xv. 5, which is commonly translated "house of the sick," instead of

"house of emancipation," viz., place where they lived, whom the Lord had manumitted, who no more belonged to His servants; compare remarks on Psa. lxxxviii. 6. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so strict in the execution of this Mosaic ordinance (one from among the numberless proofs which are opposed to the current views of the religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of Moses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not allowed to leave the place before the gate assigned to them, 2 Kings vii. 3.--In order more fully to understand the meaning of our passage, it is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that regulation. _J. D. Michaelis_ (Mos. Recht. iv. § 210) has his answer at once in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to the point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other view. Because _to him_ the temporal objects and aims are the highest, he at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy God also. The ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to prevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity against the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the healthy, that leprosy, [Pg 452] if contagious at all, is so, at all events, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch. (_Michaelis_ himself remarks: "Except in the case of cohabitation, one may be quite safe.") But this severity against the sick must appear in a still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes even ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations concerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes, bare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came near them, that they were unclean. Even _Michaelis_ grants that those regulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He remarks: "But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his really shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected touch." But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves is surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all the relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. _Farther_--From mere sanitary or police considerations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and houses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of men, cannot be accounted for. The reason which _Michaelis_ advances for the law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even the most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one. The leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which, although not contagious, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of concern for the health of the possessor, and for the goods kept in them, he ordered them to be altogether pulled down. If Moses had entertained the views on the power of the magistrates which lie at the foundation of this, he could not have been an ambassador of God,--even apart altogether from the absurdity of the measure. But the shallowness and untenableness of _Michaelis'_ view will appear still more strongly, when we state the positive argument for our view. It is this: Leprosy is the outward image of sin; that, therefore, which is done upon the leper, is, in reality, done upon the sinner. Every leper, therefore, was a living sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from the world. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, from the holy city, conveyed figuratively quite the same lesson, as is done in Words by John, in Revel. xxi. 27: [Greek: Kai ou mê eiselthê eis autên] [Pg 453] [Greek: pan koinon kai poioun bdelugma kai pseudos], and by Paul, in Ephes. v. 5: [Greek: touto gar iste ginôskontes, hoti pas pornos, ê akathartos, ê pleonektês ... ouk echei klêronomian en tê basileia tou Christou kai Theou]; comp. Gal. v. 19, 21. Now it is clearly seen what is the Prophet's meaning in including the hill of the lepers in the holy city. That which hitherto was unclean becomes clean; the Kingdom of God now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto, the sinners had done violence to the Kingdom of God. It is only when we take this view of leprosy, that we account for the fact, that just this disease so frequently occurs as the theocratic punishment of sin. The image of sin is best suited for reflecting it; he who is a sinner before God, is represented as a sinner in the eyes of man also, by the circumstance that he must exhibit before men the image of sin. God took care that ordinarily the image and the thing itself were perfectly coincident; although, no doubt, there were exceptions,--cases where God, according to His wise and holy purposes, allowed that one relatively innocent (in the case of a perfectly innocent man, if such an one existed, that would not be possible, except in the case of Christ who bore _our_ disease), had to bear the image of sin, _e.g._, in the case of such as were in danger of self-righteousness. As a theocratic punishment, leprosy is found especially with such as had secretly sinned, or had surrounded their sin with a good appearance, which, in the eyes of men, prevents them from appearing as sinners, _e.g._, in the case of Miriam, Uzziah, Gehazi, 2 Kings v. 27. In the Law, there are many warnings against it, _e.g._, Deut. xxiv. 8; and David wishes, 2 Sam. iii. 29, that the threatening of the Law might be fulfilled upon the house of wicked Joab. The leprosy of houses, too, comes into consideration only as an image of spiritual leprosy, as is seen from the command in Lev.