In his excellent and helpful commentary on Leviticus Allen Ross suggests, “In an ordinary routine of expounding the Book of Leviticus the expositor will probably want to combine Lev. 13-14 rather than treat them separately.” He then states his rationale for such counsel: “Four expositions on skin diseases and mildew might tax the creativity of the expositor.”1
I can appreciate his advice, but have obviously ignored it. In my defence, it has nothing to do with my creativity—one way or the other. As I have meditated on the contents of these chapters, I have found that no creativity has been needed; there is plenty here to justify four different messages. These chapters clearly speak to the reality of our living in a broken world, and therefore little creativity is required to make the connection between this ancient text and the broken world in which we live. But as we have also discovered, neither does one need a creative imagination to discover that God also fixes that which is broken—including broken homes.
In this study, we come to the conclusion of our mini-series on living in a broken world. It has been an enriching time for me, and I trust for you and our church as well.
God used leprosy to teach the children of Israel that they lived in a broken world, and that they would also face brokenness in the Promised Land (14:34). But as we saw previously, God’s purpose was not merely to make them aware of the reality of brokenness but to also give them hope that God’s purpose is to fix any and all brokenness. There is coming a day when the entire universe will be clothed in “new skin.”
In fact, Jesus is currently making all things new (Revelation 21:1-5), and one day all will be made completely new. The “warp and woof” of creation will be “leprosy-free.” All spiritual, relational, emotional, and physical brokenness will be fixed. There will never again be broken nations, broken societies, broken churches or broken homes. The last vestiges of the curse that attended the fall will be removed. All futility will be forever finished for it will be forever fixed.
But until such time we must face brokenness realistically, faithfully and therefore hopefully.
Perhaps brokenness is never felt more keenly than when it occurs in the home. This is the subject that we will attempt to hopefully address in this message.
Though it is true that brokenness is “part and parcel” of the world in which we live, this is not the whole story. Today, there is a large element in the church that speaks much of brokenness, yet the truth of the gospel as the cure for this brokenness is rarely emphasised. Brokenness is accepted as the norm with little expectation of it ever being fixed. In a strange way, this complacency about brokenness being cured often results in minimising the seriousness of our brokenness. Yes, all too often brokenness is simply accepted without any emphasis upon personal responsibility and the need for repentance. Such an approach to life is always tragic, but perhaps never more so than when such a mentality governs our approach to brokenness in the home.
In the text before us, we learn that “leprosy” in the home was a serious problem, and the homeowner was responsible to do something about it. In other words, brokenness was a reality, but God expected His people to respond faithfully with a view to it being fixed. We will study this truth under six headings.
A Realistic Expectation
There was coming a day when the children of Israel would retire their tents to the storage shed and would either build or occupy existing houses in Canaan. And when they did so, they would discover that a change of environment would not alleviate all their challenges: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: ‘When you have come into the land of Canaan, which I give you as a possession, and I put the leprous plague in a house in the land of your possession’” (vv. 33-34).
God had given to them regulations to guide them when they found “leprosy” in their garments, including their tents (13:47-59). But, frankly, this probably was not as big a threat in the arid wilderness as it would be once they settled in the more temperate climate of Palestine. Their newly-established homes would be susceptible to the same threat—even more—than their previous homes.
It is clear from this law of leprosy that God did not expect His people to live forever in tents. Soon (the text seems to indicate very soon), they would be afforded the opportunity to live in buildings—in houses. Therefore, when they received this law, the children of Israel no doubt received it both as a word of promise (hopefulness) and as a word of precaution (helpfulness).
We have touched on v. 34 before, but it is helpful for us to note once again God’s sovereignty as clearly revealed here. When there was brokenness in the home, the Israelite could be sure that God’s hand was its Author. Eveson notes, “The plague may be due to natural wear and tear, but because God is over the whole natural order it can be said to come from him.”2 And Harrison points out, “The fact that the incidence of this condition was attributed consciously to God merely reflects the consistent monistic philosophy of the Old Testament writers. God was the ground of all existence, and therefore everything took its rise from Him.”3
The Bible makes no apologies for the fact that God is responsible for calamity. Isaiah 45:7 reads, “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.” God is sovereign over all things, even the calamity that we face as believers.
Calvin treats Leviticus 13—14 under his commentary on the first commandment. This makes sense, for if we recognise God as sovereign of all, that includes His rightful authority to regulate how we live in every area, including that of hygiene. God wants to be worshipped by whole people. Oh that we might be whole, and that our families might be whole! Since God is sovereign, we (and they) can be!
This is too important a truth to skip over. The Bible teaches that the brokenness we face in this world is ordained by God. Paul makes this clear in Romans 8:20: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope.”
In other words, God ordained that sin would enter the world and that, through the fall, brokenness would pervade all creation. Again, listen to Eveson who writes, “We are inclined to think of God bringing healing, wealth and life. But the Bible is clear that in a world where people are in rebellion against his loving rule, the true God, for good and gracious reasons, ordains to bring ill-health, poverty and death, both to warn sinners of the greater judgement to come and to restrain or remove evil.”4
I would, however, add one more very important reason for God breaking the world: in order that He might fix it for His glory. Paul further writes, “Because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:21). In the subsequent passage, he makes it clear that all of this brokenness is used for the glory of God and for the good of His people; a people whom God will glorify—whom He will fix.
God allows (ordains) brokenness for the purpose of getting our attention so that we might run to Him and to His Word in order to be fixed. We are called to live completely dependent upon God; including when it comes to responding to brokenness. God’s Word is His means for us to face our brokenness head on and to seek Him to fix it—and to fix us in the process.
Listen to Psalm 66:10-12:
For You, O God, have tested us;
You have refined us as silver is refined.
You brought us into the net;
You laid affliction on our backs.
You have caused men to ride over our heads;
We went through fire and through water;
But You brought us out to rich fulfilment [abundance].
Let me make an important application here: When there is brokenness in your home, you can be sure that God’s sovereign hand is behind it. But remember, as pointed out earlier with reference to “leprosy” in the house, it was not sufficient to merely detect a problem; the owner was responsible to apply God’s Word to the problem with the aim of fixing it.
Let me ask you to consider the following.
It may not be your fault, but will you take responsibility for the little sinner that has now come into your life? That is, will you take responsibility to point him to the cure for his spiritual leprosy?
It may not be your fault, but will you love your wife who is being difficult? Will you show respectful submission to your husband who, through no fault of your own, is acting like a jerk?
It may not be your fault, but will you help your teenaged son as he faces unique temptations due to some physiological changes in his body?
It may not be your fault, but will you take responsibility for guarding your children from the corrupting influences that surround and seek to assault them in this world?
It may indeed be your fault that your older children are not following the Lord; will you now take responsibility to point them to Christ and to seek the salvation of their souls?
I recently spoke to a middle-aged man who was raised in the home of a pastor, but who was only saved about a year ago. He confessed that his own children are not presently following the Lord, and admitted with a broken heart that he had failed as a father in many ways when they were younger. My counsel to him was to go home and speak to his childrern, admitting his failures of the past, asking their forgiveness, and committing to them to do a better job in the future. God is able to restore lost years if we are willing to confess our failures and commit to future obedience.
Again, in all these matters the solution to the brokenness, which God expects of us, is to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and worshipfully apply the rules of His Word to our brokenness. When we do so, we honour Him.
A Risky Examination
In vv. 35-39, we read of a risky examination that was called for by God’s law. When a person noticed the problem in the house,
and he who owns the house comes and tells the priest, saying, “It seems to me that there is some plague in the house,” then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest goes into it to examine the plague, that all that is in the house may not be made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to examine the house. And he shall examine the plague; and indeed if the plague is on the walls of the house with engrained streaks, greenish or reddish, which appear to be deep in the wall, then the priest shall go out of the house, to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days. And the priest shall come again on the seventh day and look; and indeed if the plague has spread on the walls of the house.
Let’s assume that a homeowner one day noticed a growth appearing as discolouration on the plaster of his house. Concerned that this might be destructive, he might call for the public health inspector (i.e. the priest), who also functioned as a building inspector. This was a priestly responsibility (10:10).
Upon his arrival, the priest would enter the house and look for signs of the plague. Such signs, like those concerning skin disease, had to be more than superficial indications. In other words, he would investigate as to whether or not the streaks (red or green in colour) were deeper than the surface.
The text (v. 37) speaks of “engrained streaks” or “depressions.” “The word . . . may mean ‘hollow,’ ‘crack,’ ‘spot,’ etc. The main thing is that it is not a surface stain.”5
If the priest detected that there might be a problem, he would command the homeowner to take everything out of the house. This was an act of kind and thoughtful mercy, for if the house was confirmed as being “leprous,” then everything in the house had to be forfeited and destroyed. Tidball observes, “Every effort was made to keep the problem small and to ensure that the family could continue to occupy their residence if at all possible. Having done this, it was hoped that the problem was cured and that that would be an end to the matter.”6
The result was a seven-day quarantine before a further investigation followed.
I must note the pastoral insight here. When a family is experiencing brokenness, care must be had to not overreact. Yes, the problem must be addressed, but it must be handled in a way that addresses the problem without creating unnecessary heartache.
Early detection of a potential destructive plague was very important. If the problem was left alone, more damage might occur. One can understand the temptation to ignore initial signs of brokenness in the home. After all, it would be an inconvenience to move out for seven days and to find alternate accommodation. Also, there was the very real threat of the whole house being declared “leprous” and therefore being demolished completely and rebuilt. This could be expensive in time, energy and materials.
But if the temptation existed to ignore a possible real threat to the home, one would think that this would be overcome by the thought of the possibility of not detecting a major problem. That is, though there was a risk of temporary discomfort by calling for a house inspection, it was not nearly as risky as delaying the investigation. Such a delay might give opportunity for further destruction and greater loss.
We would do well to learn from this the danger of ignoring signs of disorder and indications of brokenness in our own home.
For example, wise parents will do well to recognise sinful tendencies in their children early on and to deal with them accordingly. Someone recently asked me how early I think children should be spanked. Answering like a typical new grandfather, I said perhaps around eighteen months. In truth, that may well be too late! Sinful behaviour may be fairly deeply engrained by that point.
A wise husband would likewise do well to recognise and seek to correct very early signs of discontent in his wife. I have had joy in the past to have couples come to me for counsel, only to be able to tell them that their problems are quite normal, that their “leprosy” is not, in fact, “engrained,” but is only a surface problem. Nevertheless, I have appreciated their proactiveness in recognising early signs of potential problems and seeking counsel before things get out of control.
The same principle can be applied to a breakdown of communication in marriage, a lack of joy in the home, bad attitudes observed in family members, and ungodly influences in the home. Early detection is crucial to a relatively simple solution. The further “leprosy” becomes “engrained,” the harder it is to eradicate and the more drastic the action required to correct it. If we do not detect these signs of deterioration early, then much damage may occur down the road. In fact, some damage may be irreparable. Rather face some early discomfort and inconvenience than much greater heartache much later on.
Listen to this wise counsel of Matthew Henry: “Sin, where that reigns in a house, is a plague there, as it is in a heart. Masters of families should be aware, and afraid of the first appearance of gross sin in their families, and put away the iniquity, whatever it is, far from their tabernacles. They should be jealous with a godly jealousy concerning those under their charge, lest they be drawn into sin; and they should take early advice, if it but seem that there is a plague in the house, lest the contagion spread, and many be defiled and destroyed.”7
Be wise and seek the discernment of others as to the health of your home.
A Responsible Renovation
If, after seven days, the priest returned to find that there was, in fact, a serious problem in the house, some renovation was necessary. Having verified the severity of the problem, the priest would
command that they take away the stones in which is the plague, and they shall cast them into an unclean place outside the city. And he shall cause the house to be scraped inside, all around, and the dust that they scrape off they shall pour out in an unclean place outside the city. Then they shall take other stones and put them in the place of those stones, and he shall take other mortar and plaster the house.
The infected part of the house needed to be removed—including plaster and stones—and then rebuilt and replastered. After the renovation, the priest would inspect the house again (perhaps requiring a further seven days’ vacancy?) in order to make a judgement as to whether the leprosy had spread further. Assuming there was no indication of the plague in the home, the structure was pronounced clean. The family could return with its belongings—and I would imagine with a deep sense of relief and celebration. But, as we will see, the renovation would now be put to the test. Would the problem reappear?
Many years ago, before entering the ministry, I used to put food on the table by painting houses. My brother and I went into the painting business when we were fresh out of high school and needed to make money. Because of the long summer break between school semesters, we could paint houses for about three months between university terms. I continued to do so for a couple of years after I was married while I waited for appointment to vocational ministry.
I learned a lot about painting over the years, and one of the lessons I recall well was the problem of painting a house when it was covered with mildew.
If a painter lacked integrity, he might simply paint the walls (usually wooden boards in the United States), collect his paycheque, leave the premises and hope that the homeowners never found him again. Mildew can be temporarily hidden, but rarely can you kill it by covering it up. It will eventually bleed through.
A painter with a serious work ethic would explain to the homeowner that he had a mildew problem and that some additional expense was required to do a lasting job. It required expensive paint additive, which was added to every five-litre bucket of paint to help resist recurring mildew growth. Even this was prophylactic; it could not deal effectively with the problem of existing mildew.
To properly deal with existing mildew, the painter needed to scrub the house, even using bleach or something similar to kill the mildew. Only then could paint be applied. But it also needed to be recognised that, if the house was located in a damp or a very tree-shaded area, mildew would eventually return. Mildew was a persistent menace that had to be managed. Where I lived, it was a problem. It was a problem in my neighbourhood and it was a problem long ago in the Hebrew neighbourhood in the Promised Land. It is destructive today and was destructive then. In fact, it was so destructive that God categorised it as leprosy.
Leprosy in the walls of a house pointed to the reality that brokenness occurs in homes. And apart from God’s sovereign intervention, there was no fixing it. The good news is that God often did—and He still does.
Now, obviously you are not reading this for painting tips. But there is an instructive parallel between mildew on a house and brokenness in a home.
Sadly, all too often, people approach brokenness in the home much like many complacent and dishonest house painters deal with the problem of mildew: They merely try to cover up. This lasts for a little while, but eventually the “disease” resurfaces. The fact of the matter is that, if we will fix what is broken in our homes, we need a radical renovation—perhaps even a demolition.
You can superficially cover the problem by denying that it exists, but eventually the damage will come to the surface and the brokenness may well be worse than it was. If brokenness will be fixed in the home, it will be necessary to do some serious work—lots of honest scrubbing of the home. Sometimes radical measures must be implemented for families to be fixed. The earlier you begin to apply God’s measures to fix a broken home, the sooner things can be cured and the less damage will be done.
Brokenness occurs even in the Promised Land. That is, even Christian homes have challenges; even Christian homes need to be fixed. They definitely need to be maintained. There is hope for broken homes.
A Ruinous Contamination
Sadly, there were times when the priest would return and detect that, in spite of even major renovation, the plague remained in the house. In such a scenario, there was no alternative but to tear it down, discard the debris outside the city and completely rebuild the house.
Now if the plague comes back and breaks out in the house, after he has taken away the stones, after he has scraped the house, and after it is plastered, then the priest shall come and look; and indeed if the plague has spread in the house, it is an active leprosy in the house. It is unclean. And he shall break down the house, its stones, its timber, and all the plaster of the house, and he shall carry them outside the city to an unclean place. Moreover he who goes into the house at all while it is shut up shall be unclean huntil evening. And he who lies down in the house shall wash his clothes, and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes.
This home was so broken that there was no alternative but to start all over again. Sometimes a family can be so broken that nothing short of a complete overhaul is necessary. Sometimes even those who have been married for decades must be taught the first principles of what a biblical marriage looks like. In some cases a spouse may be so reprobate that the only solution (for the welfare of the children and/or the spouse) is the dissolution of the marriage. After all, even Jesus allowed for (though did not command) divorce in the case of marital infidelity.
But these cases aside, let me encourage you that the gospel of the grace of God is precisely what broken homes need: They need to be completely rebuilt and they can be by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. We will see an example of this shortly.
One more issue needs to be addressed before leaving this passage, and it is found in vv. 46-47. I am not sure if these words fit here in this context or in the context of vv. 37-38. Regardless, the point needs to be made that leprosy in the home was not to be trifled with. That which was plaguing the walls had the potential to contaminate the inhabitants. Again, let us learn from this not to trifle with sin in our families. And let us be on guard from the potential contamination by which our homes might be infected if we are not alert.
In another study,8 I shared with you how recently I spent considerable time cleaning out my tool shed. I filled an entire municipal rubbish bin with bits and pieces that had accumulated over past years, merely collecting dust. In fact, there was so much dust in that shed that the following day I had a sinus headache all day. The shed is now clean and in a condition in which I can utilise it in a productive manner. I can find things and use the work bench to repair things. The shed is now functioning in accordance with its intended purpose. But it required good and honest cleaning. The same is true of our homes.
We must take an honest inventory of what is “growing” in our home and whether it is suitable for what God has intended for it. Does your home need a good and honest “spring clean” from certain movies, magazines, bottles, and TV shows—perhaps even a cleaning out of certain companions?
A Redemptive Celebration
The word “but” is a wonderful little word, which is often used in Scripture to contrast a sad and bad state of affairs with a happy and good one. For example, after describing the state into which all humans are born in Ephesians 2:1-3, Paul uses the word of contrast to describe the regenerate life: “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (vv. 4-5). There is a similar transition in our present text.
But if the priest comes in and examines it, and indeed 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. And he shall take, to cleanse the house, two birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. Then he shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water; and he shall take the cedar wood, the hyssop, 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. And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird and the running water and the living bird, with the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet. Then he shall let the living bird loose outside the city in the open field, and make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.
Something had been broken, but, by God’s power, it had been fixed.
Upon entering the renovated (or rebuilt) home, the priest carried out one final inspection. If he detected no plague, he pronounced the house clean. What a relief to the family! This was a time for celebration of God’s goodness. It was a time to celebrate that the house had been atoned; it had been made whole. It was a time to honour the Lord, who not only takes away but who also gives. He not only breaks but also fixes that which is broken. It was for this reason that a ceremony of purification took place. And it took place, no doubt, in a spirit of celebration and in anticipation of the future enjoyment of the fixed home.
The sacrifice that was required for the ceremonial cleansing was both for the sake of purification and consecration. That is, the once-broken home was now being reconsecrated to the Lord. The household was being reminded that God is sovereign over all, and that they were completely dependent upon Him to fix an unbroken home. The home, in a very real sense, was being dedicated to the Lord.
It is interesting that, once the renovated home had been declared clean, the homeowner was required to bring sacrifices before the family could move back. The sacrifices were similar to those required of a person who had found himself cured of skin leprosy. The exception was that no sin offerings were required, because houses, of course, are inanimate.
The priest killed one of the two birds over running water. He splattered the house seven times with the blood-and-water mixture while letting the other blood-covered bird go free.
But why was the ritual so similar to that of a person cured of skin leprosy? Ross captures the reason when he writes, “The symbolism reminded the people that only God could remove defilement—from humans or from houses. The substitutionary ritual enabled the worshiper to acknowledge this.”9 Tidball adds that it served to remind “people, on the one hand, of the fate they might have endured if the house had been condemned and, on the other, of the blessing God had graciously chosen to bestow on them in restoring their dwelling to them with a clean bill of health.”10 Harrison comments, “Just as the latter was restored whole to the congregation of Israel, so the house was returned in ceremonially clean condition to its owner.”11
Perhaps, in addition to reminding the homeowner of God’s grace, it was also to drive home the point that everything in creation is affected by the fall. Again, perhaps it was to lay a prophetic foundation for the reality that the curse will be lifted from all things because of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But there may have also been another reason. The home housed the human. In other words, the home was in a typological sense an extension of the individual. Further, the home of God’s covenant person was also an extension of the house of God. In the case of the Hebrews, it was an extension of the tabernacle and later of the temple. In the case of the new covenant believer, our homes are an extension of the church of the living God. You see, if there is “leprosy” in your home, then eventually the church will feel its unclean and unwholesome effects.
Let us learn from this that we must regularly be reminded that our homes and our families belong to the Lord; they are a place of worship. In our church, we are very deliberate about exhorting young parents of the need to raise a godly see for the benefit of (and with the help of) the church. Churches are strengthened by Christ-centred homes.
A Redemptive Anticipation
The approach to the mildew problem was about eventuality and therefore was an issue of maintenance rather than a permanent cure. In other words, the expectation of complete eradication was wrong-headed; at least in their lifetime, and in ours. The closing verses of the chapter summarise the leprosy law and point us to the fact that there was hope even in the midst of brokenness.
This is the law for any leprous sore and scale, for the leprosy of a garment and of a house, for a swelling and a scab and a bright spot, to teach when it is unclean and when it is clean. This is the law of leprosy.
Brokenness, like mildew, will always be present and yet there is very real hope in the gospel of God. In fact, brokenness, like gravity, is a law of our existence. It cannot be denied and must be respected. It is true that one day broken homes will be eradicated, but until then we need to embrace the reality of brokenness in homes—yes, in Christian homes!—and seek God for a fix—continually.
Believers live in broken world and this affects our families as well. We are called to persevere and to grow in grace as we fight the good fight of faith in our homes. We must never assume that we will so arrive spiritually that we will never face challenges in our marriage, with our children or with our parents.
Yet in the midst of this brokenness, and in view of the ever-present threat of brokenness in our homes, we need to see and to believe that, with God, all things are possible. This was a major purpose behind God’s revelation of the law of leprosy. He was pointing His people to and preparing His people for the One in whom all things would be made new. The law of leprosy points us to Jesus Christ. Jesus can mend a broken heart and He can fix a broken home.
One New Testament illustration of this truth is the record of the demonised man in Mark 5:1-20. We will consider this text more fully in another study, but for now let’s take a brief overview.
In this account we have the record of a man who was very broken. He was dangerous, dysfunctional, destructive, and disorderly. He was demonised. You don’t get much more broken than that!
The Lord Jesus made a special trip across the storm-tossed Sea of Galilee because He was intent on fixing this man. And fix him He did.
Jesus confronted the man in his brokenness and cast out the demons that had been tormenting him, and through which others were being tormented. The man was immediately delivered and sat calmly and orderly, clothed and in his right mind. This man’s life had been transformed by the power of the Saviour and he desired with all his heart to follow the Lord.
But note the Lord’s response: He rejected the man’s volunteering for “fulltime Christian service.” Instead, the Lord told the man to go home and to live for Him there. It is not a stretch to say that the Lord was saying to a man, who had once been broken and who had no doubt, by his sin, broken his home, “Go home and fix things there; that is more important than what I am doing over there.”
With all of the growing emphasis today on radically living for the Lord to the point of sacrificially serving fulltime or even on short term ministry trips, it must be emphasised that, as important as that is, our ministry begins at home! If our homes are filled with leprosy then what can we offer to a lost and leprous world? This is why God commands that elders rule their own homes well and why He commands that an elder has believing children. Credibility is the issue.
When the world sees a home that is being fixed by the gospel of God, then we are in a good position to get a hearing. Once-broken homes that have been renovated by God’s grace are a wonderful means to reach the world.
Fixing a broken home is, in some ways, foundational to protecting other things from being broken. Think about it. If leprosy breaks out in one’s house then those living within the house are in danger of harming their health. Dampness is not a good environment in which to live. That is why if such “leprosy” was detected in the house, it was an indication that danger was looming for the household.
Likewise, if believers will assume their responsibility for a healthy home spiritually, then other aspects of society will be guarded against the onslaught of destructive ills.
For instance, if parents will address early on the evidence of rebellion in their children then schools will be much more orderly, safer, and more respectful. The fact is, if you are hoping for corporal punishment to be reinstated in the school system as a means to cure (or at least curtail) violence and chaos in society, you have completely missed the plot.
If parents will take responsibility for the training of their children then sexually transmitted diseases and such will not breakout in our society. We won’t be greeted at customs counters with the offer of free condoms.
If the home is a place where men are men and who therefore give leadership to their families then the church will not be effeminate.
If the home is fixed then we will see this reflected in the overall health of the nation, of the workplace and the like. And of course the way to fix the home and the nation is by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The songwriter indeed got it right when he wrote, “Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe; sin had left a crimson stain, He washed it white as snow.”
“He demonstrated his authority by showing that if he could cure the effect of sin—disease—he was fully able to cure the cause—sin. Complete healing of body and soul must come before complete restoration of the fallen sinner. And all of that was provided in the sacrifice of the Son of God.”9
Jesus can fix you. Will you admit your leprosy of sin and, in repentance and faith, call upon His name and be fixed?
- Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 277. ↩
- Philip H. Eveson, The Beauty of Holiness: The Book of Leviticus Simply Explained (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2007), 190. ↩
- R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), 155. ↩
- Eveson, The Beauty of Holiness, 193. ↩
- R. Laird Harris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 9:584. ↩
- Derek Tidball, The Message of Leviticus: Free to Be Holy (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005), 181. ↩
- Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 3 vols. (Nashville: Royal Publishers, 1979), 1:258. ↩
- Doug Van Meter, “Telling the Truth,” http://goo.gl/TImZN, retrieved 9 August 2012. ↩
- Ross, Holiness to the Lord, 303. ↩
- Tidball, The Message of Leviticus, 182. ↩
- Harrison, Leviticus, 157. ↩
- Ross, Holiness to the Lord, 303. ↩