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 15:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-
These laws could be read as meaning that a person was made unclean by involuntary bodily discharges of a sexual nature. Or they can be read as referring to specific discharges related to sexually transmitted diseases; see on :3 LXX. The meaning would then be that they were made morally unclean by their sinful actions, and these were the consequences of those actions. Cleansing from them was therefore effectively representative of their cleansing from sin.

Lev 15:2 Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When any man has a discharge from his body, because of his discharge he is unclean-
These laws taught that in essence, it is what comes from within a person which makes them unclean, rather than what enters us from outside (Mk. 7:15-23). The idea that demons, evil spirits or Satan can enter us and make us unclean must be rejected; Jesus emphasizes that sin comes from within, therefore it is totally our fault, and we must take responsibility rather than blaming it on cosmic forces outside of us. See on :1.


Lev 15:3 This shall be his uncleanness in his discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or if his body has stopped excreting his discharge, it is his uncleanness-
LXX "whoever has a gonorrhea out of his body, this is his uncleanness in him by reason of the issue, by which, his body is affected through the issue". As discussed on :1, the idea of this section may not be that people are unclean because of issues which are nothing to do with morality; but rather that these regulations cover the result of sexually transmitted diseases and therefore cleansing from those consequences was effectively parallel with forgiveness for the sins related to them. The fertility cults of Canaan involved the usage of temple prostitutes by the worshippers, and therefore sexually transmitted diseases were rife in Canaan. An Israelite who had one of them would have been suffering the result of such apostasy, either by themselves or by family members. This would explain why the stricken person in view in this section is a male- who had slept with the temple / cult prostitutes.

Even if we are no longer sinning, we must remember that we still stand guilty for past sins unless we have received cleansing for them. The passage of time and the fading of human memory works only a pseudo-atonement for sin; it is the blood of Christ and our conscious identity with it which alone can eternally cleanse our conscience from sins both past and present.


Lev 15:4 Every bed whereon he who has the discharge lies shall be unclean; and everything he sits on shall be unclean-
We must note that this legislation follows on from that about 'leprosy' in Lev. 13,14. I suggested on Lev. 13:1 that leprosy in the form we know it was not in view, but rather a specific stroke of Divine judgment from God. And the commands we now read about men with discharges of a sexual nature, and their cleansing, may well refer to a similar being stricken with a judgment appropriate to sexual sin. This is why the bed of the stricken person is so emphasized. Effectively, the person was to be sexually isolated.


Lev 15:5 Whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
The implication was that his wife would have to abstain from sexual relationships with him and he was to be effectively isolated from his family. The stress upon the stricken person's bed is reflected in the Psalms, where David speaks of being stricken and lying on his bed, isolated from family and society because of his running, oozing issue which oozed in the night (Ps. 38:11; 77:2). It seems he was stricken with a Divine stroke that led to him secreting unclean fluids from his reproductive organ, which is the situation in view here (Ps. 6:6; 41:3). Job likewise complained of how he is isolated upon an unclean bed / couch (Job 7:13; 33:19 "he is chastened with pain upon his bed"), as if he too was experiencing a stroke from God which corresponds to the situation envisaged here in Lev. 15.


Lev 15:6 He who sits on anything whereon the man who has the discharge sat shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
The Hebrew for 'sitting' here is elsewhere used specifically in the context of urination or defecation, so the idea would be that the man was not to use a toilet shared by others.


Lev 15:7 He who touches the body of him who has the discharge shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
This seems the equivalent of the leper of Lev. 13,14 being isolated from society. And I suggested on Lev. 13:1 that what was in view there was not the disease of leprosy, but a specific stroke of Divine judgment. And I suggest the person with a discharge was likewise. In practice, with such extreme laws about contact with him or whatever he touched, he would be isolated from his family and society. We note that the stricken person in view is presented as male. There is no equivalent legislation about females. This would make sense if as suggested on :3, the person in view is one who had slept with the temple / cult prostitutes. The fertility cults of Canaan involved the usage of temple prostitutes by the worshippers, and therefore sexually transmitted diseases were rife in Canaan. An Israelite who had one of them would have been suffering the result of such apostasy, either by themselves or by family members.


Lev 15:8 If he who has the discharge spits on him who is clean, then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
This law was therefore aimed at ensuring that people kept away from this stricken person. In primitive society, every day's labour was valuable, and nobody wanted to run the risk of being made unclean for a whole day.


Lev 15:9 Whatever saddle he who has the discharge rides on shall be unclean-
If an involuntary discharge of semen at night is in view, then such extreme danger of contaminating others would not be in view. In terms of hygiene, nothing would be achieved by it anyway. For most sexually transmitted diseases are spread only at body temperature, and not through sitting on the same chair as an infected person. Therefore we conclude that a special state of uncleanness and illness is in view, the result of a Divine stroke. And in practice, if a man had an involuntary emission of semen at night, then who would know about it, unless he told them? So it seems more likely that the person in view is a sinner who has been struck with a Divine stroke. 


Lev 15:10 Whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening. He who carries those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
There was greater culpability the more consciously a person did things which he or she knew were unclean. Thus to purposefully carry something unclean required a washing of clothes, whereas just touching them merited a lesser requirement for cleansing.


Lev 15:11 Whoever he who has the discharge touches, without having rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
Those suffering with the "discharge" are parallel with 'lepers' in Num. 5:2 as needing to be put out of the camp. The dramatic laws about how they made everyone else unclean effectively required they be put outside the camp. I suggested on Lev. 13:1 that "lepers" doesn't refer to those with Hansen's disease, but to those struck down by Divine judgment. Those with a "discharge", literally a 'flowing', were in the same category. In neither case is involuntary disease or human bodily situation a reason for moral uncleanness. Just as human nature of itself doesn't separate between God and man; for all we posit about human nature, we say about the undefiled Lord Jesus who fully had that same human nature.


Lev 15:12 The earthen vessel, which he who has the discharge touches, shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water-
As discussed on :11, the intention of these extreme laws were to effectively require that the person with such a discharge be put outside the camp. Otherwise they would render daily life impossible to live if they remained within it.


Lev 15:13 When he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes; and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean-
In the dry wilderness, this would have been from the river of spring water which followed them from the smitten rock, which represented Christ who was smitten so that we might have the means of being cleansed (1 Cor. 10:4). The enigmatic Jn. 7:38 alludes here: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly ("innermost being", NIV) shall flow rivers of living (Gk. spring) water". What "scripture" did the Lord have in mind? Perhaps the references to spring water being used to cleanse men from uncleanness and death (Lev. 14:5; 15:13; Num. 19:16). Out of the innermost being of the true believer, the spring(ing) water of the Gospel will naturally spring up and go out to heal men, both now and more fully in the Kingdom, aided then by the Spirit gifts.

 Lev. 14:8; 15:13 speak of the person healed of 'leprosy' [the Divine stroke] and a "discharge" washing after the cure, in order to be then also ritually clean. As discussed on :11, those with a discharge and the 'leper' were treated the same way; for as with the leper / stricken person, the man with a "discharge" was under Divine judgment, and had not simply experienced an involuntary emission.

 Lev 15:14 On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before Yahweh to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and give them to the priest-
Even within the bird offerings there was a gradation. Turtledoves were larger than pigeons and more valuable, but they are only in Israel at certain times of the year (Song 2:12; Jer. 8:7); whereas pigeons are in Israel all year round, were easier to catch and were therefore cheaper. The various possible levels within God's law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love.


Lev 15:15 and the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. The priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh for his discharge-
It is no sin to be human, nor to go through the bodily functions which go along with being human. The atonement was required because the person had sinned and had been struck with Divine judgment. That ended when the person repented, hence the language of atonement. 


Lev 15:16 If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the evening-
Like many of the commandments, there was a large element of personal choice in whether to obey this or not; intimate matters such as personal discharges were unknown to others. Under the new covenant, this is even more the case; attitudes of mind which make us unclean before God are known only to ourselves. The Law of Moses was the only legal code which had so many clauses which concerned matters which could never be publically demonstrated. God’s intention even under the old covenant was to teach and inculcate personal relationship between God and His people. He did this by giving commandments whose keeping only He and the individual knew about.


Lev 15:17 Every garment, and every skin, whereon the semen is, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening-
I suggest that the emission of semen in view is not a result of sex within marriage. For Paul appears to warn against any such extremist interpretation by teaching that the marital bed is "undefiled", unlike that of whores and adulterers (Heb. 13:4). There is nothing in that sense dirty about the sexual act. What is in view is the immorality which has given rise to the Divine stroke which now requires repentance and atonement.


Lev 15:18 If a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening-
I suggested on :17 that this doesn't refer to sex within marriage. For the marital bed is "undefiled" (Heb. 13:4). It could refer to sex outside marriage. The whole theme of this section which began in Lev. 13:1 is of Divine judgment for wrong behaviour, rather than normal bodily functions making a person unclean before God. If however it does refer to marital sex, then we reflect that the whole family would have known that ‘mum and dad’ or just mum was unclean. Personal matters like sex and menstruation thereby became part of normal family awareness, rather than being hived off in quasi-secrecy and invested with an aura of mystery as they are in many modern cultures.

The Lord taught that He was the rock, and we like Israel drink of what came out of Him. The Law of Moses included several rituals which depended upon what is called " the running water" (Lev. 14:5,6,50-52; 15:18; Num. 19:17). "Running" translates a Hebrew word normally translated "living". This living water was what came out of the smitten rock. The Lord taught that the water that would come out of Him would only come after His glorification (Jn. 7:38)- an idea He seems to link with His death rather than His ascension (Jn. 12:28,41; 13:32; 17:1,5 cp. 21:19; Heb. 2:9). When He was glorified on the cross, then the water literally flowed from His side on His death. The rock was "smitten", and the water then came out. The Hebrew word used here is usually translated to slay, slaughter, murder. It occurs in two clearly Messianic passages: " ...they talk to the hurt of him [Christ] whom thou hast smitten" (Ps. 69:26); "we esteemed him [as He hung on the cross] smitten of God" (Is. 53:4). The living waters were representative of the Holy Spirit which is given to us- not the miraculous gifts, but the power of God within the human spirit, to bring us to have His Spirit and mind which was in Christ. It is this which now is the cleansing agent, making our sacrifices acceptable, cleansing our motives in a way in which we cannot do, at least not by any conscious intellectual process.


Lev 15:19 If a woman has a discharge, and her discharge in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening-
This is worded very strangely if in fact a normal period is in view. I have suggested earlier in this chapter that the "discharge" refers to a specific stroke of Divine judgment. It could involve a hemorrhage of blood. The language and grammar seems to imply that the "discharge" occurred at one time, and then after that point she was impure seven days. But period bleeding is not a one time event, lasting typically from three to eight days. If monthly periods are in view here, then the woman would be impure for up to 15 days / month. And whoever touched her would be unclean. This would have made family life just about impossible. So I don't think that monthly periods are in view, but rather a specific Divine judgment. "Be in her impurity" is s.w. "removed", "set apart", "put apart". It is the equivalent of being put outside the camp, which was the judgment for the leper and the man smitten with a "discharge" as Divine judgment (Num. 5:2). It is also found translated "filthy" in Ezra 9:11 "the filthiness of the people of the lands". But it is not an act of moral filth to have a period. What is in view is not period bleeding, but a specific Divine judgment for sin, the female equivalent of the judgment upon sinful males described in the first half of this chapter. 


Lev 15:20 Everything that she lies on in her impurity shall be unclean. Everything also that she sits on shall be unclean-
The severity of the laws about not coming into contact with such a woman were designed to make it impossible to have her in society or the home. She therefore effectively had to be put out of the camp (see on :19).  


Lev 15:21 Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
Beds were typically shared in family homes, so this was designed to make the woman leave her home. This would be appropriate for someone stricken with Divine judgment for serious sin, but not for a woman having a period.


Lev 15:22 Whoever touches anything that she sits on shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
This is the female equivalent of the male judgment of a "discharge". If involuntary period bleeding is in view, then such extreme danger of contaminating others would not be in view. In terms of hygiene, nothing would be achieved by it anyway. For most diseases are spread only at body temperature, and not through sitting on the same chair as a woman who is menstruating. Therefore we conclude that a special state of uncleanness and illness is in view, the result of a Divine stroke. And in practice, if a woman was menstruating, then who would know about it, unless she told others? So it seems more likely that the person in view is a sinner who has been struck with a Divine stroke. 


Lev 15:23 If it is on the bed, or on anything whereon she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening-
This was certainly not for hygienic reasons, for we would all be hopelessly infected if infection really spread by touching whatever a menstruating woman has touched. Again, the woman in view is clearly a sinner under the stroke of Divine judgment, and not simply a menstruating woman.


Lev 15:24 If any man lies with her, and her monthly flow is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed whereon he lies shall be unclean-
The "monthly flow" is apparently different to the "discharge". The discharge was, I suggest, a specific Divine judgment for sin. Lev. 20:18 says that if a man sleeps with a menstruating woman then they must both die. But Lev. 15:24 says that in this case the man must be unclean seven days. I suggest that the language of uncovering nakedness in Lev. 20:18 is talking about some form of illicit or perverted relationship. Menstrual blood was a times drunk or used in various cultic rituals.


Lev 15:25 If a woman has a discharge of her blood many days not in the time of her period, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her period; all the days of the discharge of her uncleanness shall be as in the days of her period: she is unclean-
The "discharge" and "her period" are grammatically separate. But perhaps her period is not in view here. LXX "And if a woman have an issue of blood many days, not in the time of her separation; if the blood should also flow after her separation, all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean". As the 'leper' / stricken person was shut up for periods of seven days, which could be extended if they were impenitent, so here too, the woman was given a "time" during which her judgment lasted; but it could be extended, if she were impenitent.


Lev 15:26 Every bed whereon she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her as the bed of her period: and everything whereon she sits shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her period-
Her laying on a bed "all the days" could imply that she lay on her bed day and night. Which was impossible for an average Hebrew woman going about daily life, with so many responsibilities upon her in domestic life. But it makes more sense if we consider this to be talking about a specific period of Divine judgment which forced her to be confined to her bed, as happened to men like David. Again, "her period" may not be in view. LXX "And every bed on which she shall lie all the days of her flux shall be to her as the bed of her separation, and every seat whereon she shall sit shall be unclean according to the uncleanness of her separation"; GNB gives simply "Any bed on which she lies and anything on which she sits during this time is unclean".


Lev 15:27 Whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-
There was greater culpability the more consciously a person did things which he or she knew were unclean. Thus to lie down in the unclean house required a washing of clothes, whereas just going into it merited a lesser requirement for cleansing. Clearly knowledge is associated with responsibility.


Lev 15:28 But if she is cleansed of her discharge, then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean-
This two stage cleansing process is common in the Mosaic rituals. She was clean, but in another sense not fully cleansed until the end of the seven days. We likewise are now cleansed in Christ, but in a full sense we will only be fully cleansed when He returns and our bodies are made like His, and the flesh no longer is a part of our condition of being.


Lev 15:29 On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting-
As discussed on :14, this was the female equivalent to the male rituals required for a man stricken down with Divine judgment. This is what is in view, and not menstruation. It can hardly be that every menstruating woman in all Israel was to come to the door of the Tent of Meeting every month. Clearly what is in view is a woman under specific Divine judgment for sin who has now repented, rather than every menstruating woman.


Lev 15:30 The priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before Yahweh for the uncleanness of her discharge-
This repeats the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace offering (although that isn't specifically required here). Conviction of sin leads to a desire to make complete dedication to God, which results in the peace with God celebrated in the peace offering. So the woman was being convicted of sin, so that their dedication to Yahweh's service was no mere ritual, but a from the heart desire to serve Him from gratitude for the forgiveness of sin. Clearly a judgment for sin is in view; and not menstruation, which isn't sinful of itself. 


Lev 15:31 Thus you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, so they will not die in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is in their midst’-
It could be argued from this that these commandments may have had specific relevance to the Levites, who were the only ones who could enter the holy places- GNB "so that they would not defile the Tent of his presence, which was in the middle of the camp. If they did, they would be killed". This is language more relevant to Levites- for whom this book of Leviticus was specifically relevant.

The legislation here is very severe- it seems inappropriate for touching something which a menstruating woman had touched, seeing menstruation is not a moral sin. So again I suggest that what is in view is a woman or man struck by God with a 'flowing' of intimate body fluids from their private parts, and not involuntary emissions of semen or blood. The "uncleanness" of Israel refers elsewhere to their actual sins which required repentance and atonement (Lev. 16:16,19; Ezra 6:21; Ez. 36:17). It was this which had led to the woman being struck with a Divinely sent plague, and involuntary menstruation is not in view.


Lev 15:32 This is the law of him who has a discharge, and of him who has an emission of semen, so that he is unclean thereby-
"Thereby" is a translators' guess. The idea is simply "who is unclean", with the Hebrew for "unclean" having the sense of moral sin, s.w. foul, polluted, defiled- always in the sense of having actually committed sin. It was this sin which led to the discharge or flow of personal body fluids from intimate private parts, and was a judgment from God- rather than an involuntary part of being human. The idea is not that these things rendered an innocent person "thereby" offensive to God and worthy of being separated from. It is no sin to be human.


Lev 15:33 and of her who has her period, and of a man or woman who has a discharge, and of him who lies with her who is unclean-
The Hebrew word for "period" isn't used here. AV quaintly gives "sick of her flowers", but the phrase is literally "sick from her rejection / filthiness / uncleanness". She had been stricken because of her sin, her moral filthiness. This seems a separate punishment to the "discharge". Israel in their sinfulness and separation from God are likened to a woman in this contaminated state (Ez. 36:17). But Israel, like this woman, were separated from God because of their actual sins, and not by reason of simply being human.