals (10) is “six quarts” (Berk.); one log is “one pint” (Berk.). Some of the blood (14) from the guilt offering was to be taken by the priest and placed upon the tip of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the large toe of the right foot of the one being pronounced clean. Note the similarity of ritual for restoring the leper to that used for the consecration of the priest (8:23-24). Then the priest was to take oil and sprinkle it before the Lord seven times (16), place some of the oil upon the ear, the thumb, and the toe as he had done with blood (17), and pour the remainder of the oil over the head of the one now being pronounced clean (18).

The purpose of such an involved ceremony was to restore a man to his place among the covenant people of God. Having been debarred from the community and its worship, he was now being introduced again into that kingdom of priests that Israel was supposed to be. The seriousness of separation from the community is seen in the detail with which this ritual of restoration is given.

It has been common to compare leprosy to sin and to see in this passage a parable. Leprosy is insidious (being scarcely noticed at first), progressive, pervasive, benumbing, loathsome, and isolating.7 The way back into the fellowship demanded atonement and consecration. Man was not made for such separation, and it is the Church's business to open the way back for the person who has been excluded.

b. The ritual for the poor (14:21-32). Adjustments here as elsewhere were to be made for the poor (21). Two turtledoves or young pigeons (22) replaced the burnt offering and the sin offering; a tenth of an ephah of flour (21; “three quarts,” Berk.; cf. comment on v. 10) served for the meal offering. The trespass offering (24) was not reduced. Evidently this was the condition for restoration to fellowship for even the poorest. Some conditions must be met by all.

c. Leprosy in houses (14:33-57). It is significant that this guidance is given in prospect of the future settlement in Canaan. The passage bears witness to the promise given to Abraham (Gen. 12: 7; 13:17; et al.). The plague (34) is probably a growth of fungus or lichen. Its source is from God (34b). The origin of leprosy is not in some baleful spirit. The OT takes little account of secondary causes and attributes none of these things to any demonic rival of the Lord.

If a man thinks there may be leprosy in the house (35), he must call the priest. If there is a question, all items must be removed immediately from the house (36), lest they become unclean and have to be destroyed. Hollow strakes (37, streaks), greenish or reddish in color, are the telltale marks. If they are present, the house must be shut up for seven days (38). If the plague spreads, the stones shall be removed to an unclean place without the city (40). The house is to be scraped (41) and the scrapings carried away. The house was then to be rebuilt. If the plague returned (43), the building was to be pronounced unclean (44), destroyed, and removed (45). Anyone entering the house shall be unclean (46) until evening. For fretting leprosy (44) see comment on 13:51.

The ritual for cleansing demanded two birds, some cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop (49). The cedar, the hyssop, the scarlet, and a living bird were to be dipped in the blood of the other bird and in running water (51). With these the house was to be sprinkled seven times. The living bird was then released and let fly away into the open country. In this manner atonement was made for the house (53). The chapter concludes with a brief summary (54-57).

D. UNCLEANNESS FROM ISSUES, 15:1-33

This chapter deals with issues from the genital organs and the attendant uncleanness. The word flesh (2) is used euphemistically for the primary sex organs. Four categories are dealt with: abnormal emissions (pathological) from men (2-15); normal sexual discharges from men (16-18); normal menstrual flow in women (19-24); and abnormal blood issues in women (25-30).

1. Abnormal Emissions in Men (15:1-15)

All discharges from the primary sex organs brought ceremonial uncleanness (3). Bodily emissions resulted in such uncleanness even after the active discharge ceased. This involved not only the person with the issue but also anyone who touched him or touched anything with which he had had intimate contact. The hygienic value of such legislation is obvious. It is difficult, though, to believe that such legislation had only hygienic intent. However, the sick seemed to have no place in the Tabernacle or in the worshipping community. Again we have an illustration of the fact that it was very difficult to successfully divide between the physical and the spiritual, between the religious and the purely secular in the OT world. Hygienic uncleanness made a man unacceptable for close communion with either God or man. Such externals were felt to have internal significance.

Purification here involves washing (10) for anyone or anything contaminated by the uncleanness, except for earthen vessels, which were to be broken (12). The person with the issue was to count seven days (13) from the cessation of the issue and then to wash himself and his clothes. Thus cleansed, he was to offer a sin offering and a burnt offering of two turtledoves, or two young pigeons (14) for atonement (15). It is clear that the reconciliation here is not moral but a social restoration to the religious community.

2. Normal Sexual Emissions (15:16-18)

The uncleanness from these emissions is similar to that in the preceding case except that no sacrifice is required for cleansing. Time (waiting until the evening) and washing of body and clothing remove the uncleanness. It must not be suggested that uncleanness here means something that God has forbidden. The only defilement forbidden to a lay Israelite was intercourse with a menstruous woman. The point here is to keep the legitimate but “unclean” separated from the “holy.” To defile the holy was the danger to be avoided (note the reference to defiling the Tabernacle in 31).

3. Normal Menstrual Issues (15:19-24)

The uncleanness here is similar to that in the immediately preceding section. Time (here it is seven days instead of until evening), bathing, and laundering one's clothing removes the uncleanness. No sacrifices are necessary, since this is a normal part of a woman's life. Her flowers (24) means “her menstruation” (Berk.).

4. Abnormal Menstrual Issues (15:25-33)

This problem is dealt with in the same way basically as that in the opening paragraph of the chapter. Seven days (28) after the cessation of the issue the woman is to wash herself and her clothes (the text implies this though it does not state it). On the eighth day (29) she is to make her offerings. Two turtles (29) is better “two turtle doves.”

A comparison of this chapter with comparable literature from Israel's pagan neighbors reveals the height to which Israel's faith rose in contrast to theirs. The concepts of cleanness and uncleanness are common to both Israel and her neighbors. The use of washings and sacrifices for purification were also common. In non-biblical literature this uncleanness is connected with demons and evil powers. Purificatory rites thus became a matter of conflict with evil forces. Incantations and magical spells became necessary. Not a trace of such conflict is implied in the Bible. The aura of fearfulness of the spirits producing uncleanness is lacking. Only the Lord is to be feared. And humble obedience to His laws always brings a man or woman back to where approach to God and a resumption of his place within the religious community is possible.

This chapter makes the story of Christ's healing of the woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:25-34) the more remarkable. That she should touch Him tells of her faith that she could not defile Him. That He felt no need of washings reveals that, although He was born under the law (Gal. 4:4), He transcended the claims of the law. He was not bound by it. How the Pharisees must have marvelled and been angered that He felt no sense of defilement from her touch! A greater than Moses had come!