Leviticus 22:4

22:4 No man ¹  from the descendants of Aaron who is diseased or has a discharge ²  may eat the holy offerings until he becomes clean. The one ³  who touches anything made unclean by contact with a dead person, ⁴  or a man who has a seminal emission, ⁵ 

Numbers 5:2

5:2 “Command the Israelites to expel ⁶  from the camp every leper, ⁷  everyone who has a discharge, ⁸  and whoever becomes defiled by a corpse. ⁹ 

Numbers 5:2

5:2 “Command the Israelites to expel ¹⁰  from the camp every leper, ¹¹  everyone who has a discharge, ¹²  and whoever becomes defiled by a corpse. ¹³ 

Numbers 3:29

3:29 The families of the Kohathites were to camp on the south side of the tabernacle.

Matthew 9:20

9:20 But ¹⁴  a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage ¹⁵  for twelve years came up behind him and touched the edge ¹⁶  of his cloak. ¹⁷ 

Mark 5:25

5:25 Now ¹⁸  a woman was there who had been suffering from a hemorrhage ¹⁹  for twelve years. ²⁰ 

Mark 7:20-23

7:20 He said, “What comes out of a person defiles him. 7:21 For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality, theft, murder, 7:22 adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly. 7:23 All these evils come from within and defile a person.”

Luke 8:43

8:43 Now ²¹  a woman was there who had been suffering from a hemorrhage ²²  for twelve years ²³  but could not be healed by anyone.

[22:4]  ¹ tn Heb “Man man.” The reduplication is a way of saying “any man” (cf. Lev 15:2; 17:3, etc.), but with a negative command it means “No man” (see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 147).

[22:4]  ² sn The diseases and discharges mentioned here are those described in Lev 13-15.

[22:4]  ³ tn Heb “And the one.”

[22:4]  ⁴ tn Heb “in all unclean of a person/soul”; for the Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) meaning “a [dead] person,” see the note on Lev 19:28.

[22:4]  ⁵ tn Heb “or a man who goes out from him a lying of seed.”

[5:2]  ⁶ tn The construction uses the Piel imperative followed by this Piel imperfect/jussive form; it is here subordinated to the preceding volitive, providing the content of the command. The verb שָׁלַח (shalakh) in this verbal stem is a strong word, meaning “expel, put out, send away, or release” (as in “let my people go”).

[5:2]  ⁷ sn The word צָרוּעַ (tsarua’), although translated “leper,” does not primarily refer to leprosy proper (i.e., Hansen’s disease). The RSV and the NASB continued the KJV tradition of using “leper” and “leprosy.” More recent studies have concluded that the Hebrew word is a generic term covering all infectious skin diseases (including leprosy when that actually showed up). True leprosy was known and feared certainly by the time of Amos (ca. 760 b.c.). There is evidence that the disease was known in Egypt by 1500 b.c. So this term would include that disease in all probability. But in view of the diagnosis and healing described in Leviticus 13 and 14, the term must be broader. The whole basis for the laws of separation may be found in the book of Leviticus. The holiness of the Lord who dwelt among his people meant that a high standard was imposed on them for their living arrangements as well as access to the sanctuary. Anything that was corrupted, diseased, dying, or contaminated was simply not compatible with the holiness of God and was therefore excluded. This is not to say that it was treated as sin, or the afflicted as sinners. It simply was revealing – and safeguarding – the holiness of the Lord. It thus provided a revelation for all time that in the world to come nothing unclean will enter into the heavenly sanctuary. As the Apostle Paul says, we will all be changed from this corruptible body into one that is incorruptible (1 Cor 15:53). So while the laws of purity and holiness were practical for the immediate audience, they have far-reaching implications for theology. The purity regulations have been done away with in Christ – the problem is dealt with differently in the new covenant. There is no earthly temple, and so the separation laws are not in force. Wisdom would instruct someone with an infectious disease to isolate, however. But just because the procedure is fulfilled in Christ does not mean that believers today are fit for glory just as they are. On the contrary, they must be changed before going into his presence. In like manner the sacrifices have been done away in Christ – not what they covered. Sin is still sin, even though it is dealt with differently on this side of the cross. But the ritual and the regulations of the old covenant at Sinai have been fulfilled in Christ.

[5:2]  ⁸ sn The rules of discharge (Lev 12 and 15) include everything from menstruation to chronic diseases (see G. Wyper, ISBE 1:947, as well as R. K. Harrison, Leviticus (TOTC), 158-66, and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus (NICOT), 217-25.

[5:2]  ⁹ tn The word is נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh), which usually simply means “[whole] life,” i.e., the soul in the body, the person. But here it must mean the corpse, the dead person, since that is what will defile (although it was also possible to become unclean by touching certain diseased people, such as a leper).

[5:2]  ¹⁰ tn The construction uses the Piel imperative followed by this Piel imperfect/jussive form; it is here subordinated to the preceding volitive, providing the content of the command. The verb שָׁלַח (shalakh) in this verbal stem is a strong word, meaning “expel, put out, send away, or release” (as in “let my people go”).

[5:2]  ¹¹ sn The word צָרוּעַ (tsarua’), although translated “leper,” does not primarily refer to leprosy proper (i.e., Hansen’s disease). The RSV and the NASB continued the KJV tradition of using “leper” and “leprosy.” More recent studies have concluded that the Hebrew word is a generic term covering all infectious skin diseases (including leprosy when that actually showed up). True leprosy was known and feared certainly by the time of Amos (ca. 760 b.c.). There is evidence that the disease was known in Egypt by 1500 b.c. So this term would include that disease in all probability. But in view of the diagnosis and healing described in Leviticus 13 and 14, the term must be broader. The whole basis for the laws of separation may be found in the book of Leviticus. The holiness of the Lord who dwelt among his people meant that a high standard was imposed on them for their living arrangements as well as access to the sanctuary. Anything that was corrupted, diseased, dying, or contaminated was simply not compatible with the holiness of God and was therefore excluded. This is not to say that it was treated as sin, or the afflicted as sinners. It simply was revealing – and safeguarding – the holiness of the Lord. It thus provided a revelation for all time that in the world to come nothing unclean will enter into the heavenly sanctuary. As the Apostle Paul says, we will all be changed from this corruptible body into one that is incorruptible (1 Cor 15:53). So while the laws of purity and holiness were practical for the immediate audience, they have far-reaching implications for theology. The purity regulations have been done away with in Christ – the problem is dealt with differently in the new covenant. There is no earthly temple, and so the separation laws are not in force. Wisdom would instruct someone with an infectious disease to isolate, however. But just because the procedure is fulfilled in Christ does not mean that believers today are fit for glory just as they are. On the contrary, they must be changed before going into his presence. In like manner the sacrifices have been done away in Christ – not what they covered. Sin is still sin, even though it is dealt with differently on this side of the cross. But the ritual and the regulations of the old covenant at Sinai have been fulfilled in Christ.

[5:2]  ¹² sn The rules of discharge (Lev 12 and 15) include everything from menstruation to chronic diseases (see G. Wyper, ISBE 1:947, as well as R. K. Harrison, Leviticus (TOTC), 158-66, and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus (NICOT), 217-25.

[5:2]  ¹³ tn The word is נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh), which usually simply means “[whole] life,” i.e., the soul in the body, the person. But here it must mean the corpse, the dead person, since that is what will defile (although it was also possible to become unclean by touching certain diseased people, such as a leper).

[9:20]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “And behold a woman.” The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1).

[9:20]  ¹⁵ sn Suffering from a hemorrhage. The woman was most likely suffering from a vaginal hemorrhage which would make her ritually unclean.

[9:20]  ¹⁶ sn The edge of his cloak refers to the kraspedon, the blue tassel on the garment that symbolized a Jewish man’s obedience to the law (cf. Num 15:37-41). The woman thus touched the very part of Jesus’ clothing that indicated his ritual purity.

[9:20]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “garment,” but here ἱμάτιον (Jimation) denotes the outer garment in particular.

[5:25]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

[5:25]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “a flow of blood.”

[5:25]  ²⁰ sn This story of the woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years is recounted in the middle of the story about Jairus’ daughter. Mark’s account (as is often the case) is longer and more detailed than the parallel accounts in Matt 9:18-26 and Luke 8:40-56. Mark’s fuller account may be intended to show that the healing of the woman was an anticipation of the healing of the little girl.

[8:43]  ²¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

[8:43]  ²² tn Grk “a flow of blood.”

[8:43]  ²³ tc ‡ Most mss, including the majority of later mss (א[* C] A L W Θ Ξ [Ψ] Ë^1,13 33 [1424] Ï [lat sy^c,p,h]) read here, “having spent all her money on doctors.” Uncertainty over its authenticity is due primarily to the fact that certain important witnesses do not have the phrase (e.g., Ì⁷⁵ B [D] 0279 sy^s sa Or). This evidence alone renders its authenticity unlikely. It may have been intentionally added by later scribes in order to harmonize Luke’s account with similar material in Mark 5:26 (see TCGNT 121). NA²⁷ includes the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.