THE SECOND PRIMARY ATTESTING SIGN - MASTERY OVER LEPROSY
Because of Satanic activity, our first parents had disobeyed the clear command of God and incurred the consequence that God said would follow, “…in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”(Gen.2:17). They did not immediately fall to ground but were subject to a ‘living death’, a process of dying; the Hebrew could be translated, “dying you will die”. Leprosy, also called ‘the living death’, was considered a visual of the stroke of God in the Garden. The Hebrew for leprosy, ‘tsara’ath’, is related to the Arabic word that signifies ‘to strike down or scourge’. Tsara’ath (leprosy) is considered the scourge of God. This truth is re-emphasised in the T’nach where God judged individuals who rebelled against His will and struck them with leprosy. When Miriam rebelled, “... the anger of the LORD was aroused …and … suddenly, Miriam became leprous, as white as snow” (Numb.12:9-10). Uzziah contracted leprosy when he discarded the priestly protocol contained in the Mosaic law: “leprosy broke out on his forehead … because the LORD had struck him” (2 Chron.26:19-20 (KJV)).
Two words that are strongly connected with leprosy are ‘naga’ (touch, reach, strike); and its derivative ‘nega’ (stroke, plague, disease). In Leviticus chapter 13, there are instructions for the diagnosis of leprosy, and in chapter 14 instructions for the performing of the rituals required in the case of recovered lepers. In these two chapters ‘nega’, translated ‘plague’ in the KJV and sometimes ‘plague’ and sometimes ‘sore’ in the NKJV, is used some eighty times. Again, the connection is - the plague (nega) of leprosy is the visual of the stroke of God. In Isaiah 53, both these words occur, but there the plague is sin, and because of that plague, God’s Messiah must suffer God’s stroke. Of the Suffering Servant it says, “He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due” (Isa.53:8 (NASB)). And again, “Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (Isa.53:4). One commentary suggests that “in every other passage in which it does not occur in the special sense of leprosy, (it) points back to the generic idea of a plague divinely sent”. So strong was the connection of leprosy to sin, and because these words, which were frequently used in the special case of leprosy, were used of the Suffering Servant, some ancients implied that the Messiah became leprous. This, of course, has no scriptural warrant. Nevertheless, it identifies the strong connection of sin to leprosy and is further evidence that leprosy was accepted as the visual manifestation of the stroke of God against sin.
According to the Pentateuch, it was the duty of the priests “to distinguish between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean” (Lev.10:10-11). Since leprosy was emblematic of sin (that is, the outward and visible sign of inner spiritual corruption), the leper was ‘unclean’ as well as ill, ‘unclean’ here being associated with ‘unholy’. If he recovered, the priest would declare him ‘clean’. Being unclean/unholy, separated the leper from the Tabernacle, from the Temple, from God, and from God’s people. The Rabbis traced disease to moral causes: “no death without sin, and no pain without transgression”, so they took a mainly moral view of the disease and only secondarily a sanitary view. Because leprosy represented sin, the priest could not pronounce a recovered leper clean until atonement had been made for his soul. The ceremony included, on the first day, two clean birds, one sacrificed and one set free; and on the eighth day a trespass offering, a sin offering, a meat offering and a burnt offering.
The instructions in the Law demanded that the leper be separated from ordinary social contact, with the further requirement that he had to warn any that came near, that to touch him would render them unclean, defiled, and unholy.
Here then is the sense of the second attesting sign for God’s Deliverer – he must have mastery over leprosy, symbolising that he has the answer to sin. He must be able to cleanse the defiled and return the sinner to fellowship both with God and with the people of God. Accordingly, God said to Moses, “Now put your hand in your bosom. And he put his hand in his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, like snow. And He said, Put your hand in your bosom again. So he put his hand in his bosom again, and drew it out of his bosom, and behold, it was restored like his other flesh. Then it will be, if they do not believe you, nor heed the message of the first sign, that they may believe the message of the latter sign” (Exod.4:6-8).
It should not be overlooked that the sign involving leprosy was both positive and negative. The personal action of Moses inflicted leprosy and healed it. This suggests not only the possibility of forgiveness for sin but also punishment for sin. The examples of Miriam, Uzziah and Gehazi are pertinent here. God, through Moses, incorporated the principle suggested by this sign into the legal framework imposed on the Jewish nation. The Law was the agent to awaken the knowledge of sin. Before the Law, sin was not imputed to the sinner, but it was the introduction of the Law that made him culpable. So, if on the one hand animal sacrifices could obtain forgiveness for sin, on the other hand, failure to comply with the Law carried with it severe penalties, even capital punishment. For example, “… you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people” (Exod.31:14).
More next time
No comments:
Post a Comment