Commentary on Leviticus 4.13

Verses 1–17. "The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: A man in whose flesh and skin there arises a different colour, or a pustule, or something like a shining spot, that is, the stroke of leprosy, shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to any one of his sons. And when he sees the leprosy in the skin, and the hairs changed to a white colour, and the appearance of the leprosy lower than the skin and the rest of the flesh, it is the stroke of leprosy, and at his judgment he shall be separated. But if there is a shining whiteness in the skin, and it is not lower than the rest of the flesh, and the hairs are of their former colour, the priest shall shut him up seven days, and shall look on the seventh day. And if the leprosy has not grown further, nor passed its former bounds in the skin, he shall shut him up again another seven days, and on the seventh day he shall look: if the leprosy is darker and has not grown in the skin, he shall cleanse him, because it is a scab; and the man shall wash his garments and be clean. But if, after he has been seen by the priest and restored to cleanness, the leprosy grows again, he shall be brought to him and condemned as unclean. If the stroke of leprosy is in a man, he shall be brought to the priest, and he shall see him. And when there is a white colour in the skin, and it has changed the look of the hairs, and living flesh itself also appears, it shall be judged a very old leprosy, grown into the skin. The priest shall pronounce him defiled, and shall not shut him up, because the uncleanness is evident. But if the leprosy breaks out, spreading in the skin, and covers all the flesh from the head to the feet, whatever falls under the sight of the eyes, the priest shall consider him and judge that he is held by a most clean leprosy, because all of it has turned to whiteness; and therefore the man shall be clean. But when living flesh appears in it, then he shall be defiled by the priest's judgment and counted among the unclean; for living flesh, if it is sprinkled with leprosy, is unclean. But if it turns again to whiteness and covers the whole man, the priest shall consider him and decree that he is clean."

Likewise according to the text of the Seventy: "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: A man in the skin of whose body there comes a scar of a mark, telaugēs ('shining') or amaura ('dim'), and there comes in the skin of his body a scar like a spot of leprosy, and he comes to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests; and the priest sees the spot in the skin of the body, and the hair in the spot has changed to white, and the appearance of the spot is lower than the skin of the body: it is a spot of leprosy; and the priest shall see, and shall pronounce him defiled. But if it is shining white in the skin of his body, and its appearance is not lower than the skin, and its hair has not changed to white hair, it is dim; and the priest shall separate the spot seven days. And the priest shall see on the seventh day, and behold, the spot remains before him, the spot has not spread in the skin; and the priest shall separate him a second seven days. And the priest shall see on the seventh day a second time, and behold, the dim spot of leprosy has not spread in the skin; and the priest shall cleanse him, for it is a mark; and having washed his garments he shall be clean. But if the mark, changed, has spread in the skin after the priest has seen him to cleanse him, and he is seen a second time by the priest, and the priest sees, and behold, the mark has spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him defiled: it is leprosy. And if a spot of leprosy comes to Aaron the priest, and the priest sees, and behold, a white scar in the skin, and it has changed the hair to white, from the soundness of the living flesh: if it is a scar, it is an old leprosy in the skin of his body. And the priest shall pronounce him defiled and shall separate him, for he is unclean. But if leprosy blossoms out in the skin, and covers all the skin of the spot from head to feet, to the whole sight of the priest, and the priest sees, and behold, the leprosy has covered all the skin of the body: then the priest shall cleanse him of the spot, because it has all changed to white; he is clean. And on whatever day living flesh appears in him, he shall pronounce him defiled. And the priest shall see the sound flesh: he is unclean; it is leprosy. But if the sound flesh is restored and changed to white, and he comes to the priest, and the priest sees him, and behold, his spot has changed to white, the priest shall cleanse the spot, and he shall be clean."

The law is deep, as you see, and stands in need not only of many words but of a careful interpretation altogether. Yet the reading has not brought the whole of it before us; rather, as the hearer receives it, he infers how much they contain and the rest of the truth, and gathers his mind to himself. For these are not small matters to be learned at random, but matters whose knowledge must be awaited from God, who begrudges no one the knowledge of any of them and has no need of what is asked. For James, who was called the brother of the Lord, says that this belongs to him who gives freely. Trusting in him, then, and at the same time in ourselves, for he will give grace in what is to be said, let us begin the interpretation.

For the passage shows that the man leprous in part is the Jewish people, as a transgressor of the law in part, and that is why the priest drives him out as unclean; but the man leprous in his whole body is the Gentile, who transgresses the whole law; and yet the priest judges him clean, because he was not subject to the yoke of the law. But first, I think, we ought to run through the exposition of the letter. For in that way we shall find the spiritual understanding offering itself of its own accord, since the letter fails as to the reasons and cannot set out its sense to the end, as we recognize in the present case.

But first let us attend to who it is that gives the law, and to whom he gives it. "The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron." When God speaks, faithful hearing is twofold, as David the prophet says: "God has spoken once; these two things I have heard," namely the letter and the spirit. So he speaks the spirit to Moses, as the higher, and the letter to Aaron, as the subordinate; for Moses was lofty, and therefore worthy of the spirit, while Aaron was subordinate and suited to the hearing of the people, which needed the letter, as God himself says to Moses concerning Aaron: "He shall speak to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be to him in the things that pertain to God." So what was lofty in the law was spoken to Moses, for he had the things that pertain to God, that is, the things of the spirit; and what was subordinate and humbler was spoken to Aaron, for he was Moses' mouth to the people, which received the law according to the letter, which we too promised to expound first.

One kind of leprosy, then, is either very or moderately obscure, somehow shadowed, and meanwhile hidden under the skin, the affliction not yet breaking out, and therefore it needs much deliberation. Another kind of it is very clear and quite evident, so that the recognition of it is simple and open. Of these, the Seventy, according to whom almost the whole sense here is expounded according to the letter, rightly called the first kind a "scar of a mark," that is, a scar signifying the affliction. And they divided it into two parts, that is, the very doubtful and the less doubtful, calling one telaugēs and the other amaura: telaugēs, because it is seen from afar; amaura, because it is very obscure and gives little hint of the affliction. And this doubtful kind needs close examination, as those who examine precious stones … . Therefore he frequently commands the priest to consider, and not to trust the first appearances that present themselves at the first test. And if on consideration the scar does not yet appear lower than the skin, and the hair in the place has not been changed and made white by the affliction, he is nevertheless to be separated seven days for a further consideration, and again another seven days; for perhaps, as the affliction breaks out over time, the disease is made more evident. But if the scar remains dim and no change has taken place in the skin, he called it a "mark" and not manifest leprosy; he did not add "leprosy" to "mark," keeping … for those who receive the law according to the spirit and who can reveal what is less or more hidden and add it to the contemplative interpretations of the spirit. Yet they did not show the mark to be altogether harmless; for how would the priest have been cleansing him, that is, declaring him clean, if he needed nothing of the kind, being wholly free? That is why he called it dim; and again, had it been evil, it would not have been placed among clean things after judgment; it was the mark of some affliction.

"But if the mark, being so, spreads in the skin," that is, if it has spread and advanced wider in the skin than before, and the hair has not changed (for he does not find fault with this here), the priest pronounces him defiled, judging the affliction to be leprosy, though the knowledge of it is doubtful, the scar being dim. But when the scar is white and puts forth hair like the skin, the priest pronounces him defiled at once and commands him to be cast out as unclean, even if part of the scar is sound and has living flesh, that is, not under the affliction of leprosy. And for what reason? "Because," he says, "it is an old leprosy." This is astonishing, and brings upon the legal letter a charge of great unskilfulness, or rather a reproach. For from where he ought to have judged the affliction curable, that is, from the living body and living flesh, from there he rather despairs of it, and God calls it an old leprosy, that is, incurable, long-standing, and as it were grown old in the place of the affliction. On this matter again you will find what follows more obscure: that he wills the priest to judge that the man who is leprous in his whole body, covered with the disease from the feet to the head, is held by a clean leprosy. But if living flesh is ever seen in him, the priest revokes his judgment and pronounces him defiled. And if it has changed again to white, and the whole skin has passed over to the affliction of leprosy, the priest, who is commanded to judge, cleanses him.

And if these things too are rightly said, though no one says so, what answer shall we find to this other objection? The leper is punished not for a voluntary affliction but for one he endures unwillingly; and though he deserved help for his weakness, he lacks it and is subjected to a new penalty. If he had been able to resist, the weakness would never have prevailed over him. And the law blames nature, to which it judges the trouble that befalls to belong, and not the intention of his will. For what could he have done not to fall into this disease? But someone says that this affliction is the vengeance or penalty for sin, and puts forward first Miriam, then Uzziah: she disparaged her brother, and he, though he was a king, presumed to offer incense in the holy place, which was permitted only to the priests; and so, God not delaying their punishment, they were made lepers. Then the law ought to have said this openly, to excuse the lawgiver against those who think he legislates unjustly about lepers; and not only about lepers, but also about those who have injured eyes or hearing or the other senses, and about other sick people and paralytics …. This is clear from the fact that the disciples, seeing the man blind from birth, asked the Lord, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Do not give me back Christ's answer; I know it, but I am asking what many people think about the afflictions that befall us. And the Lord himself, wishing to raise up the paralytic, said, "Your sins are forgiven you." So, as hateful to God, these too ought to have been driven out of the tabernacle; and the injustice would be thought light if others shared the injustice together. And if you say that in these afflictions sins are certainly punished, since he also bars from the tabernacle the man who suffers a flow of seed and the woman who suffers a flow of blood, you speak the truth; but this is not so much an answer as another charge against the writer, who condemns the necessities of nature which he ought to have defended, lest he wrong the Maker by charges about natural things. Therefore we need the contemplation of the law and the spiritual interpretation of its vice, and we must set the eye of the mind before the eye of the flesh, so as to use the one for understanding what is enacted and the other for reading.

Let the letter of the law, then, be set out again. "The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: A man in whose flesh and skin there arises a different colour, or a pustule, or something like a shining spot, that is, the stroke of leprosy, shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to any one of his sons. And when he sees the leprosy in the skin, and the hairs changed to a white colour, and the appearance of the leprosy lower than the skin and the rest of the flesh, it is the stroke of leprosy, and at his judgment he shall be separated." Divine Scripture calls "man," simply or in general, him who keeps the image of God and the dignity of our nature. That is why you hear the Wise Man saying in Proverbs, "Man is a great thing, and a merciful man precious." But the Lord, in the parables, portrays a sinful man as a badly struck coin, saying "a certain man": "The land of a certain rich man brought forth plentiful fruits, and he thought within himself, saying: What shall I do, since I have nowhere to gather my fruits? And he said: This I will do: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will gather all that has grown for me and my goods, and I will say to my soul: Soul, you have many goods laid up for very many years; rest, eat, drink, be merry." And again: "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who stripped him, inflicted blows, and went away, leaving him half dead." In both he takes on the person of a sinner. What is contained in the story of Job will be no obstacle to us: for when he says, according to the Seventy, "There was a certain man in the land of Ausitis," he added at once, "whose name was Job"; by the addition of the name he did not leave the man described unmarked.

By the name "skin" or "hide" sometimes each man's flesh is meant, and sometimes his kindred. That is why in the book of Job it is said, in the person of the devil, the deceiver, about what then befell that bravest of men, when he destroyed his sons and daughters with the rest of his substance, heaping the house upon them in place of a burial: "Skin for skin, and all that a man has he will give for his life"; that is, he has lost the skin of his kindred through his children, but it is enough for him that the skin of his flesh is safe and in no way corrupted. That is why he added: "But put forth your hand and touch his bones and his flesh, and then you will see whether he does not bless you to your face."

What our edition has, "A man in whose flesh and skin there arises a different colour, or a pustule, or something like a shining spot, that is, the stroke of leprosy," the Seventy translated, "A man in the skin of whose body there comes a scar of a mark, appearing." The scar of a mark signifies sin, making plain from what appears what is hidden and the lurking vice of the soul. And then he called this scar now telaugēs and now amaura: because the very motions of the soul declare that this sin is open, without any judgment needed; while that sin requires … beyond what one sees of the sinner's gain, and the consideration of the judge as to what it is, whether true or false. If, then, as the Seventy cited above give it, a scar of a mark comes upon the sinner in the skin of the body, that is, sin in the flesh, which signifies that the soul too suffers with the body, and this is either telaugēs or amaura, that is, either very manifest or needing the examiner's …, it will be held as a spot of leprosy. And by leprosy we understand the transgression of the law. For just as the leper, though he is all sound, being made leprous in some part, is not helped at all by the health of the body that has not become leprous, but is removed from the tabernacle as unclean, so he who transgresses the precepts of the law in some part is not helped at all by keeping the rest; for "whoever keeps the whole law but sins in one point has become guilty of all." Such a man is brought to Aaron the priest, or to any one of his sons. And the sons of the priest are his sons according to the spirit, from whom they also have the dignity of the priesthood. And these are the ones in whom philosophy is perfected and full, so that they can both learn sublime things and judge the motions of the soul …. But how do they judge? They see the leprosy

in the skin, and its hair, whether it has been changed to white, and the very appearance of the leprosy lower than the skin and the rest of the flesh. By the hairs he signifies the thoughts with which the soul is adorned and the mind is clothed, since it brings forth these thoughts itself; for the head too produces hairs for itself and is adorned and covered by them. That is why the hairs of our head are said to be numbered, that is, the thoughts of the mind; for the mind is called the head, because it is the ruling part of the soul. And why are they numbered? Without doubt he means that through them the judge will judge a man, that is, as they accuse or excuse him, as Paul says: "at the time when the hidden things of men shall be judged." Therefore we understand why iron did not come upon the head of the Nazirite, though it was applied to others without fault: for those who have superfluous hairs, to be shorn not only does no harm but is a gain; but for those who have none superfluous, the removal of the hair is a loss, because it strips them of natural beauty. So those who have superfluous thoughts out of season do well to be shorn of them, in the manner of a tonsure, by a change of counsels or of all the fancies that befall them. But in the Nazirite there are none, for he is wholly holy. That is why iron does not come upon his head, since he uses good counsel and has the necessary hairs of thought and not superfluous ones, of which he cuts off none, since he handles nothing worse and changes nothing.

If, then, the man of whom we are now speaking has changed the hair to white, turning his thought to a shameless state and to the manifest condition of sin, and the very appearance of the leprosy is lower than the flesh and the rest of the skin (for this the priest considers: if he sees that great weakness has appeared and natural strength has failed, which is the appearance of leprosy lower than the skin or the rest of the flesh), the priest rightly separates him and judges him unclean, as one languishing from his own intention and will. For one who changes the hair indicates plainly that he is weak and therefore lower than himself, and so he rightly does not deserve pardon. For to be outdone by Abraham, or by another who is greater, is bearable, whether in the habit of virtue or the power … that is granted, or in the good we have received from God to do; of such habits Paul seems to me to hint when he says, "To each as the Lord has distributed, each as God has called." But when anyone becomes worse than himself, it is unbearable.

"But if there is a shining whiteness in the skin, and it is not lower than the rest of the flesh, and the hair is of its former colour, the priest shall shut him up seven days, and shall see and consider on the seventh day. And if the leprosy has not grown further, nor passed its former bounds in the skin, he shall shut him up again another seven days, and on the seventh day he shall look. If the leprosy is darker and has not grown in the skin, he shall cleanse him, because it is a scab; and the man shall wash his garments and be clean. But if, after he has been seen by the priest and restored to cleanness, the leprosy grows again, he shall be brought to him and condemned as unclean." Behold in this the very great clemency of the lawgiver, worthy of God; for he was the giver of the law who leads the letter to such a contemplation of the law …. But what does this letter mean? If there is a shining whiteness in the skin, and it is not lower than the rest of the flesh, and the hair is of its former colour, the priest judges him clean and free of all suspicion. Although it is clear that sin had come under suspicion, yet the mind that offended, which without doubt is signified by the "appearance" in the tradition of the Seventy, has not become lower than the rest of the flesh, that is, than itself, nor weaker than the habit it had obtained; nor has the sin that came upon it changed the heart and made it given over to the delights of sins. For this is what is meant by the whiteness not seeming lower than the rest of the flesh and the hairs being of their former colour. But if it has a darker appearance, as the Seventy give it, which we said is the mind (for it is still dim and doubtful on account of the offence once committed), he did not command that the man be removed then; but the priest removes him from the tabernacle as one who has sinned, for seven days and as many again, for the sake both of testing and of amendment, and restores him to cleanness. After this, if on looking twice he finds the spot darker and not growing in the skin (for if the sin had grown, it would have passed, increased, into the rest of the flesh, and being spread over the flesh would have shown to be unclean the man who goes from bad to worse), the man has not grown, but the appearance or form has remained the same, darker. For what is darker than iniquity? By it our eyes grow dim, so that we are allowed to look clearly neither at God nor at what is expedient for us. Or, if you call the darker appearance a suspicion of sin that is doubtful and uncertain to some, that is, whether it is sin or not, this too needs the priest, as one who knows how to restore cleanness. And he, declaring it a simpler and slight matter, washes the garments with water, namely of baptism or of repentance; for the tear of repentance is an effective water, which … calls the remnants of baptism. Since this is how matters stand, the Seventy therefore rendered it "a mark of the affliction," because it partly disclosed what is hidden and did not allow it to lie concealed altogether, but appointed the priest in the place of a physician …. … such a sin: do not hide the evil from the true priest, even if it is doubtful and uncertain to others, but show it and disclose it. For for the days during which the priest separates you from the tabernacle of the holy things, he will receive you again, in the proper way, once you have first washed the garments of the flesh, as the lawgiver says. But see that, having received pardon, you keep it and do not defile it after once washing the tunic of the flesh. For if even after this a mark of the affliction falls upon the skin, or, according to our edition, has grown, and he has fallen back again from the better part to sin and been changed, the priest will see, and finding him at once inclining to worse things, will condemn him as unclean. The Seventy follow and say: "for it is leprosy." For the soul of such a man, turning aside to profane pleasures, plainly becomes leprous.

That is why Paul too removed from the tabernacle of the holy things the man who committed sexual immorality at Corinth, because his was a mark of the affliction, for it was manifest and not hidden, and commanded that he be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. And when he looked at the affliction a second time and saw that it had not grown, but that the man who had suffered it had washed the garment of the flesh with tears of repentance, he ordered him to be received at once. You recognize these things in the apostle's own words; for of the man who committed sexual immorality he wrote to the Corinthians: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife." There you have heard the mark: the affliction was manifest, so that it reached Paul's hearing; that is why he commanded him to be cast out of the tabernacle. For so he says that such a one is to be handed over "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh," and again, "Remove the evil from among you." And because he saw the garment of the flesh cleansed by power, he ordered him to be received again. And how is this certain? "I beseech you," he says, "confirm your love toward him, lest perhaps he be swallowed up by excessive sorrow." Because such a man …: it was clear, then, that he had repented, and as one caught in sin was greatly afflicted; and lest meanwhile he suffer something from excessive sorrow, or the sinner fall into despair, Paul anticipated it and commanded that one who had now been restored to cleanness be received.

Why the priest separates the man brought to him from the tabernacle for seven days not once but twice, the studious ought to inquire and know. This was commanded in the law to be done a second time to show that he must be examined not carelessly but carefully, and that, after a double test, judgment should be passed on him more strictly. The sin was clear to the priest; but when he suspected that the mind consented to the affliction, and yet did not know it plainly, he necessarily examined him again. For the mind is invisible and hard to examine. So the Lord asks Peter's mind after the denial not once but three times, not as one who did not know (Peter himself plainly proves this in his answers, which he referred openly to one who knew and was ignorant of nothing), but as searching out the disposition of his mind; for he said, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" He wished to teach us how to search out and how to judge: namely by frequent inquiry. And he did not set seven days in vain, but honoured the number necessary to the present purpose; for in it every bond and every obligation under the law ceased. For in seven years the servitude of the Hebrews was released; and at the jubilee, which consisted of seven weeks of years, the remission of all debts was granted to the Jews, and all their land, freed from the creditor who held it, returned to its former owner. And we know that the Babylonian captivity of the people was ended, and Jerusalem restored, in the seventieth year. That is why Peter inquires of the Lord, saying, "If my brother sins against me, how often shall I forgive him? Up to seven times?" And he answered, "I do not say to you up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven." Rebuking the smallness of the question, he says, "I do not say to you seven times," and adds, "but up to seventy times seven." So even then he does not depart from the same number, but multiplying it, he multiplies the remission with it.

And if anyone asks again why he set this number in the chapters mentioned, we will indicate a brief reason, for time does not allow delays while we press on to other necessary matters. The number seven is believed to hold the fullness of the whole present life, which revolves within seven days; when it is completed, every bond and every sin of the world rightly ceases, and every servitude. That is why in the divine Scriptures the seventh is called rest, as Paul too says of Moses: "For he has said somewhere of the seventh day: And God rested from all his works"; and a little after he added, "For whoever has entered his rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from his." And Ecclesiastes says, "Give a portion to seven, and also to eight," commanding that we take forethought for the present age and for the age to come, so that we may live in the present age as those who await the future. And so much for this; but what follows must be discussed with greater care.

Verses 9–11. "If the stroke of leprosy is in a man, he shall be brought to the priest, and he shall see him. And when there is a white colour in the skin, and it has changed the look of the hairs, and living flesh itself also appears, it shall be judged a very old leprosy, grown into the skin. The priest shall therefore pronounce him defiled, and shall not shut him up, because the uncleanness is evident." Do not think that the lawgiver is, as it were, superfluous, repeating the same things in this one book; … the memory, by frequent meditation on the law. For the lawgiver appears to add here again things about which he has already explained plainly and sufficiently above; but it is not so, for though it is close in words, it has a very different and distinct intention. For here he speaks not simply of any sin whatever, but of manifest transgression of the legal letter; that is why he called the affliction itself the "stroke of leprosy." We are not unaware that we said leprosy is the transgression of the law, because it does harm even when it is partial, like leprosy, though it seize only a small part of the body. And which law did he consider his own? Not that about envy and adultery, rapacity and avarice, and honouring parents, for the Gentiles had a like law; but that which enacted about sacrifices and purifications, "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," and that which commands the flesh to be circumcised. For these were its own, having no fellowship with the Gentiles. If, then, the stroke of this leprosy has arisen in a man, and the priest seeing him perceives a white colour in the skin, that is, a manifest and open transgression of that letter, committed willingly and of purpose (for we said above that this is what it means for the look of the hairs to be changed to white, namely for the mind to pass openly into some transgression); and the appearance itself has living flesh, that is, a man who, though he transgresses in one thing, defends the law in others. He would call it sound flesh in vain, were it not that blessed Paul too seems to have called it so; for he says: "ordinances of the flesh imposed until the time of reformation." "It shall be judged a very old leprosy": for he grows old in sin and is corrupted, because he has a continual battle and quarrel within himself, despising the law in some things and defending it in others. That is why the priest pronounces him defiled and does not shut him up, or, as the Seventy have it, separates him, "because the uncleanness is evident." For how is he not abominable and unclean who dishonours the law which he himself, by keeping it in part, confirms to be necessary to him? But since these things become plainer and very evident in what follows, let us go on to that now, as the order compels.

Verses 12–17. "But if the leprosy breaks out, spreading in the skin, and covers all the skin from the head to the feet, and whatever falls under the sight of the eyes, the priest shall consider him and judge that he is held by a most clean leprosy, because all of it has turned to whiteness; and therefore the man shall be clean. But when living flesh appears in him, then he shall be defiled by the priest's judgment and counted among the unclean; for living flesh, if it is sprinkled with leprosy, is unclean. But if it turns again to whiteness and covers the whole man, the priest shall consider him and decree that he is clean." … exposition: what follows and what goes before run together for the interpretation. That is why James said: "No prophecy of Scripture comes by private interpretation"; for each is best explained from what follows. We have learned that leprosy in the skin is the transgression of the legal letter. And he said well "in the skin," because the transgression of the circumcision of the Sabbaths, or of the purifications enacted by the law, does not bring injury to the soul; for the letter of the law restrains the outward man. If, then, this leprosy covers all the skin, from the head to the feet, and whatever falls under the sight of the priest's eyes, he decrees him clean. For if anyone departs from the whole keeping of the letter of the law, and practises the works neither of circumcision nor of the distinction of foods, nor the keeping of Sabbaths, nor of pollutions, or sacrifices, or any other such things, but departs from all the legal elements, and from the head to the feet, that is, from the first to the last of these commandments, has run to better and more perfect things, and has done this in the sight of the priest, that is, of Christ, so that he, seeing the transgression of imperfect things, receives him, he will judge him to be held by a most clean leprosy, because all of it has turned to whiteness; that is, this man has transferred himself to brightness, to the gospel way of life, as you have just heard: "Let your light shine before men," and again, "Let us walk honestly as in the day." That is why they are named sons of light, not of night or of darkness.

"But if living flesh appears in it": that is, a Jewish commandment; for those sayings are thought "living" not for the sake of those who received them but of those who gave them, and yet rather for the sake of those who received them too, if what was given is kept in that manner. It is necessary that one who practises neither these things nor those from which he has departed be defiled. But let us bring proof of both. That the legal commandments of the Jews are called living, let us hear Stephen saying to the Jews of Moses: "This is he who was in the church in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received living words to give to us." See, he called the ordinances of the law "living words." And what did he add? "To whom our fathers would not be obedient." And indeed they obeyed as far as the face of the visible letter goes; but he said they did not obey: they did not obey the mind and intention of the lawgiver, but only the letters. And that one who has departed from the servitude of the law and afterwards does something of the law is subject to the priest's reproof and counted among the unclean, Paul teaches, instructing the Galatians: "Behold, I Paul say to you: If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing"; and again, "You observe days and months and years; I fear lest perhaps …"; "you who are justified by the law have fallen from grace." Of the Jewish traditions too he says: "For if I build again the things I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." "But if the colour … recedes and is changed to white" (for this is what is "living," and it is called sound according to the opinion of the Jews and the legal understanding, not according to …), that is, into the church's way of life, he will come to the priest, Christ, and he decrees him clean, granting pardon for the first … in the same way as the man wholly leprous is made clean according to the law out of what is thought a multitude of uncleanness. So also the people from the Gentiles, in the multitude and completeness of its transgression of the legal letter, is made clean through the law itself, which seeks not the letter but the spiritual understanding of the commandment.

Verses 18–23. "Flesh and skin in which an ulcer has arisen and been healed, and in the place of the ulcer a white or reddish scar has appeared: the man shall be brought to the priest. And when he sees the place of the leprosy lower than the rest of the flesh, and the hairs turned to whiteness, he shall pronounce him defiled; for the stroke of leprosy has arisen in the ulcer. But if the hair is of its former colour, and the scar somewhat dark, and the neighbouring flesh is not lower, he shall shut him up seven days; and if it has grown, he shall judge him leprous. But if it has stood in its place, it is the scar of an ulcer, and the man shall be clean."

Blessed is continual meditation on the law and converse with it, and to have always in hand the treasure from which the riches of the knowledge of God come forth. So let us too search out with all diligence the things that now lie hidden in the letter. The ulcer that has arisen and been healed is sin cured by repentance. For what so wounds the soul and fills it with stains as sin? Hence David also said: "My scars have festered and grown worse because of my foolishness." And what in turn cures the wound of the soul? Repentance carried through in the right way. The place of this wound is the act and the design around which the sin was committed: as for David the place of the ulcer was the desire of the body, for through it he committed both adultery with Bathsheba and the crime of murder against Uriah; for Ahab, covetousness, through which he fell into love of Naboth's vineyard; for Judas, avarice, for this gave the design of the betrayal; for Paul, zeal through ignorance, overcome by which he persecuted Jesus. "In the place of the ulcer a white scar": that is, shining and so manifest that it is seen even from afar, that is, the presumption of sinning that comes from sin, according to which one, because he once committed adultery, is called an adulterer, another a persecutor because of persecution, another a robber because of robbery, even if he has already withdrawn from such deeds. Do we not, after many generations, call Rahab by the name of harlot, and her who brought ointment to the Lord, though both had held back from sexual immorality? But why, when he had called it an ulcer, did he nevertheless say that it becomes white or red? Because he called white what comes from the wound of the transgression of the law, calling the law white; for it had not been warmed by the Sun of righteousness, and therefore it was not red. So what comes from the transgression of the gospel is more plainly called red. Yet both are in Christ, of whom it is said by the church in the Song of Songs, "My kinsman is white and ruddy." He himself was first circumcised according to the law, and offered for the cleansing …; for he himself is the law, he himself the Gospel; he himself, bearing …, later living in the gospel way, did away with the baptisms of the Jews, the keeping of the Sabbath, and the temporal purifications.

"But what," you say, "is the transgression of the law?" One that pertains to Christ himself and his mystery, that is, the eating of what is sacrificed to idols, of all blood, and of what is strangled. For though these are legal precepts, the apostles nevertheless commanded the church to keep them, as James shows when he says: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these, to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality." And the gospel one is that which, though it was not according to the law, says: "Whoever says to his brother, Fool, shall be liable to judgment," and, "Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." If, then, when the white has been healed and the sin cured by repentance, a white or red ulcer is seen in the place of the ulcer, that is, in the region of the sin, and some following of the aforesaid sin, of the gospel or of the law, has been found in the sinner, he necessarily comes to this judgment of the priest. "And if he sees the place of the leprosy lower than the rest of the flesh": that is, the mind made lower than itself and the disposition plainly changed toward wickedness (for this is what it means for the hairs to turn to whiteness), the priest shall pronounce him defiled. For he has once come into the habit of sin, and the soul's evil feeding has settled on him through the ulcer; hence the lawgiver called it leprosy from a wound, and the affliction blossoming. "But if the hair is of its former colour, and the scar somewhat dark": that is, the look of a penitent. Then he commanded him to be shut up seven days; because he had come altogether under such a suspicion, he wished to set a time for the suspicion. "And if it has grown," and the evil boasting has multiplied, "he shall judge him leprous." By leprosy he means the uncleanness of the soul, which has grown or blossomed, multiplied by later actions. "But if" it has not multiplied "but has stood in its place" (for he is found to have sinned in nothing more than this one sin which all knew, and of which he did penance), the priest judges him clean. For the scar shows that he suffered the wound, not that he still suffers it.

But let us use these examples for a precise proof of what has been said. Pilate sinned against the Lord, finding in him no cause of death and yet condemning him; but the ulcer of this sin was healed when he washed his hands and said, "I am clean of the blood of this righteous man." But he did not persevere, since he afterwards scourged Christ; and so afterwards he had a greater and worse scar of sin. And rightly the priest, namely Christ, pronounced him defiled when he said to him, "Therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." For in calling Judas more cruel, he did not leave Pilate either free from sin. Paul too sinned; but when the ulcer had been healed through his calling, he so healed the scar of sin that he himself called himself a persecutor; for he says, "I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God"; and it did not spread afterwards. Therefore the heavenly priest, seeing him, judges him clean, when Ananias hesitated and was unwilling to go to him, as to a persecutor and unclean man, and he said: "Go, for he is a chosen vessel to me, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel."

Verses 24–28. "Flesh and skin which fire has burned, and which, when healed, has a white or reddish scar: the priest shall consider it. And behold, if it has turned to whiteness, and its place is lower than the rest of the skin, he shall pronounce him defiled, because the stroke of leprosy has arisen in the scar. But if the colour of the hairs has not been changed, and the stroke is not lower than the rest of the flesh, and the appearance of the leprosy itself is somewhat dark, he shall shut him up seven days, and on the seventh day he shall look. If the leprosy has grown in the skin, he shall pronounce him defiled; but if the whiteness has stood in its place, not very bright, it is the stroke of a burn; and therefore he shall be cleansed, because it is the scar of a burn."

To some the lawgiver seems to speak of the same things, but it is not so; for in one respect he says the same things, and in another he differs: he sets forth a different affliction, yet adds the same judgment of the affliction. Above he spoke of some ulcer that comes upon one, which is produced and advances from sickness of the body; for Holy Scripture is accustomed to call these ulcers. But those from iron or stones or some other blow it calls strokes and wounds. That is why it says of Lazarus, "The dogs came and licked his ulcers"; for those wounds were of clean flesh, corrupted by hunger and disease. But of the man who went down to Jericho and fell among robbers it says, "Inflicting strokes on him, they went away"; then a little later it commanded the Samaritan to bind up these strokes as wounds. The divine Spirit himself shows through the Scriptures the plain difference between an ulcer and a wound or stroke. What, then, truly is the ulcer of our neglected flesh, if not the pleasure of bodies, drunkenness and gluttony, which arise when the body runs riot and leaps up in itself? And the fire is greater envy, a hidden fire, consuming little by little the one who has it. That is why Isaiah says, "Zeal will seize an untaught people, and now fire will consume the adversaries." By "the zeal of the unskilled" he meant envy that is jealous, not so as to imitate virtues but so as to hinder them and destroy the one who practises them. If, then, a burning befalls some man, that is, a sinner, from envy, and he has been healed by repentance, the priest examines the scar, lest perhaps after repentance he fall back into the affliction. And if he finds that he has returned, he pronounces him defiled, rightly judging him unclean. For "the earth that drinks the rain that often comes upon it, and brings forth herbs useful to those by whom it is tilled, receives a blessing from the Lord; but that which bears thorns and thistles is rejected and near to a curse, whose end is in burning," as Paul says. But if envy is not found to have returned to its wickedness, and he does not have, from later action, a hidden ulcer spread through the former sin, the priest judges him clean, as one once cleansed through repentance. And he discerns this by attending to the hair, whether it has changed to white, and whether the place is lower than the skin. All of this we have interpreted most fully above; so brevity must be used here, that we may run on to other things.

Verses 29–34. "A man or a woman on whose head or beard leprosy has sprung up: the priest shall see them; and if the place is lower than the rest of the flesh, and the hair yellow and thinner than usual, he shall pronounce them defiled, because it is leprosy of the head and beard. But if he sees the place of the spot like the neighbouring flesh, and the hair black, he shall shut him up seven days, and on the seventh day he shall look. If the spot has not grown, and the hair is of its own colour, and the place of the stroke equal to the rest of the flesh, the man shall be shaved, except the place of the spot, and shall be shut up another seven days. If on the seventh day the stroke is seen to have stood in its place, and not lower than the rest of the flesh, he shall cleanse him; and when his garments are washed he shall be clean."

The law gave this commandment not about any matters at random but about necessary ones. For it pertained not only to actions but also to the divine doctrines to come. So it speaks altogether fittingly, taking diligent care first of strictness of life, and then of the things that pertain to doctrine. And it lays down the law no longer for some man in particular; but what does it say? "A man or a woman," distinguishing more plainly what "man" ought to be understood to mean. And why did it need this explanation here? So that a woman who sins in doctrine should not be pardoned because she is thought weak. It calls this sin leprosy in the head and in the beard because these are the more precious parts of our body; and by this it shows that impiety in doctrines arises not about any matters whatever but about very necessary ones, without which a man cannot subsist, as he cannot without a head. That is why David too, wishing to show that brotherly love is the highest of all the commandments, compared it to ointment running down from the head onto the beard; for he says: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell in unity: like the ointment on the head, which runs down onto the beard, the beard of Aaron." When, then, it happens that anyone errs about the Godhead, he has a spot of leprosy in the beard and in the head. Let the priest examine him, and if he sees the place lower than the rest of the flesh, and a more wretched presumption arising from blasphemy … . And how is this? "If the hair is yellow and thinner than usual": that is, if, though not greatly, he has yet bent his mind a little toward blasphemy; for this is what it shows for the hair to be thin, and not to blossom but to yellow. "The priest shall pronounce them defiled." Why? "Because it is leprosy of the head and beard," or, as the Seventy give it, a wound. For, wounded and bruised by the devil, he has come to such impiety, since it often happens that someone speaks impious things against his will. "If he sees the place of the spot equal to the neighbouring flesh, and the hair black": so that the wound inflicted on the soul by the devil's working, that is, the impiety of doctrines, does not spread. "The priest shall shut them up seven days": not so much as a penalty as for the sake of a strict testing; for time must be considered in all, but more strictly in those whose tongue is free about the Godhead.

Then how does he judge after the shutting up? Admirable is the strictness he keeps against those who act impiously in doctrines. "If the spot," namely the impiety, "has not grown, and the hair is of its own colour," that is, there is no yellow hair in it, since the thought cannot be known for its dealings, whether he acted impiously willingly or unwillingly, then he commands the man to be shaved except the place of the spot. Plainly, then, he commanded such words to be shaved and corrected, if perhaps it could be grasped from them whether he spoke impious things about God by surprise, as often happens, or with ill will. But he did not command the old wound to be shaved, because the word in which one offends need no longer be judged once he who sinned has denied it. For who [would hold] guilty of sin one who denies that he uttered willingly what he confessed with his tongue? And when, judging him in this way, he has not found that the spot has grown, nor seen impiety spread in him, since by blaspheming he has altogether defiled the robe of baptism, he rightly commanded him to wash his garments by repentance, and then he will be clean; for all impiety is cleansed by clean repentance. Yet if this man, cleansed in the way described, speaks impious things again, the priest will not examine the yellow hair; it is not asked, he says, in what spirit he spoke impious things, but because he has fallen back into things he repented of, he rightly judges him unclean. "If the hair is not black": that is, if he does not appear to be mourning his impiety, and mourning not only in dress but in mind and thoughts; for to remain black is the mark of mourners. And since it is the inner man of the sinner, which the thoughts cover, that must mourn, he rightly signified his repentance by the black hair. That is why the church of God, loving service, is adorned in the mourning robe of repentance, and therefore says that she is beautiful because she is black, as it is written: "I am black but beautiful, daughter of Jerusalem"; that is, because in repenting I have put on the robe of mourning. So the priest cleanses one who does penance as often as he sees this happen to him. Having spoken sufficiently of impieties committed against God, whether from will or from ignorance, he turns his discourse to other, more moderate wounds.

Verses 38–39. "A man and a woman in whose skin whiteness appears: the priest shall look at them; if he finds a somewhat dark whiteness shining in the skin, let him know that it is not leprosy but a spot of white colour, and the man is clean."

Now let us too, like David, eager in the knowledge of the law, say with him: "He has not dealt so with every nation, and he has not shown them his judgments." Having used the greatest strictness above about the divine doctrines and those who transgress them, now, since he has finished speaking of them, he rightly lays aside the austerity of his strictness and speaks of the doctrines that are according to the Jewish law, and he said that the faults in it are a somewhat dark and shining whiteness. As, then, we said that the white scar is the transgression of the legal letter, so let us understand that ignorance of it is called a somewhat dark and shining whiteness. Not, however, ignorance of everything it says, nor of the things it has in common with the natural law or the gospel precepts; for ignorance of "You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal" is pardoned to no one; but ignorance of certain particular and small commandments, such as when a menstruating woman must be cleansed, when an offering must be made for one who bears a male, and when for one who bears a female. That is why he called them a somewhat dark whiteness, as small scars, the man now having a small ignorance of the precepts. One who is such does not need to be cleansed; for these were given not for the justification of the Jews but so that their yoke might be made heavier. That is why God also said through the prophet: "I gave them precepts that were not good, and judgments by which they shall not live."

Verses 40–44. "A man from whose head the hairs fall out is bald and clean. And if the hairs fall from the forehead, he is bald in front and clean. But if in the baldness, or in the front baldness, a white or red colour has arisen, and the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him defiled: without doubt it is leprosy that has arisen in it." We must remember that we have understood the hairs as thoughts: for they adorn the head and

cover it, as the thoughts do the mind. But let us not bring disordered thoughts into the discussion, since disorder of the hair too shows ugliness instead of adornment. Moreover, just as some hairs fall out and others grow again and never cease to grow, so too with the thoughts that are in these: as some fall away, others grow again. Here, then, he calls "bald" the simple man, not one who is wholly foolish or irrational; for what man is there who has no hairs on his head, even a few? So he describes the man who, from simplicity, has few thoughts, and rightly commands that he be clean; for so it has been given him by the lot of nature, which is why the Lord compares him to the dove. But why did the lawgiver bring this man's person into doubt at all? Because it is better to have prudence along with innocence, as is clear from what the Lord said: "Be wise as serpents and simple as doves." But though that is praiseworthy, this is not to be blamed. For as he judges clean the man who is wholly simple, so too the man who is so in part, especially the one who is so from simplicity; for this is to be understood by the hairs falling out, that is, thinning on the forehead, the man he called "bald in front." This man is worse than the former; for it is better to hide one's virtues; yet if someone discloses their glory, it is a tolerable affliction and close to pardon. That is why he will be clean, because divine Scripture says that virtues are disclosed to the face and that we are adorned by them before men. Notice Paul saying: "Look at the things that are before your face. If anyone thinks himself to be Christ's, let him consider this again within himself, that as he is Christ's, so are we." This he says provided no sin is committed out of the simplicity of the simple man.

"But if a white or reddish spot has appeared in his baldness or in his front baldness, it is leprosy." Why? Because no one is so simple as not to know that he must not put his hand in the fire, nor throw himself from the height of a precipice, nor misuse a sword on the vital parts. And if he knows these things, how much more will he know that to kill is evil, that to slander is very bad, that to eat things sacrificed to idols is impious, and to desire another man's wife is wicked? If, then, the priest finds him having a white or red spot in his baldness or in his front baldness, that is, finds that in his simplicity, whole or partial, he has sinned and transgressed the gospel rule or the legal rule, he will condemn him, or pronounce him defiled. Why? "Because without doubt leprosy has arisen in the baldness"; or, as the Seventy have it, "because his spot is on his head," that is, because he has sinned in strong and necessary matters, in which no one who sins deserves pardon. For the natural law, toward which the necessary parts of the law tend, and much more the gospel precepts, are not foreign even to simple souls.

Verses 45–46. "Whoever, then, has been stained with leprosy and separated at the priest's judgment shall have his garments rent, his head bare, his mouth covered with a garment, defiled and filthy; he shall cry out all the time that he is leprous; and being unclean he shall dwell alone outside the camp."

The interpretation of the letter at face value seems altogether ridiculous to many. For what good is it to rend the garments, or to have the head bare and the mouth covered? For not even the man who is leprous in body breathes out an odour of shame, so that he should rightly cover his mouth for this reason. But because the lawgiver understood the leper to be the man who is unclean through the sins described above, he necessarily commanded that his garments be rent, so that by this it might be known that he has the virtues and strength of the soul loosened, which could have guarded it from the … and frost of sin. And he commanded him to have his head bare, as one not having the helmet of salvation, which Paul commanded to be taken up among the spiritual arms. And he did not command the mouth to be covered in vain, but because sin has an evil smell and gives off every vile exhalation, yet much more that which comes through the tongue; at the same time also he bars such a man from the dignity of a teacher. For how can one who is himself guilty restrain the fall into fault? How can one who steals command others not to steal? One who commits adultery bid them not commit adultery? Hence David too said: "But to the sinner God said: Why do you declare my righteous deeds, and take my covenant in your mouth? You have hated instruction and cast my words behind you." And not indeed always, but "all the time that he is leprous," that is, all the days in which the spot is in him. What, then, does he signify by this? That even if he has sinned once, and even if he has not gone on to sin further, he is nevertheless called unclean until he repents; for without repentance the leprosy of sin is not cleansed at all, and so the spot of spiritual leprosy remains in him. Therefore the true leper, that is, the sinner, dwells alone and separated, both that he may be put to shame and that no one may be harmed by the contagion of his company. Hence the Lord said to Peter, of the one who had sinned and refused to obey the church so as to turn and amend: "Let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector." For "he shall dwell outside the camp." For the commandments of the law, according to the spirit, are in close harmony with those of the gospel. Hence John, separating the spiritual leper from the spiritual tabernacle, writes in the catholic epistles: "Whoever comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into the house, and do not say Hail to him."

Verses 47–59. "A garment of wool or linen that has leprosy in the warp or the woof, or a skin, or whatever is made of skin, if there is a white or reddish spot, it shall be counted infected with leprosy and shown to the priest. He, considering it, shall shut it up seven days, and on the seventh day, looking again, if he finds the leprosy has grown, it is a persistent leprosy; he shall judge the garment polluted, and everything in which it is found, and therefore it shall be burned with fire. But if he sees that it has not grown, he shall give command, and they shall wash that in which the leprosy is. And shutting it up another seven days, when he sees that the former look has not returned, though the leprosy has not grown, he shall judge it unclean and burn it with fire, because the leprosy has been poured into the surface of the garment, or through the whole of it. But if the place of the leprosy is darker after the garment has been washed, he shall tear it off and cut it away from the whole. And if there appears further, in the places that were before unstained, a flying and wandering leprosy, it must be burned with fire. If it has ceased, he shall wash a second time what is pure, and it shall be clean. This is the law of the leprosy of a garment of wool and linen, of warp and woof, and of every article of skin, how they must be cleansed or pronounced defiled."

Some perhaps judge the lawgiver unseemly and very abject because he speaks of warp and woof, which is commonly called the weft, leaving aside whatever could dispose the souls of those who hear the law to better things. "For what harm," they say, "will a soiled warp, or a woof or weft made leprous, or a vessel of skin with a spot, do to our life?" Hence we must attend not to the letter alone, but to the fruit of the spirit, which is kept under the letter of the law as the fruit of the vine is kept under the leaf. For the lawgiver takes such care of us that he makes us wary not only of that leprosy which comes from the sins already mentioned, but also of that which often comes about concerning the virtues when someone uses them badly. So there are some garments of the soul and others of the body; and these, whether soiled or stripped off, do not grieve us; for so Joseph was to be stripped of his garments when the Egyptian woman laid hold of them, and so John the Baptist was clothed in camel's hair. But those of the soul ought to be brighter, of which Solomon said: "Let your garments always be white." So David says: "All the glory of the king's daughter is within, in golden fringes, clothed about with variety," declaring the glory within to be the beauty of the soul, in golden fringes, which are the virtues. But of these garments some are woollen, some linen: woollen, precious and great and warming the soul much; linen, cheap and warming it little. The woollen garment of the soul is virginity; the linen, conjugal chastity. The woollen, continence from gain or from possessing; the linen, generosity with what one has. The woollen, the philosophy of the desert; the linen, honour or modesty in the city. The woollen, to strive for the truth even to death; the linen, not to speak falsehoods. Hence Solomon too, declaring figuratively that the church is clothed in double garments, said: "She sought wool and flax, and worked with the skill of her hands"; and again: "She made herself a covering garment; fine linen and purple are her clothing." For the church has woollen and linen garments, fine linen and purple: those who are seemly in marriage and in virginity, and all the other things which we have just said are signified, on the two sides, by woollen and linen garments.

But since the lawgiver mentioned the warp and woof from which garments are woven together, let us now unfold that very subtlety; for he wishes to search out not only the virtues but also the things of which they consist. Two things, then, procure true virtue for us: our intention, and the divine assent, or grace. The woof indicates our intention, and the warp God's assent, and rightly, because the warp is the firmer part of the garment; just as God's assent, or grace, stands in us unbreakable and unchangeable, supporting the woof of our intention, so that the garment of good action may be completed. The skins, from which something can be made: he calls skins the temptations for piety or faith and the tribulations for virtue. Why? Because as a skin is dead, and a vessel can be made from it, yet from it perhaps a wineskin, or a jar, or …, or the hide of a tent, or something else useful is made; so too tribulations and temptations put a man to death in the world, for they humble him and show him reduced to nothing. Yet a good and useful vessel is made from them, patience and proven character, which in every way obtains a crown from the Lord. For James says: "Blessed is the man who endures temptation, for when he has been proved he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him." And Paul says: "Tribulation works patience, and patience proven character, and proven character hope, and hope does not put to shame." You see how many useful vessels are made from the skin of tribulations and temptations. And that it is not unfitting to call tribulations and temptations skins, hear Job saying of his tribulations and temptations: "My skin, my flesh being consumed, has clung to my bone, and only my lips are left about my teeth. Have pity on me, have pity on me, at least you, my friends, for the hand of the Lord has touched me."

He forbids, then, that in perfect virtue, which is the garment, whether it be great or moderate (for this we said is the difference between woollen and linen), a white or reddish spot be found; or, as the Seventy have it, greenish or fiery. By the greenish he means pride, by the fiery kenodoxia, vainglory; for this was the transgression of the angels; for everywhere Christ commanded that virtues be free from vainglory, and bids us neither fast nor show mercy to please men; for he affirmed that those who do so lose their reward. For those who wish to be praised by men, how will they then expect to be praised by the Lord? And pride is understood as greenish because it flourishes for a little, like green things, so that David said: "I saw the wicked man highly exalted and lifted up above the cedars of Lebanon; and I passed by, and behold, he was not"; and again of the same: "Like grass they shall wither, and like the green herbs they shall soon fall." And the people of the Moabites too, which was subject to such pride that, when Israel … all the other nations, it would by no means grant a passage, but used arms and hired Balaam with a fee to curse, was itself also called a green field by Balaam, though he did not know what he was saying; for he said to the elders of Midian: "So this people will destroy all who dwell in our borders, as the ox is wont to crop the grass to the root." So it is plainly proved that he forbids pride, or vainglory, to cling to virtue. Nor does he wish the leprosy mentioned to come upon the warp or the woof, that is, that we ourselves aim at the virtues with pride or vainglory, or pray that such grace concur with us from God. Nor does the lawgiver wish us to endure temptations with any of these. And if perhaps such a thing should happen, as to men, he wishes the priest to examine them, and neither to reject the virtue, nor the intention of virtue, nor the patience of temptations, nor at once to declare them unclean from a suspicion of pride or vainglory, nor again to receive them as clean, but to separate them for seven days and discern the affliction by time. And if it has grown, all the things mentioned in which this has occurred are unclean, because it is a persistent leprosy, and that is why he commands them to be burned with fire. So he signifies the flame of Gehenna and makes mention of the time to come; for he did not say "it is burned in the fire" but "it shall be burned in the fire."

"But if after the shutting up he sees that it has not grown, he shall give command, and they shall wash that in which the leprosy is": that is, he commanded him to wash those things away by repentance. Then after the delay he commands it to be shut up again seven days, so that he may know whether he finds the spot of pride or vainglory remaining; though it has not grown, yet if it is unchanged, because it does not pass over to repentance, it is unclean and shall be burned with fire. For the affliction has been strengthened, and therefore the man neither wishes to correct the evil through virtue nor attends to it. "But if the place of the leprosy is darker," that is, the leprosy uncertain and doubtful, after the garment has been washed through repentance, he commanded the affliction to be cut off from the garment of virtue and of the other things mentioned. How, then, does one tear off pride? By humbling oneself greatly; and likewise by removing vainglory from oneself in every way, that is, by taking delight or joy neither in honours, by which the affliction of pride is nourished, nor in praises, by which vainglory grows; and by so living that he does not even fall under suspicion of either of these. And then he will be able to be clean. "But if it appears further in the places that were before unstained," that is, in the garment, or the woof, or the warp, or the skin, that is, in virtue or in the temptations themselves, he still bears the same affliction for which he was washed or repented, and remains in it, he is counted unclean in this way, and the fire of Gehenna receives him. "Because the leprosy is flying and wandering": that is, because what had once been … of the spot, that is, once he has been cleansed of the suspicion, he wishes it washed again, so that it may then be called clean. Hence the lawgiver hints most plainly that you should understand this, since he wishes one to repent of the same sin with frequent tears. For frequent remembrance allows neither the wound itself nor another to prevail. Since, then, the lawgiver commanded purifications for the spots that come upon virtues too, now learn by what means he cleanses the leper. Attending to this, you will find that the lawgiver's care was for that leprosy which is inflicted on our souls by offences.