New European Commentary

 

About | PDFs | Mobile formats | Word formats | Other languages | Contact Us | What is the Gospel? | Support the work | Carelinks Ministries | | The Real Christ | The Real Devil | "Bible Companion" Daily Bible reading plan


Deeper Commentary

 

Lev 13:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-
It’s doubtful whether the skin disease referred to in Leviticus is what we now call leprosy, i.e. Hansen’s disease. The descriptions of the disease or affliction in Lev. 13,14 don't sound at all like leprosy as we know it. And the idea of this disease actually being afflicted upon buildings and clothing doesn't sound like mere contamination. Leprosy had no cure in the ancient world. And yet the legislation in Lev. 13,14 sounds as if after a relatively short time, the affliction could be lifted- and then a sin offering had to be made. The decisions and diagnosis of the affliction was to be made by the priests, not physicians. I conclude therefore that we should pay more attention to the Hebrew word here translated "leprosy". It is the same word as used for the "stroke" of Divine judgment. This makes more sense throughout the legislation. God could smite sinners with this affliction, mistranslated as "leprosy". If the sinner repented sufficiently, it would be lifted. But the priest would judge that, and therefore sin offerings were required to complete the cleansing process. It is no sin to get sick with leprosy; but if we understand this affliction as a Divine stroke, then it all makes so much more sense.   

Lev 13:2 When a man shall have a rising in his body’s skin, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes in the skin of his body the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his sons, the priests-
Leprosy was and is a common scourge in the Middle East. For each person with the possible symptoms to be brought to either the high priest or one of his sons would have been logistically too much. This confirms the suggestion on :1 that what is in view is not Hansen's disease, leprosy as we know it, but a specific stroke from God upon sinners.  


Lev 13:3 and the priest shall examine the plague in the skin of the body; and if the hair in the plague has turned white, and the appearance of the plague is deeper than the body’s skin, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall examine him, and pronounce him unclean-
Leprosy is symbolic of sin. But a person can appear to have leprosy when in fact it’s only a surface level appearance of it; but only the priest, representing Jesus, can declare this. We must of course be careful not to excuse our  failings as merely surface level sin; but when it comes to judging others, we must accept that someone can appear sinful to us but it’s only a surface appearance; we must not ultimately judge whether a person will be saved or not, quite simply because we cannot do so. Only the priest, the Lord Jesus, can do so.


Lev 13:4 If the bright spot is white in the skin of his body, and its appearance isn’t deeper than the skin, and its hair hasn’t turned white, then the priest shall isolate the infected person for seven days-
The language is continually suggestive of spiritual repentance. See on :1. The hair had to be "turned" white, always the hint is at change. The same word is found in 1 Sam. 10:6, "turned into another man". 


Lev 13:5 The priest shall examine him on the seventh day, and behold, if in his eyes the plague is arrested, and the plague hasn’t spread in the skin, then the priest shall isolate him for seven more days-
The idea of plague or striking in judgment being arrested or stayed is found in Num. 16:48,50; 25:8; 2 Sam. 24:21,25; Ps. 106:30. In every case, the plague was a special striking from God in judgment; and it was arrested or stayed by repentance and / or intercession, even by third parties. If Hansen's disease ["leprosy" as we know it] was in view, such a quick diagnosis could not be made. Such leprosy would not break out and then be arrested after seven days. But if as suggested on :1 the "leprosy" was a stroke of Divine judgment which could be "arrested", then this is understandable. It was the duty of the Levites to teach Israel, so that they would not be smitten by such plague / striking in judgment (Num. 8:19). This is why these laws are given here to the Levites, in this book of Leviticus.


Lev 13:6 The priest shall examine him again on the seventh day; and behold, if the plague has faded, and the plague hasn’t spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean. It is a scab. He shall wash his clothes, and be clean-
Our life spent in Christ is represented by these periods of seven days; at the end, Christ as the true priest and judge will decide whether the sin which there is in our lives has remained at a surface, appearance level- or whether it has spread. Yeast likewise represents sin, in that it spreads its influence. Sin either spreads in our flesh or doesn’t...


Lev 13:7 But if the scab spreads on the skin, after he has shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again-
The spreading of plague in the sense of Divine judgment (see on :1) is found in Num. 16:46-48, and it was the intercession of Aaron which stopped it spreading further. We are therefore to understand this spreading of the plague in the person as a sign that they were continuing under Divine judgment. 


Lev 13:8 The priest shall examine him; and behold, if the scab has spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is leprosy-
"Pronounce him unclean" is literally 'to make him unclean'. The uncleanness was therefore a moral issue, rather than being made unclean simply through having contracted an illness. This confirms our suggestion on :1, that the "leprosy" was not Hansen's disease but a specific Divine judgment for sin. The temptation must have been to try to cover up the appearance of sin / leprosy rather than revealing oneself to the priest; just as we are tempted today.


Lev 13:9 When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought to the priest-
God’s people were to avoid trying to judge the appearance of leprosy / sin in others. And this temptation remains an abiding issue for all time- to ourselves interpret appearances and judge them in others, rather than leaving this to the Lord's judgment.


Lev 13:10 and the priest shall examine him. Behold, if there is a white rising in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and there is raw flesh in the rising-
GNB "If there is a white sore on your skin which turns the hairs white and is full of pus". "Raw flesh" is s.w. "life of the flesh" (Prov. 14:30). The idea is that living flesh was being actively contaminated and destroyed. The key issue was whether the disease was still spreading within the person. This speaks of whether or not we have as it were reigned in the spread of sin in our human lives. But the immediate reference was as to whether the Divine judgment was ongoing in the person. 


Lev 13:11 it is a chronic leprosy in the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. He shall isolate him, for he is unclean-
AV "It is an old leprosy". And that is indeed the sense of the Hebrew. The previous ["old"] judgments for sin had not been learned from, and continued. So the person was still unclean because they had not learned their lesson. Seeing leprosy was incurable at that time, an old leprosy is a contradiction in terms; as suggested on :1, the reference is to a specific stroke from God and not Hansen's disease.


Lev 13:12 If the leprosy breaks out all over the skin, and the leprosy covers all the skin of the infected person from his head even to his feet, as far as it appears to the priest-
This is again strong evidence that a stroke from God is in view and not leprosy as we know it; see on :1. For if this were leprosy, then the man would be completely unclean. The idea rather is that the stroke from God had now run its course, and the man had been completely rendered stricken. 


Lev 13:13 then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean of the plague. It has all turned white: he is clean-
If a person has indulged in sin and recognizes it, although they carry in their lives the evidence of it, yet the sin has as it were died and they are clean. At baptism into Christ we became “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2).


Lev 13:14 But whenever raw flesh appears in him, he shall be unclean-
Whenever sin is actively dominating over virgin flesh, claiming new areas in a person's life, then they are "unclean". But the original idea would be that in this case, the judgment stroke of God was still actively at work in the person.


Lev 13:15 The priest shall examine the raw flesh, and pronounce him unclean: the raw flesh is unclean. It is leprosy-
AV "it is a leprosy" would suggest that this was not just a form of leprosy, but rather this was a stroke from God. 


Lev 13:16 Or if the raw flesh turns again, and is changed to white, then he shall come to the priest-
The critical issue is whether the condition was spreading. And this is the question in our lives- whether sin has run its course with us, even if we bear the results of it in our flesh; or whether it is ongoing and spreading.


Lev 13:17 and the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the plague has turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean of the plague. He is clean-
Turning white was the sign that the man was clean, whereas if Hansen's disease were in view, this would surely show that the man was obviously still infected. For lepers "white as snow" are described in the Biblical records. "Turned white" would suggest that the stroke for sin had now turned the person "white", they were acceptable, covered in imputed righteousness through repentance and acceptance of their previous judgment for sin.


Lev 13:18 When the body has a boil on its skin, and it has healed-
The idea is that there are external signs which might suggest a person to have been smitten of God, but we cannot judge that. Job's example comes to mind. Only the priest, the Lord Jesus, can judge this. "Boil" is the word used of the smiting  of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:7) and Job (Job 2:7); also for ‘the botch (RV "boil") of Egypt’ (Dt. 28:17). In the cases of Job and Hezekiah, they were smitten by God; they didn't just contract the disease we now know as leprosy. And the end of that "boil" was an outcome of prayer and repentance. And the period of their affliction was far shorter than the natural course of leprosy as we know it. This again confirms the suggestion on :1 that "leprosy" here refers not to Hansen's disease but to some specific judgment from God upon a person.


Lev 13:19 and in the place of the boil there is a white rising, or a bright spot, reddish-white, then it shall be shown to the priest-
"Reddish" is the word adam. The idea may be that it is unclear in this case whether the man is "white" or not, for Adam, the natural man, is mixed with the whiteness. And we muse about so many folks, as to whether they are white in righteousness or still red with the ways of Adam. And again, it is not for us in fact to muse upon these things. We must leave it to the priest's judgment, the Lord Jesus. 


Lev 13:20 and the priest shall examine it; and behold, if it appears beneath the skin, and its hair has turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is the plague of leprosy. It has broken out in the boil-
I suggested on :19 that the red /  Adam sin is appearing as white righteousness. The question is whether we have allowed sin to penetrate beneath the flesh- by implication, to the heart. There may be here a distinction being drawn between sin on a surface level and that sin which is deeper, which leads to exclusion from God’s family.


Lev 13:21 But if the priest examines it, and behold, there are no white hairs in it, and it isn’t deeper than the skin, but is dim, then the priest shall isolate him seven days-
Heb. 'become dim'. Even if it appears that sin is in retreat in human life, the question is whether it spreads or not. Or, whether the stroke of God is still ongoing.


Lev 13:22 If it spreads in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is a plague-
Clearly "it is a plague" suggests a stroke from God. And again, it is the spreading nature which showed whether the stroke was finished or not.


Lev 13:23 But if the bright spot stays in its place, and hasn’t spread, it is the scar from the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean-
People carry the scars of their sins, but these don’t mean we should treat them as sinful. There may be multiple children from a series of casual relationships, illnesses resulting from addictions; but we are not to judge people as unclean because of that.


Lev 13:24 Or when the body has a burn from fire on its skin, and the raw flesh of the burn becomes a bright spot, reddish-white, or white-
"A burn from fire" is literally "a fire of burning". The same word is used in Lev. 10:2 of how Yahweh sent out fire upon the flesh of Nadab and Abihu in judgment. There are similar usages of the word in Lev. 21:9; Num. 11:1; 16:35; 26:10; Dt. 4:24; 1 Kings 18:38; Job 1:16 etc. And as suggested on :1, I suggest that this is the context of this talk about Divine plague here.

Lev 13:25 then the priest shall examine it; and behold, if the hair in the bright spot has turned white, and its appearance is deeper than the skin; it is leprosy. It has broken out in the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is the plague of leprosy-
The idea would be that the person had not learned from being struck by the Lord. The judgment was still spreading, because they were still impenitent.


Lev 13:26 But if the priest examines it, and behold, there is no white hair in the bright spot, and it isn’t lower than the skin, but is faded; then the priest shall isolate him seven days-
Even if the external appearance of the judgment of sin is apparently not lower than the flesh, and has apparently faded; this is not to say that a person is clean, or that their judgment from God had ended. The critical issue was not surface level appearance, but whether it has spread further (:27).


Lev 13:27 The priest shall examine him on the seventh day. If it has spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is the plague of leprosy-
Again the issue is whether sin spreads, or whether the judgment from God was still ongoing. Clearly the Jews in Acts 4:17 had the idea that 'leprosy' spreading represented sin spreading.

Lev 13:28 If the bright spot stays in its place, and hasn’t spread in the skin, but is faded, it is the swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; for it is the scar from the burn-
I explained on :24 that "the burn" was a direct Divine judgment. The results of Divine judgment may be openly apparent in a person's life; but that is no reason to consider a person unclean in any ongoing sense.


Lev 13:29 When a man or woman has a plague on the head or on the beard-
Clearly the idea of leprosy only affecting the head or beard (:30) cannot apply to Hansen's disease, or leprosy as we now know it. The reference was clearly to some specific Divine judgment. 


Lev 13:30 then the priest shall examine the plague; and behold, if its appearance is deeper than the skin, and the hair in it is yellow and thin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is an itch, it is leprosy of the head or of the beard-
The argument that this language makes a difference between surface level sin and deeper sin... is a slippery slope. Once we start justifying some failures as mere surface level sins, we are on the downward path. But it does remain a fact that in God's eyes- and it is the judgment of the Priest and not ours which is so critical in all this- there is a difference between surface level failure, and sin on a deeper heart level. There is a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death (1 Jn. 5:16). We do well to remember this when the sins of others obtrude upon us and require some level of response from us.


Lev 13:31 If the priest examines the plague of itching, and behold, its appearance isn’t deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, then the priest shall isolate the person infected with itching seven days-
The various periods of examination were not because the priest needed to see whether the plague was spreading or not. Rather they were periods of self examination for the stricken person, opportunities for repentance in order to change the outcomes and spread of the disease.


Lev 13:32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the plague; and behold, if the itch hasn’t spread, and there is no yellow hair in it, and the appearance of the itch isn’t deeper than the skin-
I suggested above that the requirement that these cases be brought either to the high priest or to his sons meant that, logistically, it couldn't be that whoever had an itchy beard or scurf would have to come to them. Clearly those in view are those individuals specifically smitten by God with a stroke of judgment.


Lev 13:33 then he shall be shaved, but he shall not shave the itch; and the priest shall shut up him who has the itch seven more days-
H.P. Mansfield suggests that "The ulcer shall not be shaved lest the place become irritated and inflamed, and the priest will not be able to form an accurate judgment". But I am approaching this legislation from the viewpoint that the "leprosy" is not leprosy as we know it, but a specific stroke of Divine judgment. The legislation and various periods of seven days isolation were not for the sake of the priest, so that he could diagnose the condition; but rather were to elicit repentance from the stricken person, so that the stroke might be removed. The word for "shaven" is consistently used in the Bible for being shamed or being in mourning. This mourning and shame for sin was being elicited from the stricken person, so that they might repent and the stroke be lifted. The legislation was for the sake of the stricken person, designed to elicit their repentance. 


Lev 13:34 On the seventh day, the priest shall examine the itch; and behold, if the itch hasn’t spread in the skin, and its appearance isn’t deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean. He shall wash his clothes, and be clean-
Sin must not spread nor go deeper than the skin, surface level sin must not become a sin from the heart. This is the repeated lesson. And in practice, the lack of spreading of the plague would indicate that the Divine judgment had run its course.


Lev 13:35 But if the itch spreads in the skin after his cleansing-
If the person merely had the appearance of leprosy but was found not to have it, then there would have been no need for any process of cleansing nor washing of clothes (:34). But I suggest that even this "itch" was a stroke of Divine judgment and reflected the moral failure of the person; therefore cleansing from it was required.


Lev 13:36 then the priest shall examine him; and behold, if the itch has spread in the skin, the priest shall not look for the yellow hair, he is unclean-
This legislation highlights the issue of whether the condition has spread. This was a sign that the Divine judgment was still ongoing. And in spiritual terms, the question is whether or not sin is spreading in us. We are either on the upward spiral of the Holy Spirit, or the downward spiral of the flesh. We cannot be on both at the same time.


Lev 13:37 But if in his eyes the itch is arrested, and black hair has grown in it; the itch is healed, he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean-
The opinion, analysis and judgment of the priest, representing the Lord Jesus Christ, is all important. Many people in primitive societies consider they have a legitimate medical opinion, based on the kind of traditions and folk wisdom which abound in relation to skin diseases. Israel were to resist these, and leave the diagnosis and judgment solely in the hands of the priest. We have a serious tendency to judge others’ sin, and we really must leave this to Christ.


Lev 13:38 When a man or a woman has bright spots in the skin of the body, even white bright spots-
I suggested above that the requirement that these cases be brought either to the high priest or to his sons meant that, logistically, it couldn't be that whoever had spots appear on their bodies would have to come to them. Clearly those in view are those individuals specifically smitten by God with a stroke of judgment.

Lev 13:39 then the priest shall examine them; and behold, if the bright spots on the skin of their body are a dull white, it is a harmless rash, it has broken out in the skin, he is clean-
"Harmless rash" is not at all the sense, because as explained on :38, these spots were still some form of Divine judgment. LXX then adds: "it burst forth in the skin of his flesh". The idea is that when the pustule had burst, the judgment was over. "He is clean" should not be read as meaning "he's done nothing wrong, all a false alarm". The idea is that the person can now go through the process of cleansing- for there has been failure and judgment, and that requires cleansing. 

Lev 13:40 If a man’s hair has fallen from his head, he is bald, he is clean-
This sounds stating the obvious- until we read it as meaning that sudden baldness, removing the glory of a person's hair, was a Divine judgment. And as noted on :39, "he is clean" means he has been judged, the judgment is over, and he has to now go through the cleansing rituals of Lev. 14.


Lev 13:41 If his hair has fallen off from the front part of his head, he is forehead bald, he is clean-
GNB sums up the teaching of :40,41 as "If you lose your hair at the back or the front of your head, this does not make you unclean". Total sudden baldness was a stroke from God, and was not to be confused with the general receding of the hairline which comes with the ageing process. 


Lev 13:42 But if there is in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white plague; it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead-
There are five major types of leprosy, and only one of them involves hair loss, and the hair loss is mainly around the eyebrows. So as discussed on :1, we are not here reading of leprosy as we know it. The idea is that the man was stricken by God with sudden baldness, didn't repent, and so the plague broke out again on his now bald head. The scenario pictured here, of sudden baldness and then the appearance of leprosy on the bald head, is simply not appropriate to leprosy as we know it, i.e. Hansen's disease.


Lev 13:43 Then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the rising of the plague is reddish-white in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, like the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh-
Leprosy as we know it doesn't begin in the head; see on :42. Sudden baldness is a specific Divine judgment, as in Is. 3:24; 15:2; Jer. 47:5; Am. 8:10.  


Lev 13:44 he is a leprous man. He is unclean. The priest shall surely pronounce him unclean. His plague is on his head-
The idea is that the stroke of judgment appearing on his head was one of the clearest signs of major Divine judgment. For sin is rooted in the mind, and the stroke of judgment was therefore manifest there in such a public manner. All because the person had refused to repent from the judgment of sudden baldness see on :43.

Lev 13:45 The leper in whom the plague is shall wear torn clothes, and the hair of his head shall hang loose. He shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’-
Contrary to what is often thought, leprosy is not highly contagious. It is a bacterial disease, not a viral infection. A common cold is a viral infection, and is far more contagious than leprosy. So this apparently heavy handed exclusion of lepers was not primarily for the sake of the health of the community. Rather was it the equivalent of condemnation- having been stricken for sin and refusing to repent, despite multiple opportunities through the various seven days confinements, the person was effectively condemned. Living outside the community of God's people, with no path back, looked ahead to the awful condition of the rejected at the last judgment. For there is no legislation for the return of the leper from this situation. But see on :50.


Isaiah’s vision of God's glory as it would be in His crucified Son convicted Isaiah of his sinfulness to a very fine degree. The vision occurred "in the year that King Uzziah died" (Is. 6:1)- and he died of leprosy, smitten of God for his sin. Isaiah would've known Uzziah, and prophesied against him. And yet now, after the vision of God's glory, Isaiah declares that he is a man "of unclean lips" (Is. 6:5). And it was lepers who had to cover their upper lips (Lev. 13:45). He felt no better than Uzziah, the well known smitten-by-God king of Isaiah's time. Likewise before the experience of God's glory as it was and is in Christ, we shouldn't feel that we are any better than the most famous sinner.

Lev 13:46 All the days in which the plague is in him he shall be unclean. He is unclean. He shall dwell alone. Outside of the camp shall be his dwelling-
The Lord Jesus Christ died for us “outside the camp” (Heb. 13:11,13); he was unashamed to associate with lepers, the condemned sinners (see on :45), and as it were died with them and for them. The Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (Heb. 13:13). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (Ex. 33:7). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorosa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (Lev. 4:12,21; 8:17; 9:11; 16:27); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (Heb. 13:11; Num. 19:3,9). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (Lev. 13:46; 24:14; Num. 5:3,4; 15:35,36; 31:13,19), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us. Do we struggle with some secret vice, in the grip of habitual sin? The cross convicts of sin, for we are impelled by it to follow Christ in going forth “without the camp" (Heb. 13:13), following the path of the leper who had to go forth without the camp.


Lev 13:47 The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it is a woollen garment, or a linen garment-
As explained on :1, the idea that "leprosy" can be in garments or houses (Lev. 14:55) means that the plague in view is not that of Hansen's disease or leprosy as we now know it. It was a specific judgment from God for specific sins.

Lev 13:48 whether it is in warp, or woof; of linen, or of wool; whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin-
The clothing of a man was significant, both in personal and economic terms. The idea may be that this legislation about clothing refers specifically to the clothing of the impenitent person who has been excluded outside the camp (:46)  


Lev 13:49 if the plague is greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything made of skin; it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be shown to the priest-
The person excluded permanently (see on :45,46) still had property, clothing and houses, as will be discussed in Lev. 14. The question was whether these things could be used by others, or should they be destroyed. If the "leprosy" in view was Hansen's disease, then surely the clothing of the leper had to be automatically destroyed. But as discussed on :1, this was not the case. The 'leper' was not a leper as we now think of a leper, but one smitten by God with some specific judgment. Whether or not his clothing and property could be taken by others.. was a question for God to pronounce upon. 

Lev 13:50 The priest shall examine the plague, and isolate the plague seven days-
I argued on Lev. 13:45 that the final exclusion "outside the camp" was permanent. It looked forward to the final condemnation of the wicked at the last day. But in Num. 12:14,15 we have an example of Miriam being made a leper and being shut out of the camp for seven days. "Shut out" there is s.w. "isolate" in Lev. 13:50. But she repented, and was allowed back in. So I deduce that the implication is that the shut out person could still repent after seven days. The priest could not have contact with the excluded person. But their clothing and housing could be examined, and if the plague within it had not spread, then the person had repented and could be received back in. Leprosy as we know it is not cured in seven days; as explained on Lev. 13:1, 'leprosy' here means literally a striking from the Lord, and not the leprosy we know today as Hansen's disease.

Lev 13:51 He shall examine the plague on the seventh day. If the plague has spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, whatever use the skin is used for, the plague is a destructive leprosy. It is unclean-
"Whatever use" suggests that no matter how valuable the garment, this didn’t somehow mean that the leprosy [cp. sin] was any less significant. Petty material advantage was not to cloud judgment in these matters. See on :50.


Lev 13:52 He shall burn the garment, whether the warp or the woof, in wool or in linen, or anything of skin, in which the plague is; for it is a destructive leprosy. It shall be burned in the fire-
As explained on :50, the shut out person had the chance to repent after seven days. But there was no contact between the priest and the condemned leper. So their clothing was examined. If the stroke of God was still spreading in it, then judgment was ongoing, and it could be deduced that the excluded person had not repented. So perhaps the implication was that they should be burned in fire, along with their garments. For destruction by fire is the repeated image of final condemnation from God.


Lev 13:53 If the priest examines it, and behold, the plague hasn’t spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin-
As explained on :50, the condemned excluded sinner "outside the camp" had no contact with the priest. But after seven days there, they had a chance to repent. If the plague had not spread in their garments, it could be deduced that they had repented and Divine judgment had run its course.


Lev 13:54 then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which the plague is, and he shall isolate it seven more days-
The apparent repentance of the condemned person was not to be a passing matter; see on :50-53. Another seven days must be allowed after the partial cleansing by washing. For repentance of a person who has persistently refused to repent before has to be more than a passing feeling on their part.


Lev 13:55 Then the priest shall examine it, after the plague is washed; and behold, if the plague hasn’t changed its colour, and the plague hasn’t spread, it is unclean; you shall burn it in the fire. It is a mildewed spot, whether the rot is inside or outside-
The tendency would’ve been to think that if the rot was only on the inside of the garment and not visible to anyone else, then this didn’t require attention or cleansing. Hence the emphasis- “whether the rot is inside or outside”. Sin is still sin, whether or not it is visible to others or not. Some peoples’ sins are more open to our view than others (1 Tim. 5:24). The condemned sinner had to change colour and not just repent on a surface level; see on :50-54.


Lev 13:56 If the priest looks, and behold, the plague has faded after it is washed, then he shall pluck it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof-
The plucking out was to  stop the leprosy / sin spreading. Jesus uses the same phrase in teaching that we should ‘pluck out’ of our lives whatever is likely to lead us to stumble into sin (Mt. 5:29; 18:9). Repeatedly, the seriousness of the leprosy / sin is defined by whether it spreads, either in depth or distribution.


Lev 13:57 and if it appears again in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is spreading. You shall burn with fire that in which the plague is-
This effort of the priest to stop the plague spreading in the garment reflected the Divine effort to lead the condemned sinner to repentance, and to isolate the spread of sin. If the efforts for the garment failed, then this reflected how the isolated, stricken sinner had still not repented, sin was still alive and spreading in him. And so he / she along with the garments must be burned in fire.


Lev 13:58 The garment, either the warp, or the woof, or whatever thing of skin it is, which you shall wash, if the plague has departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and it will be clean-
The two stages of washing reflect the cleansing of the excluded sinner whom the garment represented (see on :50). Perhaps there is a hint here of being born of water and Spirit (Jn. 3:3-5), also reflected in the two stage washing and healing of the blind man in Mk. 8:23-25. 


Lev 13:59 This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, either in the warp, or the woof, or in anything of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean-
The final pronouncing  of men clean or unclean will only be made by the Lord Jesus at the last day. As explained throughout this chapter, the various procedures were in order to by all means elicit repentance in the stricken person (see on :1), so that the plague might be lifted- even after their apparently final condemnation outside the camp. In this we see God's earnest desire to save, to isolate the spread of sin- rather than to condemn by burning in fire.