| From | Message |
|---|---|
|
mervynrothwell 17-Sep-12, 09:26 |
A puzzle from Leviticus 13The text in question.... 9 “When a man is afflicted with a leprous disease, he shall be brought to the priest, 10 and the priest shall look. And if there is a white swelling in the skin that has turned the hair white, and there is raw flesh in the swelling, 11 it is a chronic leprous disease in the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him UNCLEAN. He shall not shut him up, for he is unclean. 12 And if the leprous disease breaks out in the skin, so that the leprous disease covers all the skin of the diseased person from head to foot, so far as the priest can see, 13 then the priest shall look, and if the leprous disease has covered all his body, he shall pronounce him CLEAN of the disease; it has all turned white, and he is clean. ( E.S.V.) |
|
integritas 17-Sep-12, 23:14 |
Commentary by Robert Jamieson is helpful ...However, if the eruption, whatever it was, covered all the skin from head to foot, without producing any ulceration and pus, then it had run through its course and lost its contagious power; and even while the individual might have dry scales on his skin, he was declared to be clean (non contagious) and could return to normal life. Matthew Henry said that leprosy was "... a figure of the moral pollution of men's minds by sin, which is the leprosy of the soul, defiling to the conscience, and from which Christ alone can cleanse us." Amen! |
|
mervynrothwell 18-Sep-12, 08:32 |
Still doesn't add up.....Jamieson does not mention the distinction that Leviticus makes, namely that the priest takes into account the existence of “raw flesh in the swelling”, presumably because contagion is caused by the spread of fluids. Where the whole body is covered this would increase the likelihood of causing contagion, not eliminate it. Most commentators seem to assert that the disease is contagious. Typical is Barnes who states that it is “highly contagious and hereditary... easily communicated from one to another”. Yet this seems to be contradicted both by experience and, arguably, by the scriptures! Naaman was military commander of the Syrian army... and a leper! Not a good military tactic to have a commander with a deadly, contagious and feared disease! Add to this the vulnerability of the priests who of course were obliged to come into close contact with the afflicted (whether the disease had run its course or not) in order to determine whether or not they were clean of the disease. Lepers were not precluded from attending synagogue (provided they arrived first and left last!) and were separated by the “regulation” four cubits (6 ft.). A synagogue is a confined space which would have encouraged contagion. In recent centuries many have worked in leper colonies for many years without being infected. All this suggests that contagion could only occur with physical contact. I cannot grasp why someone who is only partially covered with the scales is considered more contagious than someone who is fully covered. Any further light, anyone? |