Leviticus14chapter 14

Leviticus 14:10-13

The eighth day brings four offerings for one man, guilt, sin, burnt and grain, with a log of olive oil, a measure Leviticus names only here. The guilt offering leads, though elsewhere it answers a wrong needing restitution at 5:15-16, and the fault recorded here is an illness. Matthew 8:4 points a healed man to this passage: offer the gift prescribed by Moses, as a testimony to them.

The outcast now stands at the Tent of Meeting. John Wesley separates two acts, the healing that the text ascribes to God and the ceremonial cleansing that the priest performs with the rites God prescribed. Matthew Henry draws the lesson that one restored to worship should use that liberty at the first opportunity.

Albert Barnes finds no other case in the law where a whole victim is waved before the LORD, and at 7:30 only the breast of a peace offering is waved. He compares the Levites, presented as a wave offering in Numbers 8:11-15, and reads the man as dedicated through his lamb. John Wesley sees sin taught as the cause of disease.

it is most holy: The healed man's guilt offering follows the ordinary rule, slaughtered where the sin and burnt offerings are slaughtered and given to the priest as most holy. His offering ranks with every other. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown read its atonement as removing the ceremonial pollution that had kept him from religious ordinances.

Leviticus 14:14-20

Blood goes on the right earlobe, the thumb of the right hand and the big toe of the right foot. Exodus 29:20 marks the priests at the same three points, so a man shut out comes back marked where a priest is marked. Oil follows on the same points, on top of the blood, and verse 20 closes the rite: to make atonement for him, and he will be clean.

The priest uses his own left hand as the vessel, and the log waved in verse 12 is now divided into sprinkling, anointing and pouring. John Wesley reads the blood as the remission of sins through Christ and the oil as the Spirit's renewing grace. Blood comes first, then oil.

seven times before the Lord: The oil goes toward the LORD before it touches the man. Albert Barnes takes the sevenfold sprinkling as consecrating the oil to stand for the spiritual gift that follows the covenant, whose sealing the blood had already pictured. The number matches the seven sprinklings with blood in verse 7.

John Wesley explains that the oil goes on the place where the blood was put. Albert Barnes renders the one to be cleansed as the one who has been cleansed, and compares the anointing of the altar at 8:11 and its purifying at 8:15. The oil follows the same three points.

Verse 18 ties the words to make atonement to the oil on his head, before the sin offering of verse 19 has been made. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown explain atonement in this chapter as the removal of the ceremonial pollution that had barred him from religious ordinances. The oil shares in that work.

The three lambs of verse 10 are now divided, and Albert Barnes assigns the ewe lamb to the sin offering and a male lamb to the burnt offering. He reads it as the restored man taking up the ordinary law of sacrifice. For Matthew Henry the burnt offering also gave thanks.

The grain offering of verse 10 goes up with the burnt offering, and the first rite of the chapter ends on the word clean. Matthew Henry argues that the more directly God's hand was seen in the sickness and in the cure, the more reason the man had to give Him glory. Henry points to Mark 1.

Leviticus 14:21-32

Twelve verses run the whole rite again for a man who cannot afford it, and no step is dropped. Two lambs become two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and the flour falls from three-tenths of an ephah to a tenth. The oil, the sprinklings and the blood on ear, thumb and toe stand as before, and the animal poverty never removes is the lamb for the guilt offering.

Birds take the place of the sin and burnt offerings, the same substitution 5:7 allows any worshiper who cannot afford a lamb. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown call this a kind provision and cite Acts 10:34. The poor man is cleansed as publicly as the rich.

on the eighth day: The poor man keeps the same calendar as the rich, with seven days outside his tent and the eighth day at the Tent of Meeting. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown stress that his cleansing was as public and complete as any other. Only the cost is lowered.

The lamb for the guilt offering is waved with the log of olive oil exactly as in verse 12, and John Gill refers his reader back to that verse. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown note that the blood of the smaller offering was applied in the same process of purification. The core of the rite stands whole.

The poor man's blood goes on the same three points as in verse 14. John Wesley reads the blood as a token of forgiveness and the oil as healing, because God first forgives iniquities and then heals diseases. In both rites the oil goes on top of the blood.

The oil comes from the same full log that verse 21 requires even of the poor man. John Gill refers the reader back to verse 15. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown note that the smaller offering was applied in the same process of purification.

seven times before the Lord: The sevenfold sprinkling of oil toward the LORD, first given at verse 16, is kept for the poor man without reduction. John Gill refers the reader back to that verse. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown count him as completely cleansed as one who brought a costlier offering.

Verse 28 states outright what verse 17 implied, that the oil goes on the very places where the blood was put. John Gill refers the reader back to verse 17. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown note that the poor man's blood and oil were applied in the same process.

The oil on the head is counted as atonement for the poor man exactly as for the rich in verse 18. John Gill refers the reader back to that verse. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown call the whole provision kind and considerate toward lepers of the poorer class.

The phrase whichever he can afford returns from verse 22, leaving the choice between turtledoves and young pigeons to the man's means. John Gill refers the reader back to that verse. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown read the allowance as extending the privilege to lepers of the poorer class.

The words in this way gather the guilt, sin, burnt and grain offerings into one act of atonement for the poor man. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown stress that he was as publicly and completely cleansed as a man who brought a costlier offering. John Gill refers back to verse 22.

Verse 32 closes the poor man's law with its own heading, as verse 2 opened the rich man's. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown call it a kind and considerate provision, and they cite Acts 10:34. The law names poverty and provides for it.

Leviticus 14:33-36

This law looks ahead to a land Israel has not entered, since tents have no stone walls. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown read I put a contamination of mildew two ways, as a judgment on the owner or as what God permits, and Adam Clarke takes the second. The house is cleared first, so that nothing in the house will become unclean.

Adam Clarke also proposes a natural cause, suggesting that the infection of houses, garments and bodies came from animalcula, tiny living creatures. Matthew Henry observes that the plague could reach houses even in the land of promise. He applies this to a place in the visible church.

The owner reports only what he sees, something like mildew, and leaves the verdict to the priest, as chapter 13 left it for skin. Matthew Henry applies the owner's watchfulness to heads of households, who should act at the first appearance of gross sin in their families. The report is the owner's duty.

John Wesley draws a lesson from the timing. Uncleanness began with the priest's declaration, so goods carried out beforehand stayed clean. Wesley reads this as the difference God makes between sins of ignorance and sins against knowledge.

Leviticus 14:37-45

The vocabulary of the man's case is now applied to masonry. If the mildew has spread, the stones are pulled out and thrown into an unclean place outside the city, and the house is scraped and replastered, a repair no man in chapter 13 was offered. If it reappears, it is a destructive mildew, and the house must be torn down.

The seven days of waiting match the isolation of a person in 13:4-5. John Gill explains that the priest stands at the door to see it shut, and that any change would show sooner in a house left empty. The house waits as the man waited.

Spreading is the test here, as it was for skin in 13:7-8 and for cloth in 13:51. John Gill describes what the priest looked for, hollow streaks grown deeper or colored spots grown larger. Growth decides the case.

The camp of verse 3 has become a city, since this law looks forward to settled life in Canaan. Only the affected stones go at this stage. Matthew Henry compares it to cutting off a gangrened limb to save the rest of the body.

The scraping covers the whole inside of the house, a wider reach than the stones pulled out in verse 40. Even the scraped plaster goes to the unclean place. Matthew Henry urges that corruption be purged out in time, before it spreads.

John Gill explains that the new stones had to match the old ones in number and size so the building would stand. He assigns the work to the owner, or to others acting on the priest's order. The house is repaired before it is judged again.

Verse 43 tests the repair. John Gill notes that the stones, the scraping and the plaster were all meant to prevent any return of the plague, and a reappearance showed the effort had been in vain. The question now turns from the spot to the whole house.

Tertullian reads the house that relapses after repair as a type of the baptized person who takes up the old stains of the flesh again. Matthew Henry reads it of the believer, whose remaining sin clears only when the earthly house of the body is taken down. The two readings differ on who the house is.

Stones, timbers and plaster are named one by one, and all of it leaves the city. Adam Clarke quotes an account in which a house whose signs had not spread was shut up for seven days more before any judgment. Matthew Henry reads it of the body's dissolving at death.

Leviticus 14:46-53

Anyone who enters the closed house will be unclean until evening, so the building passes its condition to its users. If the mildew is gone, the birds, cedar wood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop come out again, and the live bird is released into the open fields outside the city. Verse 53 makes atonement for the house, as 16:16 does for the holy place.

Sleeping or eating is a longer stay than the entry of verse 46, and it adds the washing of clothes. John Gill cites the Mishnah, which measured the stay by the time taken to eat half a piece of wheat bread. A longer stay required washing.

The priest pronounces the house clean after the repair of verses 40 to 42 holds. The rite follows the verdict, as for the man. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown hold that a house could contract no impurity in the sight of God.

Matthew Henry, following Bishop Patrick, takes the rite to mean that the house had been struck for the owner's sake, and that he should count himself preserved by mercy. John Gill notes that Aben Ezra gives the work to the priest, while some assign it to the master of the house. The materials match verse 4.

The bird is killed over fresh water in a clay pot exactly as in verse 5, and John Gill sends the reader back there. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown note that the process appointed for the house was the very same as that for a leprous person. Stone walls receive a man's rite.

sprinkle the house seven times: The house is sprinkled seven times, as the man was. Here the live bird is dipped along with the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet yarn, as in verse 6. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown read the atonement for the house as referring either to the sins of its occupants or to the ceremonial process itself.

cleanse the house: Verse 52 gathers six means of cleansing into one list, blood, fresh water, live bird, cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet yarn. The live bird is counted among them. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say the cleansing refers either to the sins of the occupants or to the appointed ceremonial process.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown hold that a house could contract no impurity in the sight of God. They take its atonement to concern either the occupants' sins or the ceremonial process itself. Adam Clarke reads leprosy as an emblem of sin.

Leviticus 14:54-57

These four verses gather chapters 13 and 14 into one law for skin disease and for mildew in clothing or in a house. The two chapters run 116 verses together, longer than the law of any single offering. Verse 57 states the purpose, to determine when something is clean or unclean, so the law closes as an instrument of judgment and not of healing.

The summary joins the garment law of 13:47-59 to the house law of 14:34-53, the two cases where the disease appears outside a human body. John Gill points to those two passages. Chapter 13 held the first, chapter 14 the second.

These three terms repeat the first signs listed at 13:2, where the whole examination began. John Gill calls them three sorts of leprosy in the skin. The summary ends where chapter 13 started.

John Wesley reads this purpose as a limit on the priest, whose verdict rested on plain rules that the people could discern as well as he. John Gill, following Aben Ezra, applies it to a man, a garment and a house alike. The law bound the judge.