The Law Of Cleansing In Respect of a Plagued House (Leviticus 14:33-53).
Dealing with plagued garments was included after the descriptions with regard to discerning of the clean and the unclean with regard to skin diseases in 13:1-46, now dealing with plagued houses is dealt with after the descriptions of the restoration of the unclean who were healed of a skin disease. In the camp He plagued their clothes, in the land He would plague their houses.
Yet we saw in the first the first indication of hope, for the diseased person. With the garments some could be restored! Was it not then so with people? And this had indeed then led on to the description of the triumphant restoration of some of the skin diseased people.
Now we see in the second that if a whole house is diseased once they have come into the land, the whole must be destroyed. But on the other hand that in some cases, with drastic treatment, it might be restored. It would depend on the severity of the plague. It thus follows that if the whole of a man's house is involved in evil, using the term in both senses of the word ‘house', hope has gone, unless full restoration and rebuilding takes place.
The restoration of Israel was regularly spoken of in terms of a rebuilding (2 Samuel 7:13; Psalms 69:35; Psalms 102:16; Isaiah 58:12; Isaiah 60:10; Isaiah 61:4; Jeremiah 24:6; Jeremiah 31:4; Jeremiah 33:7; Ezekiel 28:26; Amos 9:11; Amos 9:14), a theme continued in the New Testament. The house would have to be destroyed and rebuilt because it would become unclean.
In view of the early Genesis theme that runs through these laws on uncleanness we are probably to see in this house that was discovered to be unclean, a reminder of Cain who ‘built a city' (Leviticus 4:17). Cities always tended to be seen as ‘unclean', they were ever illustrative of rebellion against God, and the great cities were regularly used as examples of those totally depraved. If so this passage carries the message that even the plagued city can be made clean by a rooting out of uncleanness and a rebuilding under God.
But in this example there is an even deeper import. In all the previous descriptions there has been no suggestion that it was Yahweh Who had made the person or clothing diseased. But here God specifically says, ‘If I put the plague of mould in a house.' There is here thus an indication that in the end this, and all plague, comes from God. It is He Who forms the light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates catastrophe (Isaiah 45:7) which is then followed by the assurance of abundant salvation resulting in righteousness (Isaiah 45:8). But as with the curse in the Garden it is not here depicted as being directed at man, although man cannot help being involved.
Thus there is here the delicately stated reminder that behind all that happens is God. The writer had not wanted to say that every skin-diseased person had been made so by God, as though they were worse than all others, but he does want us to recognise that in fact, that, along with all else, is in the last analysis from God. Nothing can happen without it being drawn in as part of His plan, and it all happens on the basis of the principles which God has established for the running of the world. He does not shy from bringing God into the equation.
“And Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,
This message too comes to both Moses and Aaron, and is specifically from Yahweh. Firstly it contains the assurance that they will come into the land of Canaan which He will give them for a possession. This is so certain that He is already declaring what will be in that day. But it then contains the warning that when they do so come into possession of the land He will be watching over them in order to plague their houses if they are unfaithful to Him, as previously their clothes had been allowed to be plagued. Like the camp the land will be holy to God. But that means that all seen as deserving of the plague will have to be cast out.
(We note that God is not said to have plagued the clothing, but is said to have plagued the houses. Was this because God was seen as having provided the clothing for man, but man (like Cain) as having provided the houses? Because clothing was seen as ‘natural' for man, but housing was not? That housing was rather seen as being in danger of being the beginnings of man's rebellion as he gathered into cities).
“When you are come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of mould in a house of the land of your possession,”
In a way this is an astonishing statement. In the land to be given to them by God as a possession there will be plagued houses! And when this happens they are to recognise that He has done it. It is He who will have put the plague of mould into their houses. The message is that if they misuse what God gives them to possess, it will be taken away from them. Again it is not so much a case of individual sin, but of the sin of the whole (there is no suggestion of purification for sin and guilt offerings on the altar of burnt offerings). Each plagued house will be a reminder of the sin of the whole of Israel, and of what could happen to all.
Their houses would be of stone, mud-brick, timber and plaster (compare Amos 5:11) but in many cases would simply look like a small huddle; although the more wealthy had more sophisticated houses, mainly in the western quarter so as to escape the effect of the prevailing wind. Apart from the more sophisticated cities they would usually be crowded together without much planning, with the only space being the ‘square' in front of the town gates, and possibly a ‘street' running round the wall, which would also have houses built on it. The houses of the poor would comprise one room, with a small courtyard. Cooking, sleeping and storage would all occur within it, and domestic animal might be kept there. The larger houses would have a main room with surrounding small rooms.
“Then he who owns the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, There seems to me to be as it were a plague in the house.”
Once a ‘plague' is spotted in a house, whether it be mould, mildew or rot, or whatever, the owner must go to the priest, for if the house is ‘unclean' it affects the holiness of all. It is thus a bounden duty. There will be a temptation not to do so. A house was then, as now, a valued property. It could even be all that they had, and they would not be sure of the outcome. It would not be insured!.
“And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest goes in to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean, and afterwards the priest shall go in to see the house,”
The priest's first step is to command them to empty the house, for anything that is in the house once it is declared unclean, will itself be unclean. The assumption is that the plague will not really yet have taken hold. It is a merciful provision. They may lose the house, but at least not their treasured possessions.
“And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague is in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, and its appearance is lower than the wall, then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days.”
The priest will then examine the house. This may well involve the scraping off of some of the plaster to see how deep the plague has gone, which again makes us realise why the possessions in the house needed to be removed lest they be defiled. Scraped plaster goes everywhere. The plague that is to be condemned is one that produces greenish or reddish hollow streaks and has penetrated below the surface (is ‘lower than the wall'). We do not know what exactly this was, but it was clearly something very unpleasant and no doubt with equally unpleasant effects.
If the priest found it he would lock or seal the door and the house would be shut up for seven days.
“And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look, and, behold, if the plague is spread in the walls of the house, then the priest shall command that they take out the stones in which the plague is, and cast them into an unclean place outside the city,”
After seven days the priest will come to check the house again. If the plague has spread on the stones, all the affected stones are to be removed, and put in an unclean place outside the city, probably in this case a recognised rubbish dump.
We too need to examine our lives carefully, and must learn to be equally drastic with the sins that beguile us.
“And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the mortar that they scrape off, outside the city into an unclean place,”
Then he will cause all the mortar on the walls inside the house to be scraped off, and that too will be taken to the unclean place outside the city. Later in Jerusalem it would be the Valley of Hinnom.
“And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones, and he shall take other mortar, and shall plaster the house.”
After which the stones that have been taken out will be replaced with other stones, and the house will be replastered. The hope is that the plague has been got rid of by the drastic action taken. There has been a new rebuilding.
“And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after he has taken out the stones, and after he has scraped the house, and after it is plastered, then the priest shall come in and look, and, behold, if the plague is spread in the house, it is a fretting mould in the house, it is unclean. And he shall break down the house, its stones, and its timber, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.”
But if the plague comes again after this thorough treatment it is clearly a spreading plague, and the house is therefore ‘unclean'. It is unsuited to the holiness of God or of Israel. The whole of the house from top to bottom is to be pulled down, broken up and carried to the tip outside the city in an unclean place.
“Moreover he who goes into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even.”
Moreover anyone who goes into the house while it is shut up will also be unclean, but only until the evening. The aim is to stop people going into it, lest in some way they are affected by the uncleanness of the house and carry it with them.
“And he who lies in the house shall wash his clothes, and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes.”
And anyone who lies in the house or eats there is not only made unclean until the evening because they have entered the house, but must also wash their clothes. They have been affected by uncleanness, and must rid even their clothing of it. It would also be hygienically wise, but they did not know this.
“And if the priest shall come in, and look, and, behold, the plague has not spread in the house, after the house was plastered, then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed.”
But if the priest discovers on examination that his work has been successful, and that the plague has not spread after the replastering of the house, he will declare the house clean. It will mean that the plague is healed.
“And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop, and he shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water, and he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times.”
We note that for the house the ritual is only the initial part of that for the cleansing of a man or woman. There are no offerings made in the sanctuary in this case. There is no question here of guilt, or direct human sin. Nevertheless atonement has to be made demonstrating that as ever sin is lurking in the background.
The same procedure as before is carried through only this time it is the house that is sprinkled. It would seem probable that this was an ancient rite of purification.
“And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet,”
The combination of all parts of the ritual, each part being important, will successfully cleanse the house. It is now acceptable again for use by God's holy nation without defiling them.
“But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open countryside, so shall he make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.”
Here the letting go of the living bird is again an essential part of the atoning work. The bird carries away all taint of uncleanness. Thus do we see the ritual for the house as very similar for that to the healed man. This would seem to stress the connection of this plagued house with sin. The plagued man and the plagued house are seen as especially tainted by sin to such an extent that this unusual treatment is required, almost parallel to that on the Day of Atonement.
We may note in this regard that a family were always described in terms of their ‘house'. Thus it would be simple for the Israelite to make a transference of thought. The idea of the plaguing of ‘houses', signifying people, is used and described in Genesis 12:17. They could therefore see in these descriptions a hidden message that more than the stonework was in mind. They must watch their houses well, in both senses, or God would visit them with the plague.