29 If a man or woman have a plague upon the head or the beard;

30 Then the priest shall see the plague: and, behold, if it be in sight deeper than the skin; and there be in it a yellow thin hair; then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a dry scall, even a leprosy upon the head or beard.

31 And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, it be not in sight deeper than the skin, and that there is no black hair in it; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague of the scall seven days:

32 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague: and, behold, if the scall spread not, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the scall be not in sight deeper than the skin;

33 He shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall seven days more:

34 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall: and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, nor be in sight deeper than the skin; then the priest shall pronounce him clean: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.

35 But if the scall spread much in the skin after his cleansing;

36 Then the priest shall look on him: and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for yellow hair; he is unclean.

37 But if the scall be in his sight at a stay, and that there is black hair grown up therein; the scall is healed, he is clean: and the priest shall pronounce him clean.

Today we shift from examining spots and wounds on the open skin, to ones that are hidden within the hair. Obviously, such spots are particularly nefarious, as they have the opportunity to grow and fester without detection. So, too, in our societies, some of our corruption will be covered because they live behind our sacred cows, thus forbidden to be scrutinized critically. For a long time, feminism has been such a covering, forbidding any sincere analysis into the temptations and diversions among women, though we have been very free to point them out among men. But skin under the hair is just as susceptible to corruption as skin in the open, and both must be evaluated.

Another interesting pattern in these verses is that the priest tries to judge the health of a person by certain markers (in this case, the presence of yellow hairs), and by that tries to make a determination as to whether a person is clean. But then, as we see in verses 35-37, it is possible for someone to not trip the triggers for an unclean pronouncement, but later it becomes clear that they are actually unclean.

So, too, in our society, certain behaviors may arise that seem strange, but perhaps innocuous. Since we see no clear sign of damage or perversion, we do not call it unclean, but in time the sinister quality of it becomes apparent. An example of this might be the ubiquitous messaging in children’s media that you must “be true to yourself.” It might have stood out as an overly repeated mantra but didn’t necessarily seem to be a problem…assuming it would have a well-balanced interpretation. But, of course, as the years have gone on, it has become apparent that “be true to yourself” is primarily used as an excuse for all manner of selfishness and for placing oneself at the top of the spiritual hierarchy, denigrating God, society, and family. At this point we are like the priest in verse 36 who must pronounce the area unclean, “yellow hair” or not!