THEOSISCyrill of Alexandria
Cyril. Pay attention, Palladius, to the profound diligence of the law: it appears to direct our thoughts in the opposite manner while in every aspect revealing what is ultimately beneficial to us. Palladius. In what respect, please elaborate. Cyril. He reiterated, ‘If a man is afflicted with a plague of leprosy, he must be brought to the priest; the priest shall examine him, and if the spot on the skin is white, the hair has turned white, and there is living flesh on the sore, it is an old leprosy on his body; the priest shall declare him unclean and will confine him, for he is indeed unclean.
Read more (241 words)
However, if the leprosy spreads over the skin and completely covers the afflicted man from head to toe, as far as the eyes of the priest can see, and the priest determines that the leprosy has covered the entire body, he will declare the man clean, because everything has become white; he is clean. Yet, if living flesh appears on him, he is unclean; upon witnessing the living flesh, the priest will declare him unclean; the living flesh is unclean: it signifies leprosy. Yet if the living flesh changes and turns white, let him approach the priest; the priest shall assess him, and if the sores have turned white, the priest shall declare the afflicted man clean; he is clean’ (Lev. 13:9-17). Palladius. What sort of contradiction does this suggest? Cyril. Do you not see that we contend leprosy signifies decay in the living body in part, and that anyone afflicted by this condition was considered unclean? Palladius. I understand. Cyril. Now consider that the scenario is, in a sense, inverted; for if there exists a leper who is entirely whole yet still has decay, lacking anything healthy, let such a person not be accused of defilement: he is clean. However, if there is even a trace of living flesh in him, let him be denounced by the priest for uncleanness: his living flesh will render him unclean; he is a leper because this is akin to the guilt of leprosy.