We come now to a third revelation, given, as the first was, to both Moses and Aaron, and which treats of leprosy in a house in the land. Leprosy in a man, or in a garment, could be known in the wilderness ; that in the house could only be experienced in the land, and it was a direct infliction by the hand of God :"And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession."
The priest, made acquainted with the occupant's suspicion about the house-for it was the duty of one in it to acquaint him with his fears respecting it-he was to order them to empty it ere he entered therein, that all in the house should not be made unclean.
Examining the walls, he judged if the marks were in sight lower than the wall-1:e., not mere superficial marks. If they were, he shut up the house for seven days, for it was the plague which had attacked it.
Examining it again at the expiration of that time, if the marks had spread, the plague-stricken stones were to be taken out, the whole house scraped, new stones put in the place of the diseased ones, and the whole replastered; whilst the stones removed and scrapings of the walls were all to be cast into an unclean place without the city. If the plague reappeared after that, there was nothing for it but the demolition of the whole building, and its stones, timber and mortar to be carried forth to an unclean place outside the city. Such a house was not to be suffered to remain in the land.
What care was to be exercised, and what patience! The plague really there, as evidenced on the first inspection, the priest waited to see whether or not it would spread. If it did, he tried to save the house by the removal of the diseased stones. If, however, the leprosy still worked, unsparing was the treatment to be pursued. But should the removal of some stones be sufficient to eradicate the plague, the priest offered for the cleansing of the house the same offerings as were enjoined for the leper on the first day of his cleansing. Atonement thus made for it, the house was clean, because the plague was healed. These offerings, however, were to be offered only in the case of the plague having ceased to spread after the stones had been taken out (ver. 48) and the house replastered. So it would appear that when the second examination of the house (1:e., that on the seventh day) showed that the plague had not spread since the priest had first seen it, no sacrifices were required.
The house was then in a condition analogous to that of the man in whom the leprosy had all turned white (13:13). It was clean. Such was the law.
To us, this affords instruction in type about an assembly in which evil has got a footing that requires to be dealt with; for the whole subject of leprosy in these two chapters (13:, 14:) provides us with principles applicable to the circumstances in which a Christian can be found. Is he himself leprous, the disease still at work in him ? Then putting away from the fellowship of the saints is the proper Scriptural way of dealing with him; and the assembly, certified of his state, is responsible to act as the word directs. Are his surroundings such as God's word forbids ? He must get out of them at all cost to himself. Is any local assembly known to harbor evil, and which ought to be put out ? The state of that assembly should be the common concern of all saints. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (i Cor. 5:6). If it purges itself, so that the evil ceases to work, well and good. But should the disease still work, the authors of it and those infected by it must be put away. If that does not arrest the spread of the plague, the assembly must be broken up-1:e., disowned as an assembly of God.
Do any ask for an example in Scripture of the assembly in general disowning any local assembly? We must answer at once that there is none, though we can point to Corinth as affording instruction about the whole case.
Evil leaven was among them. The apostle wrote to them about it; they dealt with it, and thus got clear of it (2 Cor. 7:ii). The visit of Titus, and his report about them, evidenced that to the apostle; so he proceeded no further. But was Paul unconcerned about it ? No. Did he take the ground that none could urge a local assembly to act ? No. And we may be quite sure that the one who could write as he did in i Cor. 5:2, 7, 13 would not have tolerated the retention among them of the evil about which he wrote. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," he writes-a very plain intimation of the character they would have borne if the evil had not been purged out. And if he insisted on their dealing with the offender, would he-could he-have held intercourse with them as an assembly of God, supposing they had refused to act ? His language evidences in what light he would have viewed them.
The Corinthians dealt with the offender as the priest did with the leper. But they did not do it till Paul, who was not locally connected with them,-his language proves that, (i Cor. 5:7, 13)-pressed on them the need of action, and pointed out what should be done; and waited (and how anxiously) to learn what they would do. In this he acted somewhat like the priest who inspected the house, and then waited a week to see if the disease was still working. As an apostle he personally could do all this, and take such ground with them about the evil in question; for he was an apostle of Christ, and apostolic power was no light thing (2 Cor. 10:i-ii, 13:2-10; i Cor. 4:21; i Tim. 1:20; 3 John 10).
But what, some may ask, is to be done now, seeing there are no apostles? John 20:21-23 supplies us with the answer. The disciples breathed on by the Lord Jesus, receiving from Him the Holy Ghost, were thereby authorized to act on earth for Him. That authority remains, and that is enough. The assembly, viewed in its general character, has power to act for Christ-to care for His glory as much as the assembly viewed in its local character. In both aspects it is the body of Christ (Eph. 4:; i Cor. 12:), and in both it is regarded as having all its members, and therefore it is competent to act. God's word gives no sanction to the thought that, whilst the local assembly must keep itself clear, the assembly in its general character has no power to deal with evil. It is surely responsible to cleanse itself as the house of God, and has authority to act for the Lord Jesus Christ.
We should also bear in mind the revelation of Lev. 14:46, 47, which tells us in what light those were regarded who went into a house after it had been shut up by the priest. They were by entrance into it made unclean, and had to wash their clothes in order to be cleansed. Would it, then, be fitting for any one not locally connected with it to have personal fellowship with an assembly in a state analogous to that of the house ? We can all answer such a question. But we must remember that till the priest examined the house and found it unclean it was not shut up. So, surely, there should be an investigation into an assembly's condition corresponding to that of the examination by the priest, were so serious a charge as that of leprosy within it could be held to be proved.-From Vol. IV., "Bible Herald." C. E. S.