t views of the
religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of
Moses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not
allowed to leave the place before the gate assigned to them, 2 Kings
vii. 3.--In order more fully to understand the meaning of our passage,
it is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that
regulation. _J. D. Michaelis_ (Mos. Recht. iv. Sec. 210) has his answer at
once in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to
the point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other
view. Because _to him_ the temporal objects and aims are the highest,
he at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy God also.
The ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to
prevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity
against the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the
healthy, that leprosy, [Pg 452] if contagious at all, is so, at all
events, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch.
(_Michaelis_ himself remarks: "Except in the case of cohabitation, one
may be quite safe.") But this severity against the sick must appear in
a still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes
even ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations
concerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes,
bare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came
near them, that they were unclean. Even _Michaelis_ grants that those
regulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He
remarks: "But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his
really shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected
touch." But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves
is surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all
the relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself. _Farther_--From mere sanitary or police
considerations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and
houses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of
men, cannot be accounted for. The reason which _Michaelis_ advances for
the law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even
the most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one.
The leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which,
although not con