A WORD FROM THE PUBLISHER<\/p>\n
Years ago a movement was begun with the dream of uniting all Christians on the basis of a common purpose (world evangelism) under a common authority (the Word of God). The College Press NIV Commentary Series is a serious effort to join the scholarship of two branches of this unity movement so as to speak with one voice concerning the Word of God. Our desire is to provide a resource for your study of the Old Testament that will benefit you whether you are preparing a Bible School lesson, a sermon, a college course, or your own personal devotions. Today as we survey the wreckage of a broken world, we must turn again to the Lord and his Word, unite under his banner and communicate the life-giving message to those who are in desperate need. This is our purpose.<\/p>\n
THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS<\/p>\n
LEVITICUS INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
TITLE AND CONTENTS<\/p>\n
Called in Hebrew by its opening words, vayiqra, \u201cand he called,\u201d the centerpiece of the Pentateuch receives its popular English name \u201cLeviticus\u201d from the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament by way of the Latin Vulgate version. The Septuagint title Levitikon means \u201cof the Levites,\u201d hence referring to \u201cthings pertaining to the Levites.\u201d More specifically, the book is concerned with the Levitical priesthood and its ministry of sanctification and instruction on behalf of the people of Israel. Accordingly, the rabbis called it \u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd (t\u014drath q\u014dhan\u00edm), the law (instruction) of the priests, i.e., \u201cthe priestly manual.\u201d Actually, Leviticus instructs both people and priesthood in regard to sacrifice, priesthood, purification, atonement and holiness, and these words could almost provide a keyword outline of the book. Because of the intense importance of these vital concerns to the spiritual welfare of the Hebrew people, the rabbis called their early expansive commentary, the midrash on Leviticus, Sifra, i.e., \u201cthe book,\u201d and Leviticus was once \u201cthe first book Jewish children studied in the synagogue.\u201d<\/p>\n
STRUCTURE AND SETTING<\/p>\n
Leviticus is a unified composition with a distinctive organizational plan. Beginning with a logically arranged sacrifice manual (1:1\u20137:38), the text moves to the initial installation of the Levitical priesthood (8:1\u201310:20). With this foundation set the text treats various ceremonial impurities which call for sacrifices (11:1\u201315:33) and climaxes with the instructions for the great annual cleansing ceremony, the Day of Atonement (16:1\u201334). This chapter may be called \u201cthe keystone of the structure\u201d of the book. The last half of the book, sometimes called \u201cthe holiness code,\u201d emphasizes holiness for a people and priesthood called into covenant with the holy LORD at Sinai (17:1\u201326:46). An appendix considers the important subject of vows (27:1\u201334). Thus the text seems to divide naturally into six units, including the appendix, although others have proposed as few as two or as many as nine divisions. However, scholars continue to debate the structural divisions of Leviticus.
\nThe most dominant theory among critical scholars in the early twentieth century, and one that receives a great deal of attention today, was first proposed by K. Graf in 1866. Graf recognized chapters 18\u201323 and 25\u201326 to be independent of the rest of the book. In 1877, August Klostermann furthered the research of Graf by identifying chapters 17\u201326 as a separate work, and giving the section its enduring title: \u201cthe Holiness Code.\u201d Julius Wellhausen, however, brought the thesis into the fore of scholarship, attributing the passage to priestly redactors of the late postexilic period.
\nAlthough chapters 1\u201316 and 17\u201326 seem to treat different subjects for different purposes, there is no reason to assume that they were composed (or redacted!) independently of one another. Stylistic observations are perhaps the most cogent evidences offered on behalf of the old critical theory, but even they can be explained on the basis of different authorial intent. Wellhausen\u2019s hypothesis that the section reached its final form in the fifth century B.C., which has been feverishly accepted, cannot be corroborated with any sort of hard evidence.
\nRecently, a trend has developed in scholarship at large to locate chiastic structures in the books of the Bible. These studies differ from those of form critics in that they base their conclusions on the integrity of the text as it now stands rather than finding editorial glosses. Proponents of chiasm can also marshal ancient evidence from a host of cultures as support of their position. Thus, on the whole, a chiastic structure of Leviticus is more plausible than the source theories.
\nOne name towers above all others in consideration of the issue of chiasm in Leviticus: Mary Douglas. Although her 1999 publication, Leviticus as Literature, is more of a theological work than a literary one, Douglas presents a ring structure (chiasmus) that defends the literary integrity of the book as it now stands. She also argues that the key to understanding Leviticus is to recognize this structure. While her theories have been entertained by biblical scholars, her conclusions regarding structure have largely fallen on deaf ears. Let us examine her arguments.
\nDouglas maintains that the structure of Leviticus is based on the layout of the tabernacle. At the same time, it is a chiasm. She understands the \u201cring structure,\u201d as she calls it, to open and close the layers of material that make up the tabernacle. Allow her diagram to illustrate:<\/p>\n
The chapters correspond to the sections of the tabernacle. For example, all Israel is educated concerning the events in the tabernacle courtyard (chs. 1\u201317). Behind the first veil, however, information normally reserved for the priests is provided (chs. 18\u201324). Finally, the most holy place, the room only the high priest may enter, is illustrated in chapters 25\u201327.
\nThis method of viewing Leviticus is brilliant as well as informative. However, the argument simply cannot support the final chapters of the book. Chapters 1\u201317 indeed pertain to the lay Israelites because they contain practical laws. However, chapters 18\u201320 are practical as well. Yet Douglas places them in the sanctuary. Why? Chapters 21\u201322 are clearly addressed to the priests, so there is no difficulty with Douglas\u2019s placement of them. However, chapter 23 returns to the matter of public (lay) feasts. Chapter 24 is priestly in makeup, as Douglas seems to recognize by her division of the chapter. Yet the whole of chapter 24 is placed inside the sanctuary. Equally dubious is the placement of chapters 25\u201326. The material in each of these chapters is practical, clearly intended for the layman. Then there is the matter of chapter 27, which nearly all scholars consider to be an appendix to the book as a whole.
\nAlthough Douglas defends the literary unity of Leviticus as we have it, it seems that she stretches the nature of the evidence in an effort to substantiate her argument. In the final analysis, her suggestions are brilliant\u2014perhaps too brilliant\u2014but they must be met with objections to which no answer has yet been given.
\nMore plausible is the position of D.A. Dorsey, who not only defends the literary integrity of Leviticus, but situates the entire book in a context of Mosaic legislation. His chiasm reaches from Exodus 19:3 to Numbers 10:10, which covers every law by which Israel must live. In each chiastic section (of which there are seven), smaller, individual chiasms are located. Dorsey\u2019s arrangement of the greater headings is provided below.<\/p>\n
a Ten Commandments\u2014and holiness on Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3\u201320:21)
\nb civil laws\u2014moral, ethical purity (Exod 20:22\u201324:11)
\nc tabernacle instructions\u2014sacrificial altar (Exod 24:12\u201334:28)
\nd CLIMAX: tabernacle built and filled with Yahweh\u2019s glory! (Exod 34:29\u201340:38)
\nc\u2019 sacrificial instructions\u2014for sacrificial altar (Lev 1\u201310)
\nb\u2019 purity laws\u2014ritual, moral purity (Lev 11\u201318)
\na\u2019 holiness laws\u2014most of Ten Commandments repeated (Lev 19:1\u2013Num 10:10).<\/p>\n
If Dorsey is correct, not only must the unity of Leviticus be accepted, but the source theories are completely demolished. How could it be that different editors (J, E, P, D, H) could work independently of one another at different times and in different places, and yet accomplish such a cohesive product?
\nIn conclusion, it appears as if Dorsey\u2019s hypothesis is the most plausible of the chiastic proposals. However, it is much simpler to adopt the six-section structure we have proposed here. Whatever arrangement one wishes to assign the book, one matter is certain: none of the laws of Leviticus focus on either priestly concerns or matters of holiness; rather, the entire book is concerned with holiness, and how one may achieve and maintain it (see \u201cTheology\u201d below).<\/p>\n
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE<\/p>\n
Leviticus presents itself as the third book of Moses. No less than thirty-eight times the text reminds that the laws were given as \u201cthe LORD spoke to Moses\u201d or \u201cthe LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron.\u201d The compliance report in 8:36 stresses that the installation of the priesthood was done entirely as \u201cthe LORD commanded by the hand of Moses.\u201d In 26:46, the conclusion of the main body of Leviticus states, \u201cThese are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the LORD established on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.\u201d The appendix on vows also closes in 27:34 with the words, \u201cThese are the commands the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai for the Israelites.\u201d By such language Leviticus emphasizes repeatedly that its priestly laws were revealed to Israel by the sovereign LORD of heaven and earth through his chosen servant Moses.
\nNot only is this emphasis maintained through all the twenty-seven chapters of Leviticus, but more significantly the affirmation \u201cthe LORD said to Moses\u201d or its equivalent occurs at every significant juncture in the book. Hence the narrative framework clearly claims that the Levitical laws stem from Moses. While the book contains no express statement of its specific authorship and consistently refers to Moses in the third person, the fact remains that Leviticus repeatedly emphasizes its Mosaic character. This is tantamount to a claim of Mosaic authorship, or at least Mosaic provenance, within the text of Leviticus itself.
\nAlthough Genesis or Deuteronomy, rather than Leviticus, may be the more appropriate place to deal with the contested issue of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, it seems vital to emphasize the textual witness in favor of Moses\u2019 authorship within Leviticus and to stress that the book contains absolutely nothing that necessarily postdates Moses. Only on the basis of evolutionary premises inconsistent with any high view of inspiration can one effectively repudiate the essentially Mosaic character of Leviticus and its laws. That Moses may have used scribes to record the LORD\u2019s instructions to him, or that they may have been transmitted in some other way is a somewhat secondary consideration. The text affirms clearly and consistently that Moses was, in the truest sense, the human \u201cauthor\u201d of the divine laws recorded within the sacred pages of Leviticus.
\nAs far as external considerations, Moses certainly had the background to assemble a large collection of laws. As a son of Pharaoh\u2019s daughter (Exod 2:1\u201310), Moses would have had access to certain Near Eastern law codes (e.g., Hammurabi\u2019s, circa 1700 B.C.) that rendered him amply qualified to produce a substantial collection of laws for his own nation. In addition, Deuteronomy roughly correlates with Hittite treaties dating from Moses\u2019 time. All of this evidence seems to point toward the conclusion that Moses was the substantive author of the Pentateuch material.
\nThe old scholarly consensus that P is an independent document edited into the five books of Moses, especially Leviticus 1\u201316, has been challenged, even among the ambit of critical scholarship. Furthermore, no scholar would be so foolish as to claim that P or even H can be dated with any precision. Rendtorff concludes, \u201cIt must be conceded that we really do not possess reliable criteria for dating of the pentateuchal literature.\u201d In addition, the reforms of Josiah in the seventh century B.C. have generally been the historical peg upon which scholars have hung the origin of the Pentateuch. However, recent scholarship has exposed the paucity of evidence for even this important presupposition. Thus, it appears that the scholarly support for a late, certainly post-Mosaic, date of the Pentateuch is crumbling.
\nIn conclusion, it should be noted that no evidence exists to deny Moses as the substantive author of the Pentateuch. In addition, even among scholars, it is becoming increasingly clear that no evidence supports a late date of the \u201cBooks of Moses.\u201d Thus the general attitude that the biblical authors take to the authorship of the Pentateuch must be maintained, and in the final analysis, Moses must be regarded as the substantive author.<\/p>\n
THEOLOGY<\/p>\n
Leviticus is one of the most theologically concentrated books in the biblical canon. Inherent in its laws is a realization that God wishes to maintain a covenant relationship with mankind. The covenant, which was initiated at Sinai, is described more fully in Leviticus as Moses provides the LORD\u2019s instructions for his chosen people.
\nThe key theological concept of Leviticus is holiness. While many modern scholars argue that chapters 18\u201327 are a separate document termed the \u201cHoliness Code,\u201d the entire book presupposes the idea of \u201cseparateness\u201d or holiness (from the root qd\u0161). Roughly described, holiness is equal to the ancient Near Eastern concept of order, i.e., cosmic harmony between God and man. Whenever Israel is holy, they enjoy the state of purity, cleanness, and harmony with God. Whenever they are unholy, they are impure, unclean, and victims of cosmic chaos. In order to repair the broken covenant with a holy God and restore the cosmos to order, Israel must acquiesce to several ritual purifications, ranging from the least severe (bathing and laundering clothes, cf. Lev 15:10) to death (cf. Lev 24:10\u201316). We shall examine this concept in its ancient Near Eastern environment and proceed to discuss its relation to ancient Israel.<\/p>\n
ORDER, CHAOS AND THEOLOGY IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST<\/p>\n
In ancient Near Eastern paganism, the order\/chaos dichotomy was always tense. The gods could send plagues upon mankind, and often did so (Exod 5:2; 9:16\u201317). However, mankind could strike back at the gods with magic, which exercised power over the divine realm. Thus, in paganism, there is always a cosmic chess game at play. Who will gain the upper hand?
\nOrder was established at the creation of the world. In Egypt the terms \u201cEternal Recurrence\u201d and \u201cEternal Sameness\u201d illustrate the creation of the sun, along with the daily life cycle. However, the divine realm is bound by this cycle. Since the gods are anthropomorphic, they are projected onto mythological movie screens (or the ancient equivalents thereof) as examples of human frailty. They must, therefore, be governed by the same or similar natural occurrences as mankind. In other words, the gods grow old and die; they can be manipulated or can themselves manipulate other gods; they become jealous and seek revenge; they marry, procreate and commit adultery, and so on.
\nChaos occurs when the natural course of events shifts. A seven-year famine, for example, might be deemed chaotic (cf. Gen 41:30\u201331). However, the gods would perhaps reveal signs of the coming chaos called omens, which could be revealed in a number of ways, from dreams (cf. Gen 41:1\u20138) to the flight of birds. Although the gods have means of predicting events that cause disorder in the world, they too are bound by, and thus suffer because of, the natural cosmic order.
\nThis precursory information leads us to a discussion of cosmic maintenance. In the ancient Near East, as noted above, the gods were not omnibenevolent nor were they omnipotent. They were themselves the source of many undesirable events. However, the gods were kept in check by cosmic order. This is why ancient Near Eastern religions focus not only on the divine realm, but also on the cosmic realm in ritual. Yehezkel Kaufmann observes, \u201cThe distinctive mark of all pagan rituals is that they are not directed toward the will of the gods alone. They call upon self-operating forces that are independent of the gods, and that the gods themselves need and utilize for their own benefit.\u201d
\nIn the ancient Near East, the three-tiered hierarchy is ordered as follows: (1) the cosmic realm, (2) the divine realm, (3) the human realm. The cosmic realm governs everything. Included in it are day and night, life and death, seasons\u2014eternal recurrences. The divine realm is of course the operating ambit of the gods. Finally, the human realm includes all earthly organisms\u2014humans, plants, and animals. The divine realm attacks the human realm with its own powers, and the human realm strikes against the divine realm by invoking cosmic forces, which bind the gods. Thus magic (the means of calling the cosmos into action) is the most powerful force in the ancient Near East, utilized by both humans and gods (see chart on p. 23).<\/p>\n
ORDER, CHAOS, AND THEOLOGY IN ISRAEL<\/p>\n
In contrast to pagan theology, Israel\u2019s system is much simpler. There is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being that is greater than, and the creator of, all cosmic systems. This being is known as YHWH. No human can manipulate him, and every human is bound by him. Magic is of no consequence because YHWH himself is nonmagical. Thus we encounter something altogether distinct from paganism.
\nBecause God is omnipotent, he sets the rules to which his covenant people must comply. When Israel\u2019s relationship with YHWH is ideal, they are in a state of holiness. The phrase \u201choliness to the LORD\u201d occurs approximately 150 times in the book. Thus, there is no doubt that the theology of Leviticus revolves around a question of holiness.
\nLeviticus also prescribes the formula for restoring cosmic order (holiness), and repairing chaos. There are various ways this can be accomplished: (1) Holiness can be achieved through minor washings and purifications. In extreme cases, washings are combined with sacrifices (Lev 14:1\u201320). Normally, however, uncleanness is not as severe and can be repaired with a ritual bath (cf. Leviticus 15). (2) Sacrifice is a means of restoring or improving a relationship with God. Sin occasions sacrifice, namely those characterized by the root \u05db\u05e4\u05e8 (kpr) meaning \u201cto atone.\u201d However, sacrifices are brought for other reasons as well (for thanksgiving, Lev 7:15; for vows, Lev 7:16; Acts 21:26; and out of free will, Lev 7:16). In these sacrifices, deemed \u201cfellowship offerings,\u201d the worshiper, rather than the priests, receives the meat. (3) The most severe penalty for violating holiness is death. In Leviticus 24:10\u201316, a pericope regarding the punishment for blasphemy is explicated. A man \u201cblasphemed the Name with a curse.\u201d All those who heard the man are to lay their hands on him (v. 14) and stone him to death (v. 16).
\nThus, Israelite theology is something totally different from that of the pagans. It is based on completely different presuppositions and principles, and ultimately speaks of a moral divinity who is involved in and who cares about his creation. This is why God must demand holiness (order). In order to commune with his covenantal observers, they must be in a state of purity. Holiness is thus organized into clearly delineated systems in an effort to assist mankind in his search for such order.
\nThe following diagram helps to illustrate the difference between pagan concepts of the universe, and the Israel system:<\/p>\n
As is clearly seen, the pagan concept of the world allows all three realms to combine, thus empowering human kind to take charge over the entire cosmos. Israel, by contrast, is altogether separate from God and can at best mimic his attributes. They may never, however, use his powers against him, or manipulate him in any way. They can only hope to be a mirror image of God\u2019s holiness.<\/p>\n
LEVITICUS AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH<\/p>\n
Because Christians believe that the Levitical system of ritual and sacrifice has been superseded by the unique sacrifice of Jesus, Leviticus does not occupy for the church the central position in life and thought that it held for ancient Israel. Accordingly, the book of Leviticus is for Christians one of the more neglected portions of the Hebrew Scriptures.
\nLeviticus, however, provides important background for New Testament worship, thought, and life. The temple worship pictured in the New Testament can be properly understood only against the dual background of the Levitical portrayal of worship in the tabernacle sanctuary and the rabbinic understanding of the Levitical system. Furthermore it was according to the principles described in Leviticus that Jewish priests in the New Testament era attempted to fulfill their God-given roles of instruction and ritual judgment as depicted in Leviticus 10:10\u201311: \u201cYou must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the clean and the unclean, and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses.\u201d Thus, directly or indirectly Leviticus is foundational for understanding the religious situation of Palestinian Judaism which the reader encounters in the pages of the New Testament, especially the Gospels.
\nParticularly instructive for Christian faith is the sustained contrast between the Levitical priesthood and that of Christ which is developed at length in the New Testament book of Hebrews. Depicting Jesus as our unique high priest of the order of Melchizedek and as our totally sufficient once-for-all sacrifice for sin, the book of Hebrews leans heavily upon Leviticus, especially upon its climactic description of the annual Day of Atonement in chapter 16.
\nThe keyword of Hebrews is \u201cbetter,\u201d and key verses are 8:6 and 4:14. The former of these passages declares, \u201cBut the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.\u201d The latter verse states, \u201cTherefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.\u201d The book presents Christ forever (7:1\u201328) and describes his superior ministry in \u201cthe true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man\u201d (8:1\u20135). This takes place as the heart of the new covenant predicted by Jeremiah (8:6\u201313; cf. Jer 31:31\u201334) and features the Lord\u2019s atoning sacrifice (9:1\u201324) exalting it as eternally effective (10:1\u201318).
\nAccording to Hebrews Christ\u2019s priesthood is superior because it was sealed by divine oath and because the sinless Jesus sacrificed himself once for all time and now lives forever to provide a permanent priesthood. All this stands in marked contrast to the human Levitical priesthood, which was not sealed by oath and whose human representatives were sinful and mortal (7:1\u201328).
\nFurther, the earthly tabernacle, for all its sanctity and greatness, was but a shadowy copy of the heavenly reality in which Christ ministers (8:1\u20135). Hence, the new covenant Jeremiah predicted is fulfilled through Christ and is superior in three ways\u2014greater internality, fuller knowledge of God, and fully accomplished forgiveness (8:6\u201313). Hebrews affirms that the tabernacle (9:1\u20135) with its ritual (9:6\u201310) involved restricted access, partial cleansing, and limited pardon, while Christ\u2019s superior redemptive ministry involves full access, full cleansing, and full pardon (9:11\u201314). Thus Christ mediates the new covenant, sealing it with his death (9:15\u201322). His sacrifice is final (9:23\u201325) and, in contrast to the somewhat impotent offerings of the past, establishes the new covenant and brings into reality the full forgiveness Jeremiah promised for it (10:1\u201318).
\nHebrews features the longest sustained argument in the New Testament. This survey of its more relevant chapters clearly demonstrates that the unknown inspired author of Hebrews draws upon Leviticus time and again to establish his contrast and to move to his triumphant conclusion in 10:19\u201322:<\/p>\n
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
\nIn all of this Leviticus provides the essential resource for understanding Jesus\u2019 death as sacrifice for sins and for recognizing Jesus as the sinless and eternal high priest. Through studying Leviticus we come to appreciate more deeply the great spiritual realities of sin, sacrifice, atonement, and holiness.
\nThus, while the specifics of Leviticus are frequently time-bound, mostly limited to the dispensation Moses inaugurated and its Jewish proselyte adherents, many of its spiritual principles are timeless. God still calls to purity with the words, \u201cBe holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy\u201d (Lev 19:2), a call perhaps echoed in Jesus\u2019 \u201cBe perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect\u201d (Matt 5:48). Peter also appeals to Leviticus with the words, \u201cBut just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: \u2018Be holy, because I am holy\u2019 \u201d (1 Pet 1:15\u201316; compare Lev 11:44\u201345; 19:2; 20:7).
\nThe LORD calls for loyalty to the new covenant just as he called for obedience to the Mosaic legislation. The call for purity among the LORD\u2019s people and single allegiance to his will still resonates, and Christians can learn from Leviticus to reverence the sacred space within their hearts created by the presence of their sovereign holy LORD. As priests ourselves among God\u2019s holy spiritual house, the church, we are called upon \u201cto be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ\u201d (1 Pet 2:5) and even to consider our bodies \u201cas living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God\u201d as our \u201cspiritual act of worship\u201d (Rom 12:1). In different frame then, Leviticus can instruct us concerning human sinfulness and God\u2019s gracious provision for atonement healing and hope so that we can truly be \u201ca chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God,\u201d fit for God\u2019s holy and sacred presence within us (1 Pet 2:9).<\/p>\n
LEVITICUS OUTLINE<\/p>\n
Part One: Approaching God\u20141:1\u201316:34
\nI. Sacrifice Instructions Given\u20141:1\u20137:38
\nA. Regulations for Burnt Offerings Given\u20141:1\u201317
\n1. Superscription\u20141:1\u20132
\n2. Cattle as Burnt Offerings\u20141:3\u20139
\n3. Sheep, Goats as Burnt Offerings\u20141:10\u201313
\n4. Birds as Burnt Offerings\u20141:14\u201317
\nB. Regulations for Grain Offerings Given\u20142:1\u201316
\n1. Flour as Grain Offerings\u20142:1\u20133
\n2. Baked Grain Offerings\u20142:4\u201310
\n3. Accompaniments for Grain Offerings\u20142:11\u201313
\n4. Grain Offerings of Firstfruits\u20142:14\u201316
\nC. Regulations for Fellowship Offerings Given\u20143:1\u201317
\n1. Fellowship Offerings of Cattle\u20143:1\u20135
\n2. Fellowship Offerings of Sheep\u20143:6\u201311
\n3. Fellowship Offerings of Goats\u20143:12\u201317
\nD. Regulations for Sin Offerings Given\u20144:1\u20135:13
\n1. Sin Offering for the High Priest\u20144:1\u201312
\n2. Sin Offering for the Congregation\u20144:13\u201321
\n3. Sin Offering for a Leader\u20144:22\u201326
\n4. Sin Offering for a Common Person\u20144:27\u201335
\n5. Instances Demanding a Sin Offering\u20145:1\u20136
\n6. Sin Offerings for the Poor\u20145:7\u201313
\nE. Regulations for Guilt Offerings Given\u20145:14\u20136:7
\n1. As Reparation for Things Belonging to God\u20145:14\u201319
\n2. As Reparation for Things Belonging to Men\u20146:1\u20137
\nF. Special Instructions for Priests Given\u20146:8\u20137:38
\n1. The Burnt Offering\u20146:8\u201313
\n2. The Grain Offering\u20146:14\u201323
\n3. The Sin Offering\u20146:24\u201330
\n4. The Guilt Offering\u20147:1\u201310
\n5. The Fellowship Offering\u20147:11\u201321
\n6. Prohibition of Fat and Blood\u20147:22\u201327
\n7. The Priestly Portions\u20147:28\u201336
\n8. Summary\u20147:37\u201338
\nII. Levitical Sacrifices Begin\u20148:1\u201310:20
\nA. Aaron and Sons Consecrated\u20148:1\u201336
\nB. Sacrifices Offered for Priesthood and People\u20149:1\u201324
\nC. Priestly Disobedience Met by Punishment, Warnings\u201410:1\u201320
\nIII. Ceremonial Purity Taught\u201411:1\u201315:33
\nA. Clean and Unclean Animals Delineated\u201411:1\u201347
\n1. Introduction\u201411:1\u20132
\n2. Quadrupeds\u201411:3\u20138
\n3. Fish and Birds\u201411:9\u201319
\n4. Flying Insects\u201411:20\u201323
\n5. Impurity from Carrion\u201411:24\u201347
\nB. Purification after Childbirth Described\u201412:1\u20138
\nC. Uncleanness of Leprosy Regulated\u201413:1\u201314:57
\n1. Instructions for Priestly Diagnosis of Skin Blemishes Given\u201413:1\u201346
\n2. Diagnosis of \u201cLeprosy\u201d in Garments Depicted\u201413:47\u201359
\n3. Purification Rites for Cleansed Leper Given\u201414:1\u201332
\n4. Treatment of \u201cLeprosy\u201d in Houses Described\u201414:33\u201357
\nD. Instructions Concerning Unclean Bodily Discharges Given\u201415:1\u201333
\n1. Male Discharges\u201415:1\u201318
\n2. Female Discharges\u201415:19\u201330
\n3. Conclusion\u201415:31\u201333
\nIV. Day of Atonement Commanded\u201416:1\u201334
\nA. Preparation of High Priest Described\u201416:1\u201310
\nB. Ritual for High Priest\u2019s Sin Offering Set Forth\u201416:11\u201314
\nC. Ritual for Sin Offering for the People Depicted\u201416:15\u201319
\nD. Ritual of Scapegoat Depicted\u201416:20\u201322
\nE. Instructions for Remainder of Ceremony Given\u201416:23\u201328
\nF. Additional Instructions for Day of Atonement Given\u201416:29\u201334
\nPart Two: Walking with God\u201417:1\u201326:46
\nI. Holiness Demanded in Israel\u201417:1\u201320:27
\nA. Place of Sacrifice Stipulated\u201417:1\u20139
\nB. Eating of Blood Prohibited\u201417:10\u201316
\nC. Pagan Sexual Offenses Opposed\u201418:1\u201330
\nD. Holiness Demanded in Daily Conduct\u201419:1\u201337
\nE. Punishments Listed for Violation of Holiness Requirements\u201420:1\u201327
\nII. Holiness Demanded in Priesthood and Offerings\u201421:1\u201322:33
\nA. Laws of Priestly Sanctity Given\u201421:1\u201324
\n1. Requirements Given for All Priests\u201421:1\u20139
\n2. Special Regulations for High Priest Given\u201421:10\u201315
\n3. Disqualifying Blemishes Listed\u201421:16\u201324
\nB. Sanctity of Offerings Protected\u201422:1\u201316
\nC. Animals Acceptable for Offerings Delineated\u201422:17\u201333
\nIII. Holy Times and Seasons Regulated\u201423:1\u201325:55
\nA. Sabbath, Annual Feasts Regulated\u201423:1\u201344
\n1. Sabbath Law Repeated\u201423:1\u20133
\n2. Passover, Unleavened Bread Treated\u201423:4\u20138
\n3. Firstfruits Commanded\u201423:9\u201314
\n4. Pentecost Commanded\u201423:15\u201322
\n5. Feast of Trumpets Proclaimed\u201423:23\u201325
\n6. Day of Atonement Reemphasized\u201423:26\u201332
\n7. Feast of Tabernacles Described\u201423:33\u201344
\nB. Holy Oil, Bread of Presence to Be Prepared\u201424:1\u20139
\nC. Penalty for Blasphemy Set, Executed\u201424:10\u201323
\nD. Sabbatical, Jubilee Years Regulated\u201425:1\u201355
\n1. Sabbatical Year Treated\u201425:1\u20137
\n2. Year of Jubilee Commanded\u201425:8\u201355
\nIV. Promises, Warnings Voiced\u201426:1\u201346
\nA. An Obedient People Promised Blessing\u201426:1\u201313
\nB. Israel Warned against Disobedience\u201426:14\u201346
\nAppendix: Instruction Concerning Vows Given\u201427:1\u201334
\nI. Rules Given for Evaluating Persons Vowed\u201427:1\u20138
\nII. Regulations Given for Animals Dedicated\u201427:9\u201313
\nIII. Dedicated Real Estate Treated\u201427:14\u201325
\nIV. Objects Excluded from Vows Treated\u201427:26\u201334<\/p>\n
LEVITICUS BIBLIOGRAPHY<\/p>\n
COMMENTARIES<\/p>\n
Dillmann, August. Das B\u00fccher Exodus und Leviticus. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1880.<\/p>\n
Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1966.<\/p>\n
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary. Trans. by Douglas W. Scott. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996.<\/p>\n
Gray, George Buchanan. Numbers. New York: Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons, 1903.<\/p>\n
Harrison, R.K. Leviticus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980.<\/p>\n
Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Dallas: Word, 1992.<\/p>\n
Hofmann, D.Z. Das Buch Leviticus. Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905.<\/p>\n
Ibn Ezra, Abraham. The Commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch. Volume 3: Leviticus. Trans. by Jay F. Shachter. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1986.<\/p>\n
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. \u201cLeviticus.\u201d The New Interpreter\u2019s Bible, 1:983\u20131191. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.<\/p>\n
Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.<\/p>\n
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 3 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1991, 2000.<\/p>\n
Noth, Martin. Leviticus: A Commentary. Trans. by J.E. Anderson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.<\/p>\n
Rashi. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth, and Rashi\u2019s Commentary. Trans. and annotated by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann. New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1946.<\/p>\n
Rendtorff, Rolf. Leviticus. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985.<\/p>\n
Snaith, Nahum H. Leviticus and Numbers. London: Nelson, 1967.<\/p>\n
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.<\/p>\n
SPECIAL STUDIES<\/p>\n
Andr\u00e9, G. \u201c\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e3, k\u0101\u0161ap.\u201d TDOT, 7:360\u2013366.<\/p>\n
Bertholet, A. Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden. Freiburg: Mohr, 1896.<\/p>\n
Bibb, Bryan D. \u201cNadab and Abihu Attempt to Fill a Gap: Law and Narrative in Leviticus 10.1\u20137.\u201d JSOT 96 (2001): 83\u201399.<\/p>\n
Bigger, Stephen F. \u201cThe Family Laws of Leviticus 18 in Their Setting.\u201d JBL 98 [1979]: 187\u2013203.<\/p>\n
Blackman, Philip, trans. Mishnayoth (\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea). 7 vols. New York: Judaica, 1964.<\/p>\n
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Sage, Priest, and Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995.<\/p>\n
Brichto, Herbert Chanan. \u201cOn Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement.\u201d HUCA 47 (1976): 19\u201355.<\/p>\n
Carmichael, Calum M. \u201cForbidden Mixtures in Deuteronomy XXII 9\u201311 and Leviticus XIX 19.\u201d VT 45 (1995): 433\u2013448.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. Law Legend and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18\u201320. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLaws of Leviticus 19.\u201d HTR 87 (1994): 239\u2013256.<\/p>\n
Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985.<\/p>\n
Chirichigno, G.C. Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.<\/p>\n
Cohen, Martin Samuel. \u201cThe Biblical Prohibition of Homosexual Intercourse.\u201d Journal of Homosexuality 19 (1990): 3\u201320.<\/p>\n
Cohen, Matty. \u201cLe \u2018Ger\u2019 biblique et son statut socio-religieux.\u201d RHR 207 (1990): 131\u2013158.<\/p>\n
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard, 1973.<\/p>\n
Daube, David. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947.<\/p>\n
Day, John. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. UCOP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.<\/p>\n
Derrett, Duncan M. \u201c \u2018Love thy neighbor as a man like thyself\u2019?\u201d ExpT 83 (1971): 55\u201356.<\/p>\n
de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964.<\/p>\n
Dodd, C.H. \u201c\u1f31\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: Its Cognates, Derivatives, and Synonyms in the Septuagint.\u201d JTS 32 (1931): 352\u2013360.<\/p>\n
Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge, 1966.<\/p>\n
Driver, G.R. \u201cThree Technical Terms in the Pentateuch.\u201d JSS 1 (1956): 97\u2013105.<\/p>\n
Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. The Savage in Judaism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990.<\/p>\n
Eissfeldt, Otto. Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebr\u00e4ischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 3. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1935.<\/p>\n
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford, Clarendon, 1985.<\/p>\n
Frazer, James. The Golden Bough. Vol. 3. London: Macmillan, 1911\u20131915.<\/p>\n
Geiger, A. Urschrift und \u00dcbersetzungen der Bibel. Breslau: Hainauer, 1857.<\/p>\n
Gerstenberger, Erhard. \u201cCovenant and Commandment.\u201d JBL 84 [1965]: 38\u201351.<\/p>\n
Gnuse, R. \u201cJubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel\u2019s Vision of Social Reform.\u201d BTB 15 (1985): 43\u201348.<\/p>\n
Good, E.M. The Sheep of His Pasture: A Study of the Hebrew Noun \u2018Am(m) and Its Semitic Cognates. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983.<\/p>\n
Gradwohl, Roland. \u201cDas \u2018Fremde Feuer\u2019 von Nadab und Abihu.\u201d ZAW 75 (1963): 288\u2013296.<\/p>\n
Greenberg, Moshe. \u201cThe Etymology of \u05d4\u05d3\u05d2 \u2018(Menstrual) Impurity.\u2019 \u201d Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, pp. 69\u201377. Ed. by Adele Berlin, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.<\/p>\n
Gruber, Martin I. \u201cHebrew Q\u0259d\u0113\u0161\u0101h and Her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates.\u201d UF 18 (1986): 133\u2013148.<\/p>\n
Hoenig, S.B. \u201cSabbatical Years and the Year of Jubilee.\u201d JQR 59 (1969): 222\u2013236.<\/p>\n
Hudson, Michael. \u201cThe Economic Roots of the Jubilee.\u201d BR 15 (1993): 26\u201333, 44.<\/p>\n
Kaiser, O. \u201c\u05e0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e8, n\u0101dar.\u201d TDOT, 9:242\u2013255.<\/p>\n
Kaufman, Stephen A. \u201cA Reconstruction of the Social Welfare System of Ancient Israel.\u201d In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on the Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature, pp. 277\u2013286. Ed. by W. Barrick and J. Spencer. JSOTSupp 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.<\/p>\n
Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Trans. and abrid. by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.<\/p>\n
Kellermann, D. \u201c\u05d2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8, g\u00fbr.\u201d TDOT, 2:439\u2013449.<\/p>\n
Kiutchi, N. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988.<\/p>\n
Koch, K. \u201c\u05d7\u05b8\u05d8\u05b8\u05d0, ch\u0101\u1e6d\u0101\u02be.\u201d TDOT, 4:309\u2013319.<\/p>\n
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. and ed. by M.E.J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2001.<\/p>\n
Kugel, James L. \u201cOn Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17.\u201d HTR 80 (1987): 43\u201361.<\/p>\n
Kurtz, J.H. Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863.<\/p>\n
Lambdin, Thomas O. \u201cEgyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament.\u201d JAOS 73 [1953]: 145\u201355.<\/p>\n
Lambert, W.G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960.<\/p>\n
Laughlin, John C.H. \u201cThe \u2018Strange Fire\u2019 of Nadab and Abihu.\u201d JBL 95 (1976): 559\u2013565.<\/p>\n
Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord. Leiden: Brill, 1974.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLeviticus, Book of.\u201d ABD, 4.311\u201321.<\/p>\n
Levinson, Bruce M. \u201cCalum M. Carmichael\u2019s Approach to the Laws of Deuteronomy.\u201d HTR 83 (1990): 227\u2013257.<\/p>\n
Livingston, Daniel H. \u201cThe Crime of Leviticus XXIV 11.\u201d VT 36 (1986): 352\u2013354.<\/p>\n
Lohfink, N. \u201c\u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05dd, \u1e25\u0101ram.\u201d TDOT, 5:180\u2013199.<\/p>\n
Maas, Fritz. \u201c\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd, \u02be\u0101dh\u0101m.\u201d TDOT, 1:75\u201387.<\/p>\n
Macht, D.I. \u201cA Scientific Appreciation of Leviticus 12:1\u20135. JBL 52 (1933): 253\u2013260.<\/p>\n
Magonet, Jonathan. \u201c \u2018But If It Is a Girl She Is Unclean for Twice Seven Days \u2026\u2019 The Riddle of Leviticus 12.5.\u201d Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas. Ed. by J.F.A. Sawyer. JSOTSupp 226. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Structure and Meaning of Leviticus 19.\u201d HAR 7 (1983): 151\u2013167.<\/p>\n
Mazar, A. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1990.<\/p>\n
McCarthy, Dennis J. \u201cThe Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice.\u201d JBL 88 (1969): 166\u2013176.<\/p>\n
Meier, Sam. \u201cHouse Fungus: Mesopotamia and Israel (Lev 14:33\u201353).\u201d RB 96 (1989): 184\u2013192.<\/p>\n
Mendelsohn, I. Slavery in the Ancient Near East. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.<\/p>\n
Meyers, C. The Tabernacle Menorah. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976.<\/p>\n
Milgrom, Jacob. \u201cThe Betrothed Slave Girl, Lev. 19:20\u201322.\u201d ZAW 89 (1977): 43\u201350.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System.\u201d Int 17 (1963): 288\u2013301.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Changing Concept of Holiness.\u201d Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, pp. 65\u201375. Ed. by John F.A. Sawyer. JSOTSupp. 227. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Leiden: Brill, 1976.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cEncroachment.\u201d IDB Supplement. Ed. by George A. Buttrick. Pp. 264\u2013265. Nashville:Abingdon, 1976.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cIsrael\u2019s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray.\u201d RB 83 (1976): 390\u2013399.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Legal Terms \u0161lm and br\u02be\u0161w in the Bible.\u201d JNES 35 (1976): 236\u2013247.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cOf Hems and Tassels.\u201d BAR 9 (1983): 361\u2013365.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cA Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11.\u201d JBL 90 (1971): 149\u2013156.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cReligious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel.\u201d JBL 101 (1982): 169\u2013176.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cSin-Offering or Purification-Offering?\u201d VT 21 (1971): 237\u2013239.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. Leiden: Brill, 1983.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. Studies in Levitical Terminology: The Encroacher and the Levite. The Term \u2018Aboda. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cStudies in the Temple Scroll.\u201d JBL 97 (1978): 501\u2013523.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cTwo Kinds of \u1e25a\u1e6d\u1e6d\u0101t.\u201d VT 26 (1976): 333\u2013337.<\/p>\n
Milgrom, Jacob, Wright, D.P. and H.-J. Fabry. \u201c\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4, ml\u0101k\u00e2.\u201d TDOT, 8:325\u2013331.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201c\u05e0\u05b4\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4, nidd\u00e2.\u201d TDOT, 9:232\u2013235.<\/p>\n
Miller, Patrick D. \u201cIsraelite Religion.\u201d The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Ed. by Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.<\/p>\n
Moran, William L. \u201cThe Scandal of the \u2018Great Sin\u2019 at Ugarit.\u201d JNES 18 (1959): 280\u2013281.<\/p>\n
Morris, Leon. \u201cThe Use of \u1f31\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 etc. in Biblical Greek.\u201d ExpT 62 (1950\/51): 227\u2013233.<\/p>\n
Movers, F.C. Die Ph\u00f6nizien. Bonn: Eduard Weber, 1841.<\/p>\n
M\u00fcnter, F. Religion der Kathager. 2nd. ed. Copenhagen: John Heinrich Schubothe, 1891.<\/p>\n
Muraoka, Takamitsu. \u201cA Syntactical Problem in Lev. xix. 18b.\u201d JSS 23 (1978): 291\u2013297.<\/p>\n
Nakhai, Beth Alpert. \u201cWhat\u2019s a Bamah? How Sacred Space Functioned in Ancient Israel.\u201d BAR 20 (1994): 18\u201319, 77\u201378.<\/p>\n
Neudecker, Reinhard. \u201c \u2018And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself\u2014I Am the Lord\u2019 (Lev 19, 18) in Jewish Interpretation.\u201d Bib 73 (1992): 496\u2013517.<\/p>\n
North, R.G. Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee. AnBib 4. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1954.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201c\u05d9\u05d5\u05d1\u05b5\u05dc, y\u00f4b\u0113l.\u201d TDOT, 6:1\u20136.<\/p>\n
Olyan, Saul M. \u201c \u2018And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman\u2019: On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.\u201d Journal of the History of Sexuality 5 (1994): 179\u2013206.<\/p>\n
P\u00e9ter, R. \u201cL\u2019imposition des mains dans l\u2019Ancien Testament.\u201d VT 27 (1972): 48\u201355.<\/p>\n
Preuss, H.D. \u201c\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2, z\u0101ra\u02bf.\u201d TDOT, 4:145\u2013146.<\/p>\n
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.<\/p>\n
Rabinowitz, Jacob J. \u201cThe \u2018Great Sin\u2019 in Ancient Egyptian Marriage Contracts.\u201d JNES 18 (1959): 73.<\/p>\n
Rainey, A.F. \u201cThe Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts.\u201d Biblica (1970): 485\u2013498.<\/p>\n
Reiner, E. \u0160urpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. Graz: Archiv f\u00fcr Orientforschung, 1958.<\/p>\n
Reventlow, H. Graf. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtliche untersucht. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961.<\/p>\n
Ringgren, H. \u201c\u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4, ch\u0101y\u0101h.\u201d TDOT, 4:324\u2013344.<\/p>\n
Sawyer, John F.A. \u201cA Note on the Etymology of \u1e63\u0101r\u0101\u02bfat.\u201d VT 26 (1976): 241\u2013245.<\/p>\n
Schenker, Adrian. \u201cThe Biblical Legislation on the Release of Slaves: The Road from Exodus to Leviticus.\u201d JSOT 78 (1998): 23\u201341.<\/p>\n
Schmid, Rudolf. Das Bundesopfer in Israel. M\u00fcnchen: K\u00f6sel, 1964.<\/p>\n
Schwartz, Baruch A. \u201cThe Prohibitions Concerning the \u2018Eating\u2019 of Blood in Leviticus 17.\u201d Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, pp. 34\u201366. Ed by Gary A. Anderson. JSOTSupp 125. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.<\/p>\n
Segal, Peretz. \u201cThe Divine Verdict of Leviticus x 3. VT 29 (1989): 91\u201395.<\/p>\n
Seidl, T. \u201c\u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05ea, \u1e63\u0101ra\u02bfat.\u201d TDOT, 12:468\u2013475.<\/p>\n
Smith, William Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1927.<\/p>\n
Staubli, Thomas. \u201cDie Symbolik des Vogelrituals bei der Reinigung von Auss\u00e4tzigen (Lev 14, 4\u20137). Bib 83 (2002): 230\u2013237.<\/p>\n
Toorn, Karel van der. \u201cFemale Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel.\u201d JBL 108 (1989): 193\u2013205.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cProstitution [Cultic].\u201d ABD, 5:510\u2013513.<\/p>\n
Volz, P. \u201cHandauflegung beim Opfer.\u201d ZAW 21 (1901): 93\u2013100.<\/p>\n
Von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. Trans. by D.M.G. Stalker. London: Oliver, 1962.<\/p>\n
Wenham, Gordon J. \u201cLeviticus 27:2\u20138 and the Price of Slaves.\u201d ZAW 90 (1978): 264\u2013265.<\/p>\n
Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropology of the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1974.<\/p>\n
Wright, David P. The Disposal of Impurity. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature.\u201d JAOS 106 (1986): 433\u2013446.<\/p>\n
Ziskind, Jonathan. \u201cThe Missing Daughter in Leviticus XVIII.\u201d VT 46 (1996): 125\u2013130.
\nZobel, H.-J. \u201c\u05e2\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea, \u02bf\u0101m\u00eet.\u201d TDOT, 11:192\u2013196.<\/p>\n
LEVITICUS 1:1\u201316:34\u2014PART ONE<\/p>\n
APPROACHING GOD<\/p>\n
Included in this section are sacrificial regulations (chs. 1\u20137), the record of the consecration of the priesthood (chs. 8\u201310), teachings concerning ceremonial purity (chs. 11\u201315), and instructions for the annual Day of Atonement (ch. 16). Although the section is predominately legislation, chapters 8\u201310 are a historical narrative (the instructions for the consecration of the priests having been previously given in Exodus 29:1\u201337).<\/p>\n
I. Sacrifice Instructions Given (1:1\u20137:38)<\/p>\n
Like much of Leviticus, these chapters could serve as a ceremonial manual. The section 1:1\u20136:7 is addressed \u201cto the people of Israel,\u201d whereas chapters 6:8\u20137:38 are in part addressed more specifically to \u201cAaron and his sons.\u201d The procedures for the various sacrifices are set forth in a descriptive manner; ordinarily, as noted below, the case form of legislation is used. Little discussion of the theory of sacrifice is given, it being simply noted that God has provided sacrifice for his people (7:38; see also 17:11). The Christian rightly sees in the sacrifices of the Mosaic legislation the foreshadowing of the unique sacrifice of our Redeemer. In fact much of the New Testament book of Hebrews may be considered a valuable inspired commentary on the permanent meaning of Leviticus for the Christian (cf. Heb 10:1\u201318).<\/p>\n
A. REGULATIONS FOR BURNT OFFERING GIVEN (1:1\u201317)<\/p>\n
1. Superscription (1:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
1:1 Literally beginning \u201cand the LORD called,\u201d the opening verse connects naturally with the preceding Exodus material which related the planning, construction, and dedication of the Tent of Meeting at the close of which \u201cthe cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle\u201d (Exod 40:34). Hebrews 9:2\u20135 succinctly describes this \u201cearthly sanctuary.\u201d God had made his presence to dwell in Israel in the tabernacle and now he spoke to Moses from that place. The form in which the divine ordinances are stated is customarily quite different from the absolute imperatives and prohibitions of the Ten Commandments. For example, the present passage begins with a general situation (when any of you brings \u2026) and then proceeds to consider several specific cases within the general situation, each of which is introduced by \u201cif,\u201d such as if \u2026 from the herd (v. 3), if \u2026 from the flock (v. 10), or if \u2026 of birds (v. 14). Laws stated in such case form have been termed \u201ccasuistic laws\u201d in distinction from the absolute commands which are termed \u201capodictic laws.\u201d It is interesting to note that the casuistic laws have much in common with other law codes of the ancient Near East, some of which antedate Moses. The apodictic laws, on the other hand, are more distinctively Israelite. The basis of all the laws of the Law of Moses, including those regulations similar to the ordinances of other ancient peoples, is God\u2019s unique act in revealing himself and calling Israel to covenant with him.
\n1:2 God commands Moses as covenant mediator to address the Israelites. Although the material in Leviticus was to be especially significant for the priests, it was to be of concern to every Israelite, who would need to know what he was to do when he brought an offering. It will be noted that this instruction assumed a man would want to bring an offering. Sacrifice and offering as a means of approaching God were, of course, well known in the Patriarchal Age prior to the Mosaic legislation. In Leviticus, they are regulated and the proper procedures for them given. The Hebrew word rendered offering (\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05df, qorb\u0101n) is a general term for all kinds of offerings. This word is from q\u0101rab, a stem used in one tense form to mean \u201cto bring near,\u201d \u201cto present,\u201d and thus conveys the idea \u201cthat which is brought,\u201d or \u201cpresentation.\u201d
\nThe domesticated animal to be offered could be a bullock from the herd or a sheep or goat from the flock. For the poor who could afford none of these, special provision was made (v. 10). Because verses one and two so effectively give the setting and introduce the subject, they may be profitably regarded as an appropriate heading for the sacrificial legislation and even for the book as a whole. The text then moves to treat the various sacrifices, beginning with the three most common ones: burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings.<\/p>\n
2. Cattle as Burnt Offerings (1:3\u20139)<\/p>\n
1:3\u20134 The word rendered burnt offering (\u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4, \u02bf\u014dl\u0101h) means literally, \u201cthat which ascends,\u201d so named because the entire animal is burnt and thus ascends in fire and smoke. In other types of sacrifices only part of the animal was consumed by fire, as will be noted. Three kinds of animals could be brought for a burnt offering: (1) a bullock (vv. 3\u20139), (2) a sheep or goat (vv. 10\u201313), (3) a turtledove or pigeon (vv. 14\u201317) (cf. John 2:14). For the burnt offering, a male was required, but in some other cases a female could be offered (see 3:1). The service of God demanded the best, an animal without defect (cf. 22:19, 25; Deut 17:1). Malachi the prophet, at the close of the Old Testament era, indicted Israel for bringing blemished animals for sacrifice (Mal 1:6\u20138). The worshiper is instructed to bring his sacrifice to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The penitent offerer desired that his sacrifice might be acceptable to the LORD. Accordingly, he brought the sacrifice as prescribed by law, and was accepted in the name of the LORD by the priests. The burnt offering, which was the type of sacrifice used for the daily congregational offerings (Exod 29:42), could be brought voluntarily by an individual, but this is not the meaning of the above phrase. Hence, the King James Version reading, \u201cof his own voluntary will,\u201d is inaccurate. By firmly pressing on the head of the sacrificial animal, the worshiper identified it as his sacrifice (and perhaps even as his substitute) which he desired to offer to the LORD on behalf of himself. The sacrificial procedure may very well have been accompanied by confession and prayer. This \u201claying on of hands\u201d in the act of sacrifice provides background for the similar New Testament terminology for appointing people to special service.
\n1:5\u20136 The burnt offering was designed to make atonement. The Hebrew verb here (\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8, kipp\u0113r) is from a root meaning \u201cto cover over.\u201d The thought appears to be that sacrifice, as the means provided by God, serves to cover over sin from his sight, and therefore remove its effects so that the individual (or thing, or congregation) can be again fit for the sacred space of his holy presence. In a private sacrifice, the offerer was permitted to slaughter the animal himself, whereas, in the congregational sacrifices, the priests, sometimes assisted by Levites, slaughtered and flayed the animals (cf. 2 Chr 29:22, 24, 34). The animal was to be slaughtered before the LORD, at the sanctuary, at the \u201centrance to the Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 3; 3:2), evidently more precisely located as \u201cthe north side of the altar\u201d (v. 11). Only Aaron\u2019s sons the priests could collect the sacrificial blood in a vessel and sprinkle it against the altar for purposes of atonement (Exod 28:1, 40\u201341). According to Jewish tradition, the blood was thrown against the northeast and southwest corners of the altar, thus touching all four sides. On the significance of the blood, see 17:11 and notes. The offerer was to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. The skin was not burnt, but was rather given to the officiating priest (7:8). Skinning and cutting the public sacrifices was reserved for the priests primarily, but under certain pressing circumstances, the Levites were employed as well (see 2 Chr 29:34). In addition, it seems that the natural divisions of bone structure served as the basis for cutting the animal.
\n1:7\u20139 In verse seven, the text refers to the beginning of sacrifices at the tabernacle when the sons of Aaron the priest would first put fire on the altar. They were to then arrange wood on the fire. Receiving the parts of the animal from the worshiper, the priests were to administer the sacrifice as directed. Practically the entire animal was burnt, the skin being the only exception (7:8). An offering made by fire is a general expression designating any offering of which part or all was consumed by the altar fire (cf. 2:2, 11, 16). Anthropomorphically, an obedient sacrifice is designated as an aroma pleasing to the LORD to convey the idea that the sincere sacrifices of his people pleased the LORD just as sweet odors please men (Gen 8:21). In the present context the expression is probably a technical term for sacrifices receiving the LORD\u2019s approval (cf. 1:13, 17; 2:2, 9, 12, etc.).<\/p>\n
3. Sheep, Goats as Burnt Offerings (1:10\u201313)<\/p>\n
1:10\u201313 The text describes procedure practically identical to that given for the sacrifice of a bullock in the preceding paragraph. The \u201cif\u201d clause introduces another casuistic law with the offering taken from either the sheep or the goats. The sheep is the most frequently used burnt offering (cf. 9:3). The goat is never used for congregational burnt offerings, but is rather reserved for personal sacrifice (see 22:19). Specifying the north side of the altar may indicate the small animals were slaughtered on one side of the altar and the larger animals on another, but more likely, the text is simply more specific here than in verses 3\u20135.<\/p>\n
4. Birds as Burnt Offerings (1:14\u201317)<\/p>\n
1:14\u201317 In the case of birds, the procedure for the sacrifice was altered, probably due to the small size of the offering. Appropriate for such offering was a dove or a young pigeon, which the worshiper would simply bring to the priest. This bringing of the bird takes the place of the laying of the hands upon a larger animal (v. 4), and the entire ritual in the case of a bird was handled by the priest who would wring off the head before administering the sacrifice. Because of the tiny amount of blood involved, the blood was drained out on the side of the altar instead of being collected and sprinkled, as was the case with larger animals (vv. 5, 11). Like the skin of the larger animals, the crop with its contents was not burnt. Tearing open the slain bird by its wings replaces the action of cutting into parts (vv. 6, 12). As before, an acceptable burnt offering is technically described as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD (cf. 1:9; 6:9\u201313).<\/p>\n
B. REGULATIONS FOR GRAIN OFFERINGS GIVEN (2:1\u201316)<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word translated \u201cgrain\u201d (\u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4, min\u1e25\u0101h) means literally \u201cgift.\u201d Although sometimes used as a general term for offerings, the word came to be used as a technical term for cereal or meal offerings. (The King James rendering, \u201cmeat offering,\u201d is now misleading, \u201cmeat\u201d having its older connotation, \u201cfood.\u201d) Ordinarily grain offerings accompanied animal offerings (cf. Num 15:1\u201316). They could serve as independent offerings, especially for the very poor, whose sincere gift in such circumstances would be not only acceptable but praiseworthy. Compare Jesus\u2019 commendation of the poor widow\u2019s gift of two tiny coins (Mark 12:42). The text deals with the kinds of cereal offerings acceptable, gives their proper ingredients, excludes leaven and honey from such offerings, and describes the treatment of such offerings by the priests (cf. 6:14\u201318).<\/p>\n
1. Flour as Grain Offerings (2:1\u20133)<\/p>\n
2:1\u20133 The text gives first the basic regulation for grain offerings, describing their preparation, presentation, offering, and burning. By pouring olive oil on the fine flour the individual prepared it as for baking. Too, the grain offering was often accompanied by drink offerings of wine (Num 14:4\u20135). In the grain offering, therefore, the Israelite was offering basic ingredients of his daily diet. All of the incense was to be contained in the portion burned on the altar (v. 2). Part of each grain offering was burned on the altar as a memorial portion before the LORD, thus constituting another offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. The remainder was given to the priests as a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. The practical effect of this technical designation of the priests\u2019 portion was that it could only be eaten by Aaron and his sons in the court of the tent of meeting (6:16, 18).<\/p>\n
2. Baked Grain Offerings (2:4\u201310)<\/p>\n
2:4\u201310 The grain offering could be cooked in a variety of ways. It could be baked in an oven (v. 4), prepared on a griddle (v. 5), or cooked in a pan (v. 7). However the grain was prepared, the ritual was the same as for the grain offering brought in unbaked form as just described in verses 1\u20133.<\/p>\n
3. Accompaniments for Grain Offerings (2:11\u201313)<\/p>\n
2:11\u201313 The text excludes both yeast and honey from regular grain offerings. Both leaven and honey produce fermentation, a process considered corruptive and often made symbolic of evil. Leaven and honey, therefore, were not to be burned on the altar as an offering by fire. One type of firstfruits (\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea, r\u0113\u02be\u0161\u00eeth) was not burned on the altar but was rather given to the priests (cf. 23:10; Num 18:12; Deut 18:4). Accordingly, the exclusion of leaven from the fire offerings did not affect r\u0113\u02be\u0161\u00eeth offerings. In ancient times covenants were often sealed by the parties involved eating bread and salt together. This salt of the covenant symbolized the binding character of the agreement made. The covenant between God and Levi and the covenant between God and David are termed covenants of salt (Num 18:19; 2 Chr 13:5). In the present passage salt is made a part of all offerings, thus symbolizing that the covenant between the LORD and Israel was to be a binding covenant. Whenever an Israelite made an offering, he was strikingly reminded of his covenant with the LORD and its obligations and privileges.<\/p>\n
4. Grain Offerings of Firstfruits (2:14\u201316)<\/p>\n
2:14\u201316 Treated in the final paragraph is a kind of firstfruits (\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd, bikk\u00fbr\u00eem) different from the r\u0113\u02be\u0161\u00eeth gift mentioned in verse 12. Part of a bikk\u00fbr\u00eem offering was burned on the altar, hence must contain neither yeast nor honey. If an individual brought this type of firstfruits as a grain offering, it was to be made of parched grain and its memorial portion offered in much the same way as the flour or baked offerings (cf. Exod 23:16; 34:26; Lev 23:9\u201314).<\/p>\n
C. REGULATIONS FOR FELLOWSHIP OFFERINGS GIVEN (3:1\u201317)<\/p>\n
Traditionally called a peace offering, this sacrifice (\u05d6\u05b6\u05d1\u05b7\u05d7 \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd, zeba\u1e25 \u0161\u0259lam\u00eem) might also be rendered \u201cwholeness sacrifice\u201d or \u201ccommunity sacrifice.\u201d The term communicates the well-being and reconciliation existing in the covenant. Additional instructions concerning the fellowship offering are given in 7:11\u201336. The present passage, like chapters 1\u20132, deals primarily with the procedures for offering the sacrifice. The structure of the ritual for the fellowship offering is quite similar to that for the burnt offering (1:2\u201317). The case form of legal presentation is again employed, but the \u201coffering from the flock\u201d is subdivided into sheep (vv. 6\u201311) and goats (vv. 12\u201316) because of a physical difference between these animals affecting their use as fellowship offerings (see notes to v. 9). Birds, suitable for a burnt offering (1:14\u201317), were unsuitable for a fellowship offering, doubtless because they were too small for the communal meal involved. The poor probably participated in the fellowship offerings of others who could afford larger sacrifice. With the exception of the parts specified for a fire offering, the fellowship offering was to be eaten by the worshipers. The breast and right thigh were given to the priests for food (7:31, 34), and the greater part of the animal was eaten by the offerer, his family (7:15, 17) and guests. Thus, the LORD, his priests, and the offerer, his family and guests were symbolically united in a communal meal. Three types of fellowship offerings are depicted in 7:15\u201317 as thanksgiving (\u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4, t\u014dd\u0101h), votive (\u05e0\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8, neder), and freewill (\u05e0\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4, n\u0259d\u0101b\u0101h).<\/p>\n
1. Fellowship Offerings of Cattle (3:1\u20135)<\/p>\n
3:1\u20135 For the burnt offering a male was required (1:3), but either male or female was acceptable for a fellowship offering, but as always, the animal must be without defect (cf. 1:3). The ritual procedure consisted of presentation (v. 1), laying on of hands (cf. 1:4), slaughter, and sprinkling of the blood (v. 2), and the removal and burning of the fat (vv. 3\u20135). Presenting his animal before the Lord at the sanctuary entrance, the worshiper identified it as his own by laying his hands upon it, as in 1:4. After the worshiper had slaughtered his animal, the priests sprinkled the blood against the altar, as in 1:5. All the fat, along with the kidneys and the covering of the liver, i.e., all the interior fatty portions easily removable, were to be burnt on the altar as a fire offering to the LORD (see v. 16). The fellowship offerings were laid out on top of the daily burnt offering for the congregation (cf. 6:12; Exod 12:42). As in 1:9, this obedient sacrifice is also technically termed an offering made by fire which produces an aroma pleasing to the LORD (cf. 3:9, 16).<\/p>\n
2. Fellowship Offerings of Sheep (3:6\u201311)<\/p>\n
3:6\u201311 The procedure for a lamb was similar to that just described for a heifer or bullock. The type of sheep prevalent in ancient Palestine and adjacent areas had a heavy fatty excrescence at the tail. This, along with the rest of the interior fatty portions was to be used as a fire offering. Sacrificial portions consumed upon the altar are figuratively termed food (cf. Num 28:24). As the Israelite offered part of his fellowship offering to be consumed on the altar before the LORD and then partook of the remainder with his family, he could recognize that the LORD was present in the communal meal.<\/p>\n
3. Fellowship Offerings of Goats (3:12\u201317)<\/p>\n
3:12\u201317 Again the procedure is similar to that in verses 1\u20135. All the fat is the LORD\u2019s strikingly summarizes the divine claim to the fatty portions of the fellowship offerings. Further, the fat of the kinds of animals used for sacrifice was not to be eaten (cf. 7:22\u201325). Prohibition of fat and blood is termed a lasting ordinance for the generations to come (Exod 12:14, 17, 24). As long as the covenant with Israel endured, the people were to abstain from blood and fat (cf. 7:26\u201327; 17:10\u201316).<\/p>\n
D. REGULATIONS FOR SIN OFFERINGS GIVEN (4:1\u20135:13)<\/p>\n
These regulations include the ritual procedures for four different classes of offenders (4:1\u201335), examples of offenses necessitating a sin offering (5:1\u20136), and provision for lesser sin offerings by the poor (5:7\u201313). Additional instructions for the priests relating to sin offerings are given in 6:24\u201330. The four classes of offenders were: (1) the anointed (high) priest (vv. 1\u201312), (2) the whole congregation (vv. 13\u201321), (3) a leader (vv. 22\u201326), and (4) a common man (vv. 27\u201335).<\/p>\n
1. Sin Offering for the High Priest (4:1\u201312)<\/p>\n
4:1\u20132 The LORD\u2019s opening statement gives the general category and setting for the specific cases which follow in verses 3, 13, 22, and 27, respectively. The term rendered unintentionally (\u05d1\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d2\u05b8\u05d2\u05b8\u05d4, bi\u0161g\u0101g\u0101h) might more literally be rendered \u201cin error.\u201d This category of wrongdoing involved not only sins of ignorance, but also more generally sins of carelessness, oversight, or other human weakness. The category is contrasted in Numbers 15:27\u201331 with sinning \u201cwith a high hand,\u201d i.e., acting in open defiance of, and rebellion against, the LORD. For this latter class of sin, the penalty was excommunication from the covenant people.
\n4:3\u20134 The anointed priest is the high priest, who was to be anointed for his office (cf. 8:12, 30). If the high priest erred while acting in his capacity as the representative of the people, he could bring guilt upon the entire nation (cf. Leviticus 16). In keeping with the importance of the offender\u2019s office, the most valuable of the sacrificial animals, a young bull without defect, was required. The word here rendered a sin offering (\u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea, \u1e25a\u1e6d\u1e6d\u0101\u02beth) is a term for sin and when used for an offering means therefore an \u201coffering for sin,\u201d an offering to remove sin. The general procedure for a sin offering was similar to that for sacrifices previously noted (cf. 1:3\u20135). The text details that the offender should present his animal, lay his hand upon its head, and slaughter it (v. 4), after which its blood should be dispensed (vv. 5\u20137), its fat burned on the altar (vv. 8\u201310), and the remainder properly disposed of outside the camp (vv. 11\u201312).
\n4:5\u20137 Just as the high priest acted on behalf of himself and the people on the Day of Atonement (16:17), so also in the sin offering he could act on behalf of both. Moreover, when the offender was the high priest, or the congregation (vv. 17\u201318), blood was sprinkled before the veil and placed on the horns of the incense altar, but in other cases such was not done, blood merely being put on the horns of the altar of burnt offering (vv. 25, 30, 34; cf. 16:14, 18\u201319; Num 19:4). Perhaps this action symbolized that the high priest\u2019s sin, or that of the congregation as a \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d (Exod 19:6), brought some profanation upon the holy place that required the application of atoning blood. The curtain of the sanctuary separated the holy place from the most holy place in the tabernacle (Exod 26:31\u201335), and the altar of fragrant incense stood just in front of the curtain (Exod 30:1\u201310).
\n4:8\u201312 As in the fellowship offering, all the fat was to be carefully removed and burned on the altar of burnt offering (cf. 3:3\u20134, 16). Because blood from the animal had been brought into the holy place (7:30), the priest was not, as in other cases (7:26), to be given part of it for food. Rather, all the rest of the bull was to be taken outside the camp and burned. The ashes from the burnt altar were periodically removed from the ash heap mentioned in 1:16 and carried outside the camp to a place untainted by ritual impurity. At that place the flesh of the sin offering was to be burned.<\/p>\n
2. Sin Offering for the Congregation (4:13\u201321)<\/p>\n
4:13\u201321 The text envisions here some error on the part of the whole Israelite community, perhaps in a matter of ritual, which was not recognized as an error at the time it was done, but was subsequently identified as such. Further, the sin envisioned here is a sin of commission\u2014doing that which is prohibited. In the interesting parallel in Numbers 15:22\u201326, for which a different procedure is prescribed, the sin is apparently one of omission\u2014failing to do that which is commanded. Again, as in the preceding case (v. 3), the most valuable sacrificial animal, a young bull, was to be offered. In this case, the elders of the community, as representatives of the erring nation, were to lay their hands on the victim (4:14; cf. 1:4). The blood ritual is the same as in the preceding case (vv. 5\u20137), as is the removal and burning of all the fat on the altar (vv. 8\u201310). Further, the remainder of the animal is treated the same as the bull for the sin offering of the high priest, which is called the first bull in verse 21. This language shows, as verses 16\u201321 indicate, that the ritual was the same for both the sin offering of the high priest and the sin offering of the congregation. The sin offering provided the way by which the erring nation could receive the LORD\u2019s gracious pardon. Jesus is both the Christian\u2019s great high priest (Heb 5:14) and his sin offering (2 Cor 5:21). In light of this the author of Hebrews appealed to Jewish Christians to remember that he suffered \u201coutside the camp\u201d of Israel (Heb 13:11\u201313) and to be willing to come to him there.<\/p>\n
3. Sin Offering for a Leader (4:22\u201326)<\/p>\n
4:22\u201326 The sin offering prescribed for a tribal leader was a male goat, less valuable than a young bull (vv. 3, 14) but more valuable than a female goat or lamb (vv. 28, 32; cf. Exod 16:22; 22:28). Although the general procedure is similar to the foregoing, the blood ritual here and in the following case (vv. 30, 34) is different from that in the two cases preceding. No blood was brought into the holy place, but blood was instead applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering. Accordingly, the flesh of this sin offering could be eaten by the officiating priest in a holy place (7:26\u201329).<\/p>\n
4. Sin Offering for a Common Person (4:27\u201335)<\/p>\n
4:27\u201335 For the ordinary Israelite a female goat or lamb sufficed for a sin offering, and the poor, who could not afford these, were permitted to bring lesser offerings (5:7\u201313). The ritual is the same as that for the sin offering of a ruler (vv. 22\u201326). The fatty portions of the animal were removed and burnt, as in the fellowship offerings (3:14\u201316), for \u201ca pleasing aroma\u201d (see 1:9). Throughout the chapter the promise for the obedient Israelite who sincerely repents and brings the proper sacrifice to make atonement is that he will be forgiven (cf. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 1:4).<\/p>\n
5. Instances Demanding a Sin Offering (5:1\u20136)<\/p>\n
5:1\u20136 This paragraph sets forth three examples of offenses requiring a sin offering. These are: (1) failure of a witness to testify when publicly adjured to do so (v. 1); (2) contact with ceremonially unclean things (vv. 2\u20133); (3) utterance of a rash and thoughtless oath (v. 4). A judge trying a case (an example is Matt 26:63) or even the victimized person (cf. Judg 17:2) could issue a public charge, i.e., with an oath call upon witnesses to come forward and testify (cf. Prov 29:24). A witness who through weakness did not do so was liable for a sin offering. Further, a person could accidentally come in contact with ceremonially unclean things or human uncleanness. The laws of ritual purity are recorded, for the most part in chapters 11\u201315; ceremonially unclean animals are identified in 11:1\u201347. The law provided certain washings as a means of cleansing from ceremonial impurity (11:24\u201340). In the cases here envisioned, the individual was unaware of his uncleanness at the time and hence did not cleanse himself as directed. Therefore, an offering was required (cf. 17:15\u201316). Various types of human uncleanness and purification from them are discussed in chapters 12\u201315. Again, when a person who made a thoughtless and careless oath later remembered it and realized its rashness (cf. Ps 106:33; Prov 12:18), he should confess his sin and bring the proper offering. Whether good or evil is a merism, the use of opposites to indicate totality. Sin offerings were accompanied by confession. The word rendered penalty (\u05d0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dd, \u02be\u0101\u0161\u0101m) has also a technical meaning, \u201cguilt offering.\u201d Although the sin offering and the guilt offering (5:14\u20136:7) were both expiatory sacrifices, and the two terms were evidently sometimes used interchangeably so that it is difficult to maintain a distinction between them (cf. 5:14), it seems strange that they should be used interchangeably in the present context, which aims to show the functions of the various offerings. It seems more likely that \u02be\u0101\u0161\u0101m is used here and in verse 7, not in its technical sense, \u201cguilt offering,\u201d but rather in the general sense of \u201catonement for guilt,\u201d i.e., penalty. Thus the individual was to bring his atonement for guilt, his sin offering. The offering of a lamb or goat is discussed more fully in 4:27\u201335.<\/p>\n
6. Sin Offerings for the Poor (5:7\u201313)<\/p>\n
5:7\u201310 Again, for the poor special provisions were made. Unable to afford a lamb a poor man was to bring two doves or pigeons, one as a sin offering, the other as a burnt offering. Of these birds, the first was killed and part of its blood sprinkled on the altar (cf. 4:34), and the second offered as a burnt offering, according to the prescribed way (cf. 1:14\u201317). In an offering of birds it would be impracticable to remove the fat for a fire offering, as was done with the larger sacrifices (4:10, 19, 26, 31). Therefore, two birds were used, one totally consumed on the altar and the other, after the blood ritual, given to the priest.
\n5:11\u201313 For the very poor a modest amount of meal, about two quarts, served as an appropriate sin offering. The procedure for handling this was similar to that for the grain offering (cf. 2:1\u20133) except that no oil nor incense was mixed with the flour used as a sin offering, because this offering was not a \u201cgift\u201d like the grain offering (cf. note to 2:1), but instead a required expiatory rite. A handful became the memorial portion (2:2) to be burned on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire (cf. note to 3:5), and the rest of the offering belonged to the priest (cf. 2:3, 10).<\/p>\n
E. REGULATIONS FOR GUILT OFFERINGS GIVEN (5:14\u20136:7)<\/p>\n
The guilt offering (\u05d0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dd, \u02be\u0101\u0161\u0101m), although somewhat similar to the sin offering (compare 5:6), appears usually to have had as distinctive elements the fact that it dealt with misappropriation of that which rightfully belonged to God (vv. 14\u201319) or other men (6:1\u20137), and the fact that restitution of the misappropriated object plus a penalty of one-fifth was required prior to the offering. Guilt offerings were also, however, designated for a leper\u2019s cleansing (14:12) and that of a Nazirite (Num 6:12). The procedure for the guilt offering, not given in the present section, appears from the special priestly instructions in 7:1\u20137 to have been similar to that for the sin offering.<\/p>\n
1. As Reparation for Things Belonging to God (5:14\u201319)<\/p>\n
5:14\u201316 The expression rendered commits a violation stems from a Hebrew root (\u05de\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc, m\u0101\u02bfal) which means \u201cto deal deceitfully,\u201d or \u201cto act unfaithfully.\u201d In the Hebrew text a noun and a verb from this same root occur as verb and cognate accusative object, thus giving the literal sense, \u201cto fraud a fraud.\u201d The type of sin envisioned here, however, was unintentional, perhaps involving negligence or ignorance (cf. 4:2). The LORD\u2019s holy things included the required tithes, offerings, etc. An individual failed to bring to the LORD that which was rightly his, and thus incurred guilt. The terms penalty and guilt offering render the same Hebrew word, as in 5:6. The standard guilt offering was a ram, a male lamb, evaluated in silver shekels and therefore worth at least two shekels. The sanctuary shekel appears to have been heavier than the standard shekel. The exact weight is uncertain, but perhaps about 4\/10 ounce. In ancient Israel, the shekel was a weight, not a coin. Coins were not used in Israel until much later. It should be noted that the payment of that which he had failed to bring (required tithe, offering, etc.) plus an additional fifth in value preceded the atonement by the guilt offering. The offender who complied with the LORD\u2019s gracious provisions could secure pardon for his offense and be forgiven.
\n5:17\u201319 In verses 17\u201319 a special circumstance, in which the individual is in doubt whether he has broken the law, appears to be envisioned. The words, even though he does not know it, show a difference between the offense here considered and that of 4:2, for which a sin offering was required. In the present case the individual feared he had trespassed, but was uncertain. The offering for this particular situation was called by the rabbis \u02be\u0101\u0161\u0101m taluy, \u201ca suspended guilt offering.\u201d Note that no restitution is stipulated in this case, agreeing with the conclusion that the offense remained unknown and thus no proper restitution amount could be set. Rather a guilt offering is provided to clear the conscience of the worshiper. Since human beings are imperfect, it is not always possible to realize sin at the time it occurs. This is perhaps why the devout Job is commended for his practice of \u201csuspended guilt offering\u201d in Job 1:5: \u201cEarly in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, \u2018Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.\u2019 This was Job\u2019s regular custom.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. As Reparation for Things Belonging to Men (6:1\u20137)<\/p>\n
6:1\u20137 Legislation for all the cases of misappropriation and breach of trust here considered is recorded in Exodus 22:7\u201313; specifically Exodus 22:7\u20139 provides legal background for the instances in verses 2\u20133. The present passage seems to deal with such cases in which the offender escaped punishment by means of a false oath, but later repented and confessed his wrongdoing. Convicted only by his own admission, he was treated as befitted his penitence and courage, but also as his guilt demanded. All sin, including mistreatment of others, is ultimately sin against God. In the present instances, false swearing (vv. 3, 5) made the offense a direct sin against God (cf. 19:12). One might extract property from another by force or, on the other hand, withhold from another his due (cf. 19:13; Deut 24:14). In ordinary cases of misappropriation and theft, double restitution was required (Exod 22:4, 7). As before, full restitution plus a fifth of the value and the offering of a ram provided a way for the priest to make atonement for the offender. These features, the ram as an offering and the payment of compensation or reparation to the offended party, distinguish the guilt offering from the sin offering.<\/p>\n
F. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRIESTS GIVEN (6:8\u20137:38)<\/p>\n
Addressed primarily to \u201cAaron and his sons\u201d (6:8, 25) this section gives additional sacrifice data, chiefly information concerning the duties and privileges of the priests in regard to the sacrifices. The sacrifices are considered almost in the same order as before, the exception being that the fellowship offering is this time discussed last. The section closes with discussion of the prohibition of blood and fat (7:22\u201327) and consideration of priestly portions (7:28\u201336).<\/p>\n
1. The Burnt Offering (6:8\u201313)<\/p>\n
6:8\u201313 In chapter one, instructions were recorded for an individual\u2019s burnt offering. A major concern for the priests, however, was the continual burnt offering for the congregation (Exod 29:38\u201342; Num 28:1\u20138), and this sacrifice (\u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4 \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3, \u02bf\u014dl\u0101h t\u0101m\u00eed) which consisted of a lamb at morning and a lamb at evening, provides the background for verses 8\u201313. The evening sacrifice of the t\u0101m\u00eed or continual burnt offering was to be kept burning through the night. In contrast to the ornate apparel of the high priest, the priests were dressed only in linen coats, girdles and caps, themselves impressive for their simplicity and whiteness (Exod 28:40). Linen undergarments were provided for modesty (Exod 28:42). Wearing this apparel, the priest removed the ashes of the burnt offering, deposited them on the east side of the altar (1:16), and, after changing from his priestly vestments, which were to be worn only in the sanctuary precincts, carried the ashes outside the camp to a ceremonially clean place, as in 4:12. The text twice repeats the instruction that the altar fire must be kept burning. If necessary, additional wood could be placed upon the altar. Each morning the priests administered the morning sacrifice of the t\u0101m\u00eed and burned the fat of the fellowship offerings on it (cf. 13:5). Continual fire upon the altar of burnt offering symbolized the continual worship of the LORD by his covenant people Israel.<\/p>\n
2. The Grain Offering (6:14\u201323)<\/p>\n
6:14\u201318 The instructions given earlier (2:1\u20133) are repeated with a few special notes for the priests. Receiving the worshiper\u2019s offering, the priests, Aaron\u2019s sons, presented it before the LORD and burned its memorial portion on the altar. The remainder the priests should eat in a holy place, i.e., the sanctuary courtyard. No leaven was to be included in the grain offering (2:11), and no leaven was to be added to the priestly portion (cf. 2:11). This priestly share of the fire offerings is designated as most holy. Such priestly portions could only be eaten by male descendants of Aaron. Priestly portions designated as \u201choly\u201d but not \u201cmost holy\u201d could be eaten by the priests and their families in any ritually clean place. The tabernacle and its furnishings had been duly consecrated as most holy (Exod 29:37; 30:29). Objects or persons coming in contact with most holy things became in some sense sanctified by the contact. Verses 27\u201328 tell how objects accidentally brought into contact with most holy things were to be handled, but what such contact implied for an individual is not specified. The nonpriest was to avoid such contact, and avoidance was not particularly difficult.
\n6:19\u201323 At this point the text introduces a special grain offering, the continual grain offering of the high priest. As the consecration of Aaron lasted seven days (8:33), the expression on the day is to be understood as in Genesis 2:4, where it is translated \u201cat the time.\u201d Further, the offering is termed a \u201cregular\u201d grain offering, which suggests that the consecration of Aaron was the time this offering was to begin (cf. 7:35\u201336). According to Jewish tradition, the daily grain offering of the high priest began on the day following Aaron\u2019s consecration. A tenth of an ephah of fine flour, i.e., about two quarts, the same amount as the sin offering for the very poor (5:11), made up the regular or continual grain offering (\u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05ea \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3, min\u1e25\u0101th t\u0101m\u00eed). Prepared with oil on a griddle, as in 2:5\u20136, this well-mixed offering was to be burned completely as the LORD\u2019s regular share. A priest could, of course, bring a grain offering voluntarily. In later practice each priest brought such an offering at the beginning of his ministry. In all such cases the offering was to be burned completely.<\/p>\n
3. The Sin Offering (6:24\u201330)<\/p>\n
6:24\u201330 Discussed earlier (4:1\u20135:13), the sin offering was to be slaughtered before the LORD as in 1:5, 11, and is designated as most holy (cf. 6:17). The males among the priests could eat the priestly portion in a holy place (vv. 26, 29), but the warning of verse 18 against unauthorized contact with holy things is repeated. In full recognition of the holiness of the sacrifice the priest was to exercise caution that articles inadvertently made holy were not profaned by common use before they had been cleansed. Because an unglazed clay pot would absorb juices of that which was boiled in it, it could not be totally cleansed and was therefore to be destroyed. A bronze pot could, on the other hand, be fully cleansed. The general principle stated in verse 30 excluded from being eaten the sin offerings for the high priest (4:6, 12) or the congregation (4:17, 21), including those of the Day of Atonement (16:14, 15).<\/p>\n
4. The Guilt Offering (7:1\u201310)<\/p>\n
7:1\u20136 Treated previously in 5:14\u20136:7, the guilt offering is also called most holy (cf. 7:17, 25). Again the priests are reminded that all the fatty portions were to be burned on the altar as a fire offering (cf. 3:9, 10, 16).
\n7:7\u201310 The priest received the same portion from the ram of the guilt offering that he received from a lamb brought as a sin offering. The fat was burned on the altar and the remainder belonged to the officiating priest, who would, of course, share with his colleagues. The priest administering a burnt offering could keep only its hide; the rest of the animal was burned on the altar (1:9, 13). The paragraph closes with a general summary concerning the priestly portions from grain offerings (cf. 2:4, 7, 10). The types mentioned in verse 10 (2:1, 14; 5:11) were probably the most numerous of the grain offerings, and these belonged equally to all the sons of Aaron.<\/p>\n
5. The Fellowship Offering (7:11\u201321)<\/p>\n
7:11\u201315 Previously discussed in 3:1\u201317, the fellowship offering demanded lengthier treatment in the priestly instructions than the other offerings, and perhaps for this reason, or because it was \u201choly\u201d while others were \u201cmost holy,\u201d it is considered last. Three different occasions for a fellowship offering are listed, and the regulations for them are slightly different. One brought a fellowship offering to the LORD in thankfulness for deliverance from danger or illness (cf. Ps 107:22), in fulfillment of a vow made in time of distress (cf. Ps 66:13; 116:12\u201319), or simply in heartfelt realization of the LORD\u2019s kindness (cf. Ps 54:6). Three types of unleavened cakes (compare 2:4; 6:21) and one kind of leavened cake (v. 13) were to accompany the fellowship offering of thanksgiving. These were not fellowship offerings in the technical sense, but merely accompaniments to the fellowship offering. The officiating priest received one of each kind as a contribution to the LORD. The remainder was eaten in the sacrificial meal by the offerer, his family, and his guests (in later practice the offerer brought ten cakes of each type). Rendered contribution is a Hebrew term (\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4, t\u0259r\u00fbm\u0101h) which means literally, \u201clifted up.\u201d Earlier translators understood this to mean that the cakes were lifted up as symbolic of their being given to the LORD through his priest, hence rendered the phrase (\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05df \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4, korb\u0101n t\u0259r\u00fbm\u0101h) \u201cheave offering.\u201d Most contemporary translators understand the Hebrew to denote \u201cthat which is lifted off\u201d a larger mass, without allusion to ritual.
\n7:16\u201318 Fellowship offerings included also the offering as the result of a vow (cf. 1 Sam 1:21; 2 Sam 15:7\u20138; Prov 7:14) and the freewill offering. The offerer\u2019s part of the fellowship offering of thanksgiving had to be eaten the day it was sacrificed (cf. 22:29, 30), whereas the offerer\u2019s portion of the (probably more numerous) votive or freewill offerings could be eaten on the second day. Any flesh left over on the third day was to be burnt. Serious consequence (19:8) awaited the offerer who ate from his fellowship offering after the accepted time. The flesh was termed impure (\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc, pigg\u00fbl; see 19:7; Isa 65:4; Ezek 4:14). This Hebrew word means \u201cfoul thing\u201d or \u201crefuse\u201d and is used as a technical term for unclean sacrificial flesh.
\n7:19\u201321 Ceremonial impurity rendered one unfit for the holy fellowship offering, just as unclean persons or objects were not allowed in the sanctuary precincts (cf. 5:2\u20133). Basic laws of ritual purity, including ways of removing ceremonial uncleanness, are given in chapters 11\u201315. Again, violation of purity in regard to the fellowship offering met the severe penalty that the person must be cut off from his people (cf. 1 Sam 20:26). Although the precise significance of this expression in ancient times is disputed, probably excommunication from the group and not execution is intended. Such excommunication was extremely serious, not only from the standpoint of forfeited blessings, but also from the standpoint of difficulty of survival separate from the group. The rabbis identified it as \u201cpunishment at the hands of heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n
6. Prohibition of Fat and Blood (7:22\u201327)<\/p>\n
7:22\u201327 The LORD instructed Moses to remind Israel not to eat the fat of cattle, sheep or goats, the animals used for sacrifice. The separable fatty portions of such animals were not to be eaten (cf. 3:3, 4, 9; 17:1\u20137). An animal found dead or torn by wild animals was unclean and rendered the eater unclean (17:15; 22:8), but its fat could be used for any other purpose, such as lubrication, fuel for lighting, or polish. This prohibition of eating fat was relative, limited to animals from which an offering by fire may be made (cf. Deut 32:14; Neh 8:10; Ps 63:5), but the prohibition of eating blood was absolute. The rationale for the prohibition of blood is given in 17:10\u201316. Violating either the prohibition of fat or that of blood dictated that the offender be cut off from his people, i.e., excommunicated, as explained above.<\/p>\n
7. The Priestly Portions (7:28\u201336)<\/p>\n
7:28\u201336 A fellowship offering was a basis for family celebration. The text therefore emphasizes that a person offering such an offering was to bring its fatty portions, its breast, and its right thigh as a gift to the LORD. The fatty portions were burned by the priests on the altar as an offering made to the LORD by fire, and the breast was treated as a wave offering (Exod 29:24, 26\u201327) (\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4, t\u0259n\u00fbph\u0101h). The breast seems to have been waved to and fro, thus symbolizing that it was given to the LORD through his priests. The right thigh was given to the officiating priest as a contribution (cf. 7:14). These priestly portions, the breast and the thigh, are marked as the priests\u2019 regular share, their permanent right, as in 6:18 (cf. Exod 29:28). The announcement of these priestly portions anticipates the consecration of Aaron and his sons, which follows in chapters 8\u201310 (cf. 6:20).<\/p>\n
8. Summary (7:37\u201338)<\/p>\n
7:37\u201338 The closing paragraph reviews the matters covered in the sacrifice manual of chapters 1\u20137. The ordination offering was treated in Exodus 29:19\u201337, but the types of sacrifices involved received fuller treatment in chapters 1\u20137. The text emphasizes the divine origin of the sacrificial regulations, i.e., the LORD gave them to Moses on Mount Sinai.<\/p>\n
II. Levitical Sacrifices Begin (8:1\u201310:20)<\/p>\n
This section records the carrying out of the LORD\u2019s instructions to Moses in Exodus chapters 28\u201329 for the consecration of the priests. The making of the priestly garments was appropriately described in Exodus 39:1\u201331, but the account of the consecration itself was reserved for treatment after the sacrifice manual (1:1\u20137:38), doubtless in order that a description of ritual procedures might provide background for the beginning of these procedures by Aaron and his sons. Accordingly, 8:1\u201336 records the consecration, 9:1\u201324 deals with the beginning of sacrifices by the Aaronic priesthood, and 10:1\u201320 reveals a case of priestly disobedience followed by several warnings.<\/p>\n
A. AARON AND SONS CONSECRATED (8:1\u201336)<\/p>\n
8:1\u20134 As commanded earlier (Exod 29:1\u20133), Moses was to bring Aaron and his sons and all the material and the proper sacrificial animals and to gather the entire assembly for a special dedication ceremony to install the priesthood for service. Some have suggested that the elders of Israel were summoned to represent the entire nation at this time. If all the people were present, what a vast multitude must have assembled to witness the solemn occasion!
\n8:5\u20139 The authorized consecration ceremony consisted of five parts: (1) washing (v. 6; Exod 29:4), (2) investiture (vv. 7\u20139, 13; Exod 29:5\u20139), (3) anointing (vv. 10\u201312; Exod 29:7), (4) sacrifices (vv. 14\u201329; Exod 29:10\u201325), and (5) a consecratory meal (vv. 31\u201332; Exod 29:31\u201334). Aaron and his sons were first washed in water as symbolic of spiritual cleansing (cf. Heb 10:22). Moses next clothed Aaron with the beautiful garments of his office (cf. Exod 29:5\u20136). This investiture, the second step in the consecration ceremony, symbolized the equipping of the individual with the qualities needed for his office (see Exod 29:5\u20136). The high priest\u2019s garments are described in Exodus 28:4\u201339 and their making recorded in Exodus 39:1\u201331. Intricately designed \u201cfor glory and for beauty\u201d these \u201choly garments\u201d (Exod 28:2) included an inner tunic with its sash, a long flowing robe, an ephod with its skillfully woven waistband or belt, a breastpiece and a turban. Interestingly, no footwear is mentioned. The beautiful garments of the high priest included actual gold thread woven into the fabric (Exod 39:3). The ephod (\u05d0\u05b5\u05e4\u05b9\u05d3, \u02be\u0113ph\u014dd) seems to have been an intricately embroidered apron composed of two parts, front and back, joined by shoulder straps and a waistband (Exod 28:7\u20138). Set in gold filigree, two precious onyx stones, upon which were engraved the names of the sons of Israel, were to be set upon the ephod\u2019s shoulder straps, thus symbolizing that the high priest acted on behalf of all Israel (Exod 28:12). Although the word rendered breastpiece (\u05d7\u05b9\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05df, \u1e25\u014d\u0161en) is somewhat obscure, the instructions given for the article clearly identify it as a square pouch upon which were set twelve precious stones engraved with the names of the sons of Israel (Exod 28:17\u201321) and in which were to be kept the Urim and Thummim (Ex 28:30). The pouch was to have gold rings at its corners and these were to be connected to the ephod by gold chains at the top and by cords of blue at the bottom (Exod 28:22\u201328). Placed within the sacred breastpiece as part of the investiture were the Urim and the Thummim. The Hebrew words transliterated here (\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd, \u02be\u00fbr\u00eem; \u05ea\u05bb\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd, tumm\u00eem) mean literally \u201clights and perfections.\u201d Because these items are not specifically described, it is not certain just what they were or exactly how they were used. They constituted a means by which the priest could receive divine revelation (1 Sam 28:6; Ezra 2:63). Since they were carried in the breastpiece, they must have been rather small objects, most likely precious stones. The priest may have cast lots with them in order to determine the LORD\u2019s will in a given matter (cf. 1 Sam 14:41\u201342), but this is not certain.
\nCalled the \u201crobe of the ephod\u201d (Exod 28:31) because it was worn underneath the ephod, the high priest\u2019s robe had no sleeves but only an opening at the head. Because the garment had to be drawn over the head, the opening, the place of greatest stress, was strengthened with a woven binding. Around its hem, it had ornate fabric pomegranates and actual gold bells (Exod 28:34). Not only highly decorative, the bells of pure gold (Exod 39:25), by their sound, served to notify the people when the high priest was ministering in the Holy Place. Fastened by a blue cord to his turban was a gold plate, the sacred diadem bearing the seal: HOLY TO THE LORD (Exod 29:36).
\n8:10\u201313 By anointing with the holy anointing oil (Exod 30:23\u201325), the tabernacle and all its furnishings and vessels were set apart for the service of the LORD, as commanded (Exod 30:26\u201329). The anointing of Aaron as high priest was the third step in the consecration ceremony. Also, Aaron\u2019s sons were invested with the special garments for the priests (Exod 28:40\u201342). Although the detail is omitted here, they were also anointed (Exod 30:30; 40:15). According to tradition all the priests were rubbed or sprinkled with anointing oil, but only Aaron, as high priest, had the precious oil poured upon his head. More generally, anointing served in ancient Israel as a sign of special divine appointment for high priests, as here indicated, for kings (1 Sam 10:1; 16:13), and even for prophets (1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 61:1). All three divine offices are brought together in the New Testament \u201canointed one,\u201d the Messiah.
\n8:14\u201329 The fourth step in the ceremony consisted of special consecration offerings involving a sin offering, a burnt offering, and a fellowship offering, all carefully administered as the LORD commanded Moses. The procedure for the sin offering of consecration combined elements from the sin offering of the high priest (4:3, 8, 12) and that of an ordinary Israelite (4:30), probably because Aaron was not yet fully consecrated. Moses served throughout the consecration ceremony as the officiating priest. Of the two rams, one served as a burnt offering, exactly as commanded in 1:10\u201313 (Exod 29:15\u201318), and the second, the ram for the ordination, served in the consecration ceremony as a special fellowship offering (3:6\u201311; Exod 29:19\u201334). After slaughtering this ram, Moses put some of its blood on Aaron\u2019s right ear, his right hand, and his right foot, thus symbolizing the dedication of the members of his body to hearken to obey and to serve (Exod 29:20). Though not a grain offering in the technical sense, a basket of bread made without yeast accompanied this fellowship offering (cf. 7:12; Exod 29:2). One cake of each kind was burned on top of the sacrifice portions on the altar and the remainder was eaten in the communal meal (vv. 31\u201332). The right thigh, henceforth to be given to the priests (7:32), was also burned on the altar in the consecration fellowship offering. The breast was given to Moses as the officiating priest after being symbolically \u201cwaved\u201d (cf. 7:34; Exod 29:26\u201327). The text repeatedly emphasizes that the entire ceremony was carried out according to divine instruction as the LORD commanded Moses.
\n8:30\u201336 Moses sprinkled anointing oil and blood from the altar upon the garments of Aaron and his sons to symbolize their sanctification (Exod 29:21), again following precisely the divine instructions so that Aaron and his sons could be properly consecrated for holy, priestly service. As the fifth step in the consecration ceremony, Aaron and his sons ate the flesh of the special fellowship offering in a solemn covenant meal symbolizing the new and special communion between them and God (cf. Exod 29:31\u201334). The consecration ceremony lasted seven days. Consecration sacrifices for the altar were repeated each day for a week, during which time Aaron and his sons remained at the sanctuary (cf. Exod 29:35\u201337).<\/p>\n
B. SACRIFICES OFFERED FOR PRIESTHOOD AND PEOPLE (9:1\u201324)<\/p>\n
9:1\u20136 The day after their seven days of consecration (8:33) Aaron and his sons began actually serving in their priesthood with a series of inaugural offerings on behalf of themselves and the people. They were instructed to offer for themselves a sin offering and a burnt offering, and for the people a sin offering, a burnt offering and a fellowship offering with its grain offering. The order in which these were offered is probably significant. The sin offering typified forgiveness, the burnt offering symbolized total surrender, the grain offering signified the dedication of one\u2019s labor, and the fellowship offering symbolized covenant communion with the LORD. Despite being promised that today the LORD will appear to you, the people were nevertheless later awestricken by the manifestation of divine glory (vv. 23\u201324).
\n9:7\u201314 Invited by Moses to begin the sacrifices to make atonement for yourself and the people, Aaron approached the altar and slaughtered the calf as a sin offering for himself (cf. 16:11). The procedure on this occasion differed from that prescribed in 4:2\u201312 in that no blood was carried within the sanctuary, probably because Aaron had not yet been ushered within the Holy Place by Moses (v. 23). Then he slaughtered the burnt offering for himself, sprinkling its blood and administering its sacrifice as described in 1:10\u201313.
\n9:15\u201321 Then Aaron took the people\u2019s sin offering, slaughtered it, and offered it in the same manner as he had sacrificed his own sin offering. Again blood was not carried within the Holy Place as would be done in the future (cf. 4:13\u201321) but was instead put on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. Next, he brought the calf and the lamb which constituted the people\u2019s burnt offering and offered them as prescribed in 1:3\u201313. He also brought the accompanying grain offering and burned a handful of it as its memorial portion (2:1\u20133). Mention of the morning\u2019s burnt offering suggests that apparently Moses had been offering the continual burnt offerings daily since the dedication of the tabernacle (Exod 29:38\u201342; 40:29). Aaron slaughtered the ox and the ram for the fellowship offering, and he and his sons administered them as directed in 3:1\u201311. Because the priests participated in the fellowship offerings of the people, no priestly fellowship offering was necessary. The wave offering procedure is discussed in 7:30\u201334.
\n9:22\u201324 Having completed the sacrificial procedures, Aaron lifted his hands and pronounced a priestly blessing upon them. Moses as the LORD\u2019s representative then ushered Aaron into the Holy Place, clearly signifying that Aaron and his sons were being divinely authorized to serve as priests in Israel. In the sanctuary Moses may also have instructed Aaron more fully as to his duties there. As the climax of this momentous occasion the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people as divine fire (cf. Exod 24:17; 40:38) from the sanctuary came out and consumed the altar offerings. By this manifestation of power the LORD demonstrated clearly unto Israel his acceptance of both the sacrifices and the priesthood which had begun its service by making the sacrifices (cf. 1 Kgs 18:38).<\/p>\n
C. PRIESTLY DISOBEDIENCE MET BY PUNISHMENT, WARNINGS (10:1\u201320)<\/p>\n
10:1\u20133 Aaron\u2019s elder sons (Exod 6:23), Nadab and Abihu, had previously accompanied their father in solemn events at Sinai (cf. Exod 24:1, 9\u201311). Taking their censers, firepans used for carrying live coals, these men offered unto the LORD unauthorized fire, literally, \u201cstrange fire\u201d (\u05d0\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4, \u02be\u0113\u0161 z\u0101r\u0101h). \u201cStrange incense\u201d (Exod 30:9) was incense not prepared according to divine prescription; likewise, \u201cstrange fire\u201d appears to have been incense offered in a manner not prescribed. It seems that the daily incense, like that for the Day of Atonement (16:12), was to be fired by coals taken from the altar of burnt offering. Furthermore, the incense was to be offered on the altar of incense only by the high priest and then only at specified times (Exod 30:7, 8). Nadab and Abihu thus presumptuously did as an act of worship that which was not authorized by the LORD. Just as the LORD had demonstrated his acceptance of Aaron\u2019s priesthood by fire (9:24), so also fire came out from the presence of the LORD to demonstrate his rejection of this priestly disobedience. It seems likely the fiery manifestation was like a lightning flash, since the clothes of Nadab and Abihu were not destroyed (v. 5). Through Moses the LORD then emphasized to Aaron that those who drew near to him to serve him as priests were even more heavily obligated than others to respect his holy will. The LORD could neither be honored nor glorified by presumption and disobedience. Aaron was
\nsilent in the tragic loss of his sons because he knew they had sinned grievously and deserved punishment.
\n10:4\u20137 Summoning Mishael and Elzaphan, Aaron\u2019s cousins, Moses instructed them to carry the bodies of their dead relatives, still in their priestly tunics, from the tabernacle courtyard where they had fallen to a place outside the camp for burial. Furthermore, Moses prohibited Aaron and his surviving sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, from letting their hair become unkempt or tearing their clothes. Disheveled hair and clothing ripped at the breast were customary signs of mourning in ancient Israel. Moses forbade them such public display of mourning, as it would reflect discontent with the LORD\u2019s act of judgment. Such a rebellious attitude on the part of the priests could have serious consequences for the nation as a whole (cf. 4:3). Aaron and his sons were not even to leave the sanctuary to take part in the burial.
\n10:8\u201311 Fermented drink (\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05e8, \u0161\u0113k\u0101r) designates any intoxicating beverage made from grain or fruit. The priests were forbidden all such beverages during their period of service at the sanctuary, lest through clouded judgment they fail to perform their duties properly and thus bring punishment upon themselves. The warning was appropriate here following the LORD\u2019s judgment upon Nadab and Abihu, but there is no specific textual evidence that intoxication played a part in their sin. Besides their sanctuary duties the priests also were responsible for numerous ceremonial distinctions between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean. In general, everything which was not made holy for sanctuary use was \u201ccommon.\u201d Laws of ceremonial cleanness are recorded in chapters 11\u201315. In addition to their responsibility to conduct themselves properly in ritual and life, the priests were also to teach the Israelites, thus serving as spiritual leaders by instructing the nation in the laws of God.
\n10:12\u201315 Addressing Aaron and his remaining sons, Moses instructed them anew concerning priestly portions. The grain offering of 9:4, 17 was to be eaten in keeping with the instructions recorded in 2:3, 10 and 6:16\u201318. Moses also repeated the regulations for the eating of the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented, the priestly portions from the people\u2019s fellowship offering, doubtless in order to ensure that the LORD\u2019s instructions would be properly executed (cf. 7:30\u201336). Unlike the grain offering which was designated \u201cmost holy,\u201d the fellowship offering was simply \u201choly,\u201d and hence could be eaten by the priest and his entire family in any ceremonially clean place.
\n10:16\u201320 Inquiring about the goat of the sin offering (cf. 9:15), Moses discovered that it had been burned up and angrily questioned Aaron about it. Because the blood of this sin offering had not been carried into the Tent of Meeting, a priestly portion from it was to have been eaten (6:26, 30). Moses\u2019 statement shows that the eating of the priestly portion of the sin offering was not only a privilege but also a responsibility. In order to accomplish its purpose of \u201ccovering over\u201d sins (see note to 1:4), the sin offering had to be properly carried out in every aspect. Failure to execute the LORD\u2019s instructions fully was thus a matter of grave concern. Aaron replied that while serving as high priest for the first time, he had experienced such things as this, i.e., the tragic loss of two sons (v. 2). Thus Aaron satisfactorily explained that the death of Nadab and Abihu had rendered him and his other sons spiritually unfit for eating the priestly portions of the sin offering. Moses accepted this explanation, content in the knowledge that the priests fully understood their duties and would execute them seriously and properly.<\/p>\n
III. Ceremonial Purity Taught (11:1\u201315:33)<\/p>\n
In contrast to the preceding chapters, which have been termed the \u201claw of the sanctuary\u201d because of their stress upon sacrifice and priesthood, the remaining material of Leviticus has been called \u201cthe law of daily life\u201d because it deals primarily with ceremonial and moral concerns other than priesthood and sacrifice. The present section, chapters 11\u201315, treats ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness. Considered are clean and unclean animals (ch. 11), the uncleanness of childbirth (ch. 12), the uncleanness of various types of \u201cleprosy\u201d (chs. 13\u201314), and unclean bodily secretions (ch. 15). Although the concept of ceremonial uncleanness, strange to the modern mind, finds its background not in nature (Gen 1:1\u20132:4 pronounces the entire creation \u201cgood.\u201d) but instead in the cultural world out of which Israel came, it is not to be supposed that the ceremonial regulations in Leviticus and Numbers were optional in Israel\u2019s religious life. On the contrary, in 11:43\u201345 uncleanness is directly opposed to covenant holiness, and ceremonial purity is therefore demanded of his covenant people by a holy LORD. Defilement of the sanctuary by uncleanness was dangerous (15:31). Maintaining ceremonial cleanness was thus a vital concern for the ancient Israelite.<\/p>\n
A. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS DELINEATED (11:1\u201347)<\/p>\n
In this chapter clean and unclean forms of animal life are treated from the standpoint of diet (vv. 1\u201323) and from the standpoint of contamination through physical contact with carrion (vv. 24\u201347). The food laws, paralleled in Deuteronomy 14:3\u201320, give regulations for permitted and prohibited quadrupeds (vv. 1\u20138), fish and seafood (vv. 9\u201312), birds (vv. 13\u201319), and winged insects (vv. 20\u201323).<\/p>\n
1. Introduction (11:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
11:1\u20132 At the outset, the LORD specifically addressed both Moses and Aaron because applying the regulations and making the proper distinctions was a major responsibility of the priesthood (10:10).<\/p>\n
2. Quadrupeds (11:3\u20138)<\/p>\n
11:3\u20138 The observable characteristics split hoof and chews the cud provided, not a complete scientific classification, but rather a simple, practical rule of thumb for distinguishing between clean and unclean quadrupeds. Completely divided modifies \u201cspit hoof\u201d in such a way as to ensure that an animal\u2019s hoof was really fully divided. Deuteronomy 14:4\u20135 gives a list of ceremonially clean quadrupeds. The present text specifically excludes camels, coneys, rabbits, and pigs. The coney, a hyrax or rock badger, and the rabbit technically do not ruminate but they work their jaws in such a way as to appear to do so. The pig is additionally considered unclean because it does not chew the cud. Why certain animals were identified as unclean is not always given. Broadly excluded by the guidelines were beasts of prey and certain animals of repulsive appearance and habits. The attitude of Israel\u2019s idolatrous neighbors toward a particular animal may well have played a part. Physical contact with the dead body of an unclean animal made an individual ceremonially unclean until evening (v. 28), at which time he could wash and be clean.<\/p>\n
3. Fish and Birds (11:9\u201319)<\/p>\n
11:9\u201319 The guideline for fish and seafood was you may eat any that have fins and scales. All such creatures not having fins and scales were unclean and to be considered detestable. In the case of birds, no general guideline is given as before, but numerous birds of prey are specifically excluded as unclean.<\/p>\n
4. Flying Insects (11:20\u201323)<\/p>\n
11:20\u201323 The text prohibits for food all flying insects that walk on all fours, i.e. that go about like a quadruped. Most winged insects, of course, have six legs. Permitted for food were four types of insects which had bending hind legs with which they leaped (cf. Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6). The dietary restrictions here enumerated were not intended to last beyond the Mosaic Age, for they form no part of the new covenant (cf. Matt 15:17\u201320; Acts 10:10\u201315).<\/p>\n
5. Impurity from Carrion (11:24\u201347)<\/p>\n
11:24\u201328 Carrying the carcass of an unclean animal communicated uncleanness to both an individual and his clothes. The individual remained unclean until evening, and the clothes had to be cleansed through washing. Touching an unclean animal while it was alive was not defiling (v. 31). Quadrupeds with paws instead of hoofs, implicitly prohibited for food by the guidelines (v. 3) are here explicitly declared unclean and defiling.
\n11:29\u201338 A class not considered previously, perhaps because they were not normally eaten, \u201cswarming things\u201d are declared unclean and their carcasses identified as defiling. These animals are specifically prohibited for food in verses 41\u201343. Although other objects with which the carcass of one of the unclean smaller animals came into contact could be cleansed, a clay pot was permanently contaminated and was to be destroyed (cf. 6:28). Containers of water were ordinarily defiled by contact with carrion, but a spring or a cistern was not declared defiled, probably because the natural replenishing of its water removed its uncleanness. Seeds for sowing were not declared defiled by contact with a carcass, but seed which had been soaked, apparently for cooking purposes, was declared defiled.
\n11:39\u201347 The carcass of a clean animal which was not properly slaughtered but instead died of itself was also defiling (cf. 17:15), and the same regulations for ceremonial cleansing applied. Following the diet prohibition for crawling animals (vv. 41\u201343), the LORD called upon Israel to consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. That which was ceremonially unclean symbolized to Israel impurity and corruption. Called to covenant by the holy God, Israel was to be herself a holy nation, and, as such, to abstain from that which was repulsive and defiling. In his daily living an Israelite was constantly reminded of his covenant status by the dietary laws herein discussed. The text closes with a comprehensive summary statement (vv. 46\u201347).<\/p>\n
B. PURIFICATION AFTER CHILDBIRTH DESCRIBED (12:1\u20138)<\/p>\n
12:1\u20138 Childbirth is a blessing. God commanded fruitfulness at creation (Gen 1:28), and children are a heritage from the LORD (Ps 127:3). There is no moral taint of any kind associated with legitimate childbirth. Still, the process of childbirth rendered the mother (not the child) ceremonially unclean. This chapter gives the duration of the uncleanness periods following the birth of a son or daughter (vv. 1\u20135), and describes the offerings for the woman\u2019s purification, to be made at the close of her days of uncleanness (vv. 6\u20138). Reference to the ceremonial uncleanness produced by a woman\u2019s menstrual monthly period (15:19\u201324) suggests that it was the secretion of fluids after childbirth that produced the ceremonial impurity. Circumcision of a male child on the eighth day had been commanded long before, in the time of Abraham (Gen 17:9\u201314). Following the first seven days of uncleanness, during which time the rigid rules of 15:19\u201324 applied, a thirty-three days period of lesser uncleanness, still requiring avoidance of holy things, was observed. The two periods of uncleanness were both doubled for the birth of a female child, perhaps in keeping with an ancient view that the bodily secretions lasted for a longer time after the birth of a female. At the conclusion of the days of her purification, the woman was to appear at the sanctuary with a burnt offering (1:10\u201313) and a sin offering (5:7\u201310). These offerings are the same regardless of the sex of the woman\u2019s newborn. As before, the lesser offering of doves or pigeons was permitted for the poor (cf. 1:14\u201317). After the birth of Jesus, Mary brought such an offering (Luke 2:22\u201324).<\/p>\n
C. UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY REGULATED (13:1\u201314:57)<\/p>\n
Another way by which a person could become ceremonially unclean in ancient Israel was by contacting certain eruptive skin diseases. Chapters 13\u201314 deal with this more permanent type of uncleanness in highly technical fashion. Stressed are various kinds of skin conditions making one unclean (13:1\u201346), conditions in clothing and houses analogous in appearance to the skin diseases (13:47\u201359; 14:33\u201353), and the purification rites for an individual whose disease has been healed (14:1\u201332). The emphasis throughout is naturally upon the ritual aspects of the various conditions.<\/p>\n
1. Instructions for Priestly Diagnosis of Skin Blemishes Given (13:1\u201346)<\/p>\n
13:1\u20138 Because it was the priest\u2019s duty to distinguish \u201cbetween the unclean and the clean\u201d (10:10) the present section is addressed to both Moses and Aaron, and the role of the priest is emphasized throughout the chapter. Earlier translated as \u201cleprosy\u201d or \u201cleprous skin disease,\u201d the Hebrew word rendered infectious skin disease (\u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05ea, \u1e63\u0101r\u0101\u02bfath) is actually a generic term for eruptive skin diseases. The Greek word lepra (\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1), from which our \u201cleprosy\u201d is derived, apparently also had some such meaning originally. Thus, \u201cleprosy\u201d in Leviticus is not the same as the serious chronic disease known in medieval and modern times as leprosy, and called technically \u201celephantiasis Graecorum\u201d or Hansen\u2019s Disease. The text treats a variety of skin conditions which the priest had to recognize by their distinctive symptoms, not for medical but for ritual reasons. Examining a skin lesion, the priest was to pronounce the afflicted person ceremonially unclean with an infectious skin disease if the hair in the sore was white and the sore more than skin deep. If the symptoms of whitened hair and subcutaneous penetration were not both present, the priest was to quarantine the individual for observation for two consecutive periods of seven days. After determining that the blotch in question did not evidence a serious eruptive skin disease, but rather only a rash, the priest was to pronounce the individual ceremonially clean, at which point the person could wash and be recognized as clean. If, however, the rash had spread so as to indicate an infectious disease, the priest upon reexamination should pronounce the individual unclean.
\n13:9\u201317 If the whitened flesh showed deep penetration and was raw, a chronic skin disease was evidenced, and the individual was to be declared unclean without the observation period. If on the other hand it has all turned white, the priest should pronounce that person clean. In such a case, the individual appears to have been suffering from a lesser skin disease, perhaps vitiligo or psoriasis.
\n13:18\u201328 A white or pink (inflamed) blotch which appeared on the site of a healed boil or burn (v. 24) might also evidence an eruptive skin disease. Accordingly, similar measures as before were utilized to determine for this second type of blemish whether it were a skin disease rendering the individual unclean or simply a scar (v. 23) or swelling (v. 28).
\n13:29\u201339 A third type of skin disease to be ceremonially diagnosed by the priest was one which appeared on the head or chin. This itch appears from the symptoms to have been a form of ringworm. Again, consecutive quarantine periods of seven days duration were to be utilized for priestly examination and diagnosis. The harmless rash described in the closing verses of the paragraph appears to have been vitiligo (acquired leucodermia). Although it did not render an individual unclean, the priest needed to be aware of the condition so that he would not mistakenly diagnose the disease as one causing cultic uncleanness.
\n13:40\u201346 Baldness did not render an individual unclean, but it was possible for an eruptive skin disease rendering an individual unclean to break out on a person\u2019s bald head. Serious skin diseases made an individual an outcast, barred from the camp as well as the sanctuary (cf. Num 5:1\u20134). The pitiable condition of a \u201cleper\u201d is reflected in Numbers 12:12, which depicts the individual \u201cas one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother\u2019s womb.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. Diagnosis of \u201cLeprosy\u201d In Garments Depicted (13:47\u201359)<\/p>\n
13:47\u201359 Depicted in earlier versions as \u201cleprosy in a garment,\u201d the penetrating deterioration in clothing translated here as contaminated with mildew may also have included other types of mold or fungus. After quarantining the infected article for seven days (cf. v. 4), the priest examined it a second time. If the infection had spread, the article was destroyed as unclean. If the infection had not spread during the quarantine period, the article was washed and then quarantined for seven more days. If priestly examination then revealed that the infection was persistent and penetrating, the article, thus marked as ceremonially unclean, was destroyed. If the examination showed that the infected condition was not persistent and penetrating but rather that the mildew had faded, the affected part of the garment was removed, and the remainder was washed again and then designated as ceremonially clean for continued use.<\/p>\n
3. Purification Rites for Cleansed Leper Given (14:1\u201332)<\/p>\n
The ceremonial cleansing of the \u201cleper\u201d declared to be healed after priestly examination (v. 3) took place in two phases: restoration to the community (vv. 2\u20139) and restoration to the sanctuary (vv. 10\u201320), for which phase special provision was made for the poor (vv. 21\u201332).
\n14:1\u20139 The person to be cleansed was to bring two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop. It seems likely that a scarlet cord was used to bind together the cedar wood, the leafy hyssop and the live bird for dipping in the purifying solution (v. 6). One of the birds was to be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. This bird was not technically a sacrifice, no part being placed on the altar. The death of the bird may have symbolized the previous condition of the leper. \u201cFresh water\u201d (lit., living water) is water from a fresh source, such as a spring, as distinguished from water collected in a cistern. Apparently, an earthen vessel containing such water was to serve as the receptacle for the blood of the slain bird, thus producing a blood and water solution for the purifying ceremony (cf. vv. 51\u201352). The release of the other live bird probably symbolized the cleansed leper\u2019s freedom to return to the society of Israel. It is also possible that the freed bird, like the scapegoat of 16:22, was conceived of as symbolically carrying away the uncleanness. At this point, the person to be cleansed was to wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe with water. These acts of bodily purification (11:25; 23:6; Num 8:7) completed the first phase of the healed leper\u2019s ceremonial restoration. Admitted to the camp, but not yet admitted to his own home or the sanctuary, the individual was to wait seven days and then repeat the acts of bodily purification in preparation for the second phase of his restoration.
\n14:10\u201320 On the eighth day the person being cleansed was to bring an offering of two male lambs and one ewe lamb. One of the male lambs served as a guilt offering (v. 12), the other as a burnt offering, and the ewe served as a sin offering (vv. 13, 19). Three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour (cf. 15:3\u20135; 18:3\u20135), i.e., about six quarts, accompanied the burnt offering as a grain offering (2:1\u201316), and one log of olive oil, i.e., a little less than a pint, accompanied the guilt offering (v. 12). The exact significance of the guilt offering in the leper\u2019s restoration is uncertain. Possibly it was regarded as a kind of restitution for the duties to the sanctuary he had been prevented from performing during his leprosy (cf. 5:14\u20136:7). The guilt offering was to be waved as a wave offering (cf. 7:30). The wave offering signified the offerer\u2019s dedication to the LORD\u2019s service (cf. Num 7:11). The guilt offering lamb was then to be slaughtered at the north side of the altar, as in 1:5, 11 and 6:24\u201330. Putting the blood and the oil in turn upon the right ear, the right hand, and the right foot served to symbolize the dedication of the whole individual to the LORD (cf. Exod 29:20). The oil was first consecrated for this use by sprinkling some of it before the altar. After these acts the remainder of the oil was used to anoint the cleansed leper. The oil used in this ritual was, of course, ordinary oil, not the holy anointing oil used for priestly consecration (Exod 30:22\u201333; Lev 8:12, 30). After this, the sin offering and the burnt offering with its grain offering were to be offered to make atonement. As in 12:6 and 15:30 purification from ceremonial uncleanness involved atonement offerings, not because the individual had personally sinned, but rather as part of the purification procedures by which the stain of ritual impurity was removed from the individual and \u201ccovered\u201d (see note to 1:4) in the presence of the holy God.
\n14:21\u201332 The regular offerings required would have worked hardships upon the poor, and the law therefore, out of concern for the poor, provided for less extensive offerings for their purification (cf. 5:7, 11; 12:8). The grain offering was reduced and doves or pigeons were permitted for the sin offering and the burnt offering. Apart from these modifications, verses 21\u201332 practically repeat the previous instructions in verses 10\u201320.<\/p>\n
4. Treatment of \u201cLeprosy\u201d In Houses Described (14:33\u201357)<\/p>\n
14:33\u201357 The text clearly sets forth certain regulations as anticipatory of Israel\u2019s conquest of Canaan. Regulations concerning ceremonially unclean houses would be of little concern to the nomadic Israelites sojourning in the wilderness, but later, after entrance into Canaan, such instructions would be applicable. As in the case of the garments treated earlier (13:47\u201359), it is not the contamination of a house by contagious human skin diseases but rather a condition in a house which resembled such diseases in appearance, that is here regulated. Such a condition could have been produced by spreading mildew, rot, lichens, or the like. The text goes beyond such immediate causes to attribute the condition to the LORD as the ultimate cause. Because the house was not considered ceremonially unclean until declared to be so by the priest (cf. 14:38), possessions and furniture could be safely removed before his inspection (v. 36). The instruction to remove such goods demonstrates that ritual uncleanness and not physical contamination by contagion was the concern of the law. As in cases of human disease (13:4), a quarantine period of seven days permitted the priest to analyze the seriousness and spread of the condition. If priestly examination revealed that the condition had worsened during the quarantine period, the affected stones and plaster were removed and replaced. If the removal of the affected parts of the house failed to arrest the mildew condition making the house ritually unclean, the entire house was to be torn down and the parts removed to an unclean place outside the town. Furthermore, persons entering the house or those sleeping or eating in it during the quarantine period contacted ritual uncleanness. If priestly examination revealed that removal of the affected stones and replastering had successfully removed the conditions causing uncleanness, the house was declared clean. To purify the house from which the ritually offending elements had been removed required exactly the same ritual as the first phase in the purification of a healed leper (cf. 14:4\u20137). By these means the leper was readmitted to the community, and by these means a house was ceremonially restored for proper use.<\/p>\n
D. INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING UNCLEAN BODILY DISCHARGES GIVEN (15:1\u201333)<\/p>\n
Certain bodily secretions also produced ceremonial defilement, and the people therefore were to be instructed regarding the nature and extent of such uncleanness and the means of its purification. The text considers both normal and abnormal unclean secretions of men (vv. 1\u201318) and of women (vv. 19\u201330). The chapter and the section closes with a statement concerning the danger of ritual uncleanness (v. 31) and a summary statement listing the matters treated in the chapter (vv. 32\u201333).<\/p>\n
1. Male Discharges (15:1\u201318)<\/p>\n
15:1\u201318 Evidently under consideration here are diseased or otherwise abnormal secretions from the sexual organs which continued over a period of time. These rendered a man ceremonially unclean, and those who came in contact with him were also made unclean (vv. 7\u20138). In addition, objects with which the unclean person came in contact were rendered unclean, and other persons could contact uncleanness by touching the unclean objects (vv. 4\u20136, 9\u201310). Individuals rendered unclean by such contact were to wash their clothes, bathe, and remain unclean until evening. By washing his hands the person rendered unclean by a discharge could avoid communicating ritual impurity to another person (v. 11). Again, a clay pot contaminated by contact would have to be destroyed whereas a wooden article could be rinsed with water and reused (cf. 6:28). After an individual was healed from his discharge he was, after waiting seven days, to wash his clothes, bathe, and be clean. On the eighth day he was to bring two doves or two young pigeons for the priest to sacrifice one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering (cf. 14:22, 23, 30, 31). A normal secretion such as a nocturnal emission of semen (cf. Deut 23:9\u201311) rendered an individual unclean until evening. Bathing of self and washing of affected objects were, as usual, also required for purification. Emission of semen in normal marital relations rendered both parties unclean until evening. It was probably for this reason that preparation for worship involved abstinence from marital relations (Exod 19:15; cf. 1 Sam 21:5).<\/p>\n
2. Female Discharges (15:19\u201330)<\/p>\n
15:19\u201330 A woman\u2019s regular menstrual flow rendered her unclean for seven days. Her ritual impurity was communicated to objects she touched during the seven-day period, and persons contacting such objects during this time became unclean (vv. 19\u201323). If menstruation began during marital intercourse, the husband also was rendered unclean for seven days (v. 24). Diseased or abnormal discharge rendered a woman unclean for as long as the condition continued (vv. 25\u201327). The case is parallel to that of a man\u2019s abnormal discharge (cf. vv. 4\u201312), and the purification after healing (vv. 28\u201330) was the same (cf. vv. 13\u201315). On one occasion Jesus healed a woman who had suffered from such a condition twelve years (Matt 9:20\u201322; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43).<\/p>\n
3. Conclusion (15:31\u201333)<\/p>\n
15:31\u201333 Failure to remove ceremonial impurity as prescribed was therefore a serious offense. An Israelite was to keep himself holy that he might worship the holy God as a member of the holy nation. Disregard of, or contempt for, the LORD\u2019s sanctuary could bring death to the offender (cf. 10:3).<\/p>\n
IV. Day of Atonement Commanded (16:1\u201334)<\/p>\n
The final subject treated in the first major section of Leviticus is the vitally important annual Day of Atonement. On this most solemn day of the religious year ceremonial cleansing was made for \u201call the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites\u2014all their sins\u201d (v. 21).<\/p>\n
A. PREPARATION OF HIGH PRIEST DESCRIBED (16:1\u201310)<\/p>\n
16:1\u20137 The immediate punishment of the willful disobedience by the two sons of Aaron (10:1\u20133) had impressed upon Aaron\u2019s entire family the utter necessity of following exactly the LORD\u2019s instruction. Because the LORD appeared in the cloud over the atonement cover atop the Ark of the Covenant (Exod 25:21\u201322), even Aaron the high priest was not to enter the LORD\u2019s holy presence unbidden or improperly. Only once in the year (vv. 29\u201330) and then only in the prescribed manner (vv. 3\u20135) was the high priest to enter the innermost sanctuary (cf. Heb 9:7). Bringing a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering (cf. 4:1\u201312; 1:10\u201313; 9:3), Aaron was to bathe and put on the sacred garments. The linen clothing here described was not the ornate official costume of the high priest (Exod 28:4\u201339), but instead special white garments, symbolizing purity and holiness, used only by the high priest as he carried out his sacrificial duties (Exod 28:42\u201343). From the Israelite community he was to take two male goats for the people\u2019s sin offering and a ram for their burnt offering. After appropriately clothing himself and assembling the proper animals, Aaron offered first a sin offering for himself and his household (16:11\u201314; 9:7).
\n16:8\u201310 The sin offering for the people consisted of two identical specimen animals which were, by casting lots, identified as sacrifice and scapegoat, respectively. Scapegoat translates an interesting Hebrew word (\u05e2\u05b2\u05d6\u05b8\u05d0\u05d6\u05b5\u05dc, \u02bf\u0103z\u0101\u02bez\u0113l) that has been variously interpreted as (1) a name for the goat, \u201cthe goat that removes,\u201d (2) an abstract noun meaning \u201ccomplete removal,\u201d (3) a name for the desert place to which the goat was assigned, and (4) a name for a demon supposedly inhabiting the desert and perhaps to be identified with Satan. The second of these agrees harmoniously with the emphasis in verse 22 and therefore appears most probable. If, in truth, Azazel was a personal name for a demon opposed to the LORD, as the contrast in verse 8 might suggest, then it should be emphasized that the goat was not sacrificed \u201cto Azazel\u201d (17:7), but instead constituted part of a sin offering to the LORD. Therefore, if Azazel be a proper name, the sending of the goat to Azazel would seem to have represented the removal of sins from Israel to the evil one from whom they originated. According to one Jewish tradition, two lots or markers, one marked \u201cFor the LORD\u201d and the other marked \u201cFor Azazel,\u201d were placed in a special urn. The high priest put both hands into the urn, drew forth a lot in each hand and brought one hand down on the head of each goat, while voicing a dedicatory phrase \u201cTo the LORD.\u201d The procedure to be followed with the goats thus identified, here set forth in summary fashion, is treated in detail in verses 15\u201328.<\/p>\n
B. RITUAL FOR HIGH PRIEST\u2019S SIN OFFERING SET FORTH (16:11\u201314)<\/p>\n
16:11\u201314 Not only for himself but also for his household was Aaron to offer the bull. Thus, sin offering was made first for all the priesthood (cf. v. 33 as well as note above). Carrying a fire pan, a censer full of burning coals taken from the altar of burnt offering, the high priest entered the Most Holy Place and there placed incense upon the fire. In this way a cloud of aromatic incense filled the Most Holy Place. The \u201cmercy seat\u201d or atonement cover was the top of the ark of the covenant (Exod 25:10\u201322) into which were put the two \u201ctables of testimony\u201d upon which the ten commandments had been written (Exod 25:21; 31:18; 34:29). The smoke of the incense separated between the holy presence of the LORD at the atonement cover (Exod 25:22) and the high priest as representative of sinful Israel. As failure to carry out the LORD\u2019s instructions was fraught with danger for the priest generally (22:9), so also the high priest who disobediently gazed upon the place of the divine presence could expect punishment. After burning the incense, the high priest sprinkled blood from the sin offering once upon the front of the atonement cover and seven times in front of it; according to Jewish tradition the high priest performed his activity in the Most Holy Place in two stages, first entering to burn the incense and then returning to the door of the sanctuary to take the blood of the bull from an attendant and reentering to sprinkle the blood as prescribed.<\/p>\n
C. RITUAL FOR SIN OFFERING FOR THE PEOPLE DEPICTED (16:15\u201319)<\/p>\n
16:15\u201319 Having atoned for himself and his household, the high priest stood ready to make the sin offering for the people. The goat designated \u201cfor the LORD\u201d (cf. vv. 5, 9) was to be killed and its blood brought behind the curtain to be sprinkled on the atonement cover as the high priest had done with the bull\u2019s blood (v. 14). The Day of Atonement was a great cleansing ritual. Not only were priest and people cleansed, but also the sanctuary itself, including the Most Holy Place (v. 16), the Holy Place (v. 16), and the altar (v. 20), was purified from the uncleannesses of the people. Milgrom has diagramed the various categories of sins and their effect on the sanctuary as follows:<\/p>\n
The altar that is before the LORD here is the altar of burnt offering. The cleansing of the altar of incense mentioned in Exodus 30:10 was doubtless done as part of the cleansing of the Holy Place (v. 16).<\/p>\n
D. RITUAL OF SCAPEGOAT DEPICTED (16:20\u201322)<\/p>\n
16:20\u201322 In vv. 8\u201310 the live goat is called the scapegoat, a term and concept derived from this passage (the word in English perhaps stems from \u201cescape\u201d goat, since the live goat escapes being sacrificed). The sin offering ritual was designed to remove the contamination of sin from the sanctuary and from the people (cf. 16:16). By laying his hands upon the head of the goat (cf. 1:4) and confessing over it all Israel\u2019s sins, Aaron symbolically put them on the goat\u2019s head, thus transferring those iniquities to the goat so that it might carry them away (cf. 14:4\u20137). Released in the desert in a distant and desolate solitary place, the goat would not return to the camp. Similarly, once forgiven, sins are not counted against the offender.<\/p>\n
E. INSTRUCTIONS FOR REMAINDER OF CEREMONY GIVEN (16:23\u201328)<\/p>\n
16:23\u201328 After offering the sin offerings, the high priest removed the linen garments (cf. v. 4), bathed, put on the ornate garments of his office described in Exodus 28:1\u201339, and offered the two rams (vv. 3, 4) as burnt offerings. As always with sin offerings (4:8\u201310), the fat of the sin offering was to be burned on the altar. Because of their association with animals symbolically bearing sin, the individual appointed to drive the scapegoat into the wilderness (v. 21) and those who removed the bodies of the sin offerings outside the camp for burning (4:12, 21) were to wash their clothes and bathe for ceremonial purification before returning to the camp.<\/p>\n
F. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DAY OF ATONEMENT GIVEN (16:29\u201334)<\/p>\n
16:29\u201334 The instructions just given to Aaron (v. 2) were to be observed as an annual Day of Atonement, as a lasting ordinance. This important holy day is also discussed in Leviticus 23:26\u201332, and offerings for it treated in Numbers 29:7\u201311. The command to deny yourselves involves fasting (Ps 35:13, Isa 58:3, 5). Restraint of physical appetites by fasting was associated with mourning, and it is therefore quite significant that the Day of Atonement was the only day of fasting commanded in the Mosaic legislation. The people should also not do any work; the Day of Atonement was to be a sabbath of rest. The observance of the fast and abstinence from labor began at evening of the previous day, the ninth (Lev 23:32). The divine promise, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins, assured the faithful Israelite of divine cleansing and forgiveness. To be sure, viewed later from the perspective of the cross, the Levitical system was limited and imperfect. The writer of Hebrews therefore insisted that the actual forgiveness of sins, even under the Mosaic Covenant, technically awaited the ultimate sacrifice of Christ (cf. Heb 9:1\u201310:18). This truth does not detract, however, from the divine promise given to Israel in the present passage, nor from the assurance of cleansing and acceptance rightly felt by the faithful of ancient Israel on the basis of this promise. Forgiveness is thus clearly taught in this and other Old Testament passages. In keeping with the emphasis in Hebrews, the sacrifices as means of atonement under the Levitical system may be properly illustrated to the Christian as proper checks drawn on the riches of forgiveness provided by Christ\u2019s atoning death. The annual Day of Atonement was later called by the Jews \u201cYoma,\u201d i.e., \u201cthe day,\u201d because of its deep spiritual significance. As a time of fasting, the day signified penitential mourning. Realization of sinfulness by the nation is seen in the fact that, not only were individual sin offerings made throughout the year, but also one Day of Atonement for the corporate guilt of Israel was provided. The solemn observances of the day doubtless culminated for the faithful Israelite in a moving experience of inner cleansing. Surely the Day of Atonement was at the heart of the Levitical system, and the discussion of this theme provides a fitting climax to the first major movement of Leviticus and, indeed to the entire book.<\/p>\n
LEVITICUS 17:1\u201326:46\u2014PART TWO<\/p>\n
WALKING WITH GOD<\/p>\n
Considering chapters 1\u201316 of Leviticus as largely a discussion of ceremonial means of approaching the holy God, one may well view chapters 17\u201326 as a treatment of means of continuing in fellowship with the holy God. Such communion demanded that the people strive to be holy (see 11:45; 19:2; 20:7, 26). Chapters 17\u201326 concentrate upon this required holiness and have therefore been called the \u201cHoliness Code.\u201d Discussed in this section are holiness in Israel (chs. 17\u201320), priestly holiness (chs. 21\u201322), holy time (chs. 23, 25) and special holy things (ch. 24). The section closes with a series of admonitions to faithfulness (ch. 26).<\/p>\n
I. Holiness Demanded in Israel (17:1\u201320:27)<\/p>\n
A. PLACE OF SACRIFICE STIPULATED (17:1\u20139)<\/p>\n
17:1\u20138 In the present passage the Israelites are instructed to treat as fellowship offerings (cf. 3:1\u201317) even ordinary slaughter of such animals as were used in sacrifice (vv. 3, 5). Therefore, the slaughtering of animals in the open field was to be considered as a serious act of rebellion which brought guilt and severe punishment upon the offender. The purpose of the instruction here given which treats every slaughter as a sacrifice was to prevent the continuation of a particular idolatrous practice, the worship of the goat idols (v. 7). It is understandable, then, that when this purpose had been accomplished, the regulations were relaxed at the end of the wilderness period. (See Deut 12:15\u201328.) The present instruction was therefore observed only during the wilderness period. Goat idols renders a Hebrew word (\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b4\u05dd, \u015b\u0259\u02bf\u00eer\u00eem) which commonly means \u201cgoats\u201d but is also used to designate a type of demon popularly believed to inhabit desert places (cf. 16:18; Isa 13:21; 34:14; 2 Chr 11:15). The Israelites were tempted to offer sacrifices to these \u201cfield demons,\u201d perhaps in an attempt to ward off their supposed evil influences. Such idolatrous worship is often pictured in Scripture as spiritual harlotry.
\n17:9 A lasting ordinance ordinarily conveys the idea that the instruction given will last as long as the covenant endures. In keeping with the preceding analysis, it seems that the \u201cstatute for ever\u201d here is the prohibition against idolatrous sacrifice in general, not the particular requirement here given that every slaughter be treated as a sacrifice (cf. Exod 20:3\u20134; Deut 12:15\u201316, 21\u201325). The seriousness of the prohibited offense is underlined in verses 8\u20139. Some offenses were not to be tolerated in Israel even on the part of the non-Israelite resident alien.<\/p>\n
B. EATING OF BLOOD PROHIBITED (17:10\u201316)<\/p>\n
17:10\u201316 Like the preceding prohibition, the ban on eating of blood, i.e., eating of flesh from which the blood had not been drained, applied to both Israelites and sojourners in Israel\u2019s midst. One reason for the prohibition of blood as food was that the life principle centered in the blood. A second reason for the prohibition was the LORD\u2019s choice of blood as a means of atonement. For these two reasons blood was considered sacred by the Israelites. By pouring out the blood and covering it, the Israelites were to dispose of the blood of animals killed in hunting. The penalty for eating blood was that the offender must be cut off from his people. As previously noted (7:20\u201321), this cutting off involved not capital punishment, but instead excommunication from the covenant people. A clean animal that died a natural death or was torn by beasts was unfit for food because its flesh had not been properly drained of blood. The instructions previously given concerning such animals (11:39, 40; Exod 22:31) are therefore appropriately repeated in connection with the prohibition of the eating of blood.<\/p>\n
C. PAGAN SEXUAL OFFENSES OPPOSED (18:1\u201330)<\/p>\n
Covenant with a holy God involved allegiance to the LORD\u2019s standard of sexual and social purity (cf. Exod 20:14). As part of the holiness demanded in Israel, therefore, the people were commanded to avoid the degenerate sexual practices of Egypt and Canaan (vv. 1\u20135). Prohibited in this connection were incestuous relationships (vv. 6\u201318) and other sexual offenses (vv. 19\u201323). The chapter closes with a warning against copying the sexual sins of Canaan (vv. 24\u201330).
\n18:1\u20135 The text repeatedly emphasizes I am the LORD your God (cf. vv. 5, 21, 30). The fact that the holy LORD was Israel\u2019s God was sufficient foundation for the demand for covenant holiness (see 11:45, 19:1). The privilege of fellowship with the LORD involved corresponding responsibility. The immorality of Egypt was more familiar to the Israelites of that generation (cf. Ezek 16:26; Gen 12:10\u201316), while the wickedness of Canaan was more infamous (cf. Genesis 19). The Israelites were to avoid the sexual license of the country they had left and the one they were to enter. Not the decrees and laws of Canaan (v. 3) but those of the LORD were to be observed, and sustained physical life could be expected as a result of obedience.
\n18:6\u201318 The general principle is stated in verse 6. Throughout the passage, the Hebrew idiom (\u05d2\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05e2\u05b6\u05e8\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4, gall\u00f4th \u02bferw\u0101h) for sexual relations (cf. Ezek 16:36; 23:18) is literally \u201cuncovering nakedness.\u201d Although the term is general, the passage is primarily interested in marriages between individuals of close kin. Again, the Hebrew phrase (\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9, \u0161\u0259\u02be\u0113r b\u0259\u015b\u0101r\u00f4) rendered close relative means literally \u201cflesh of his flesh.\u201d The passage considers chiefly blood relationships, but a few cases are included in which kinship exists between the man and woman only through marriage. Marriage or other sexual unions were specifically prohibited between a man and his mother (v. 7), his stepmother (v. 8), his sister (v. 9), his granddaughter (v. 10), his half sister (v. 11), his aunt (vv. 12, 13, 14), his daughter-in-law (v. 15), his sister-in-law (v. 16), his wife\u2019s daughter or granddaughter (v. 17), or his living wife\u2019s sister (v. 18). Incest with one\u2019s own daughter, while not specifically mentioned, is prohibited by implication in verse 17. Penalties for violation of the various prohibited degrees of marriage are given in chapter 20. Husband and wife form \u201cone flesh\u201d (Gen 2:24). The wife\u2019s nakedness may be pictured therefore as that of her husband (see also vv. 14, 16), and defiling her is sin against him (cf. Gen 49:4; Deut 22:30). The prohibition in verse 16 assumes the brother is living. If a man died childless, his brother was expected to marry his widow to fulfill the levirate marriage law (Deut 25:5\u201310). Sexual relations with one\u2019s mother-in-law, identified along with other sexual crimes as worthy of curse in Deuteronomy 27:23, is included in the prohibition of sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter.
\n18:19\u201323 The text prohibits sexual relations during the uncleanness of a woman\u2019s monthly period (cf. 15:24). If the offense was intentional, the punishment was severe (20:18). To have sexual relations with your neighbor\u2019s wife was a violation of the basic code of sexual purity (Exod 20:14) and was punishable by stoning (Deut 22:22). Sacrificing a child to Molech is discussed more fully at 20:1\u20135 (cf. 1 Kgs 11:7; 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 32:35). Child sacrifice and cult prostitution were the two most degenerate practices in Canaanite worship. Perhaps because of its association with such sexual offenses, child sacrifice is prohibited here. Homosexual relations and bestiality are denounced as detestable and as a perversion. Both practices were degenerate violations of the holy sexual standard by which Israel was to live.
\n18:24\u201330 The nations inhabiting Canaan, because of their degeneracy, were about to be justly cast out of their land (cf. Gen 15:16). All Israel was to take warning, and individuals who refused to follow the covenant statutes were to be cut off (excommunicated) from Israel. Personifying the land as a beast unable to keep within it the corruption of wickedness, the LORD warned that the land will vomit you out. Concerning the various sexual offenses of the Canaanites the LORD said \u201cthat is wickedness\u201d (v. 17), \u201cthat is detestable\u201d (v. 22), \u201cthat is a perversion\u201d (v. 24). Far from copying such practices, Israel was to take warning from the divine judgment upon the Canaanites, to avoid defiling herself and the land with degeneracy, and instead to follow the covenant call of the holy LORD. Tragically, subsequent history revealed Israel\u2019s failure to heed the divine warning.<\/p>\n
D. HOLINESS DEMANDED IN DAILY CONDUCT (19:1\u201337)<\/p>\n
19:1\u20132 Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. This is the thesis statement of the entire chapter (cf. 11:45). Motivating the faithful Israelite to obey all of the miscellaneous ethical and ritual commandments grouped together in chapter 19 was the desire to emulate in daily conduct the holy God. By pure and righteous life a man was to manifest that he belonged to the LORD as one of his people. It is noteworthy that the holiness required was to be demonstrated not by withdrawal from life or renunciation of life, but instead by a transformation of everyday life and conduct.
\n19:3\u20134 Foremost among duties to other human beings was the requirement that one lovingly respect his mother and father. Interestingly, the mother is mentioned first here, perhaps to emphasize that due respect be shown her also. Just as one\u2019s duty to his parents was primary among his social obligations, so also keeping the LORD\u2019s Sabbaths was prominent in one\u2019s duties to God (cf. Exod 20:8\u201311). Again, any allegiance to an idol or other gods was a violation of personal holiness. Here Israel was to be clearly different from her heathen neighbors (cf. Exod 20:3\u20136; 34:17).
\n19:5\u201310 The instructions of 7:15\u201318 regarding the fellowship offering are here repeated, and the penalty of excommunication is set for intentional violation of the LORD\u2019s commands concerning the holy offerings. Holiness in daily life involved also concern for the poor, which the faithful Israelite was to show at harvest by leaving the edges of his fields unreaped and by leaving ungathered the gleanings (cf. 23:22; Deut 24:19\u201321) of his field and the fruit dropped while gathering grapes or olives from his vineyard.
\n19:11\u201314 Further, living honestly and speaking truthfully were also involved in covenant holiness (Exod 20:15\u201316), and to swear falsely was a violation of the primary meaning of the third commandment (Exod 20:7). Unworthy living by God\u2019s people would profane the LORD\u2019s holy name, but righteous living would sanctify his name. Defrauding one\u2019s neighbor also fell short of covenant holiness. (Cf. Deut 24:14, where the term \u201chired servant\u201d occurs instead of \u201cneighbor.\u201d) The economically strong were not to take advantage of those in their service by paying them less than their due (cf. Amos 2:6\u20137). To withhold the wages of such a neighbor was to rob him (cf. Deut 24:15). A laborer hired by the day was to be paid at day\u2019s end (cf. Matt 20:8). Deferring wages even for a day worked hardship upon the poor, who ordinarily had practically no funds or goods in reserve to sustain them. Because a deaf man could not resist reviling that he did not hear, nor a blind man avoid obstacles he could not see, such persons could be made the victims of cruel ridicule and malicious sport. The LORD\u2019s people, however, were not to abuse the infirm, but rather to show positive concern for them out of fear for the LORD, who avenges and helps the helpless.
\n19:15\u201318 Covenant holiness was not to be forgotten when one entered the courtroom, either as judge or witness. The principle of the ninth commandment (Exod 20:16) demanded justice even to the extent that one was not to show partiality to the poor, i.e., to grant a poor man\u2019s case unjustly out of pity for his poverty. All false witnessing, whether outside the legal process (slander) or within the legal process (perjury) was excluded by the ninth commandment. Commitment to holiness must guard a man\u2019s tongue (Jas 3:3\u201312). Not only one\u2019s speech and conduct toward others, but even one\u2019s basic attitude toward others was to be regulated by the standard of holiness. For this reason the text warns even the individual who has been wronged by another against the danger of allowing such a wrong to lead him to sin in heart and act. The passage forms a remarkable preliminary to our Lord\u2019s teaching in Matthew 18:15\u201317. Somewhat obscure in its present context, the marvelous admonition to love your neighbor (cf. Luke 10:29) as yourself was identified by Jesus as the second most important commandment in the law, surpassed in importance only by the famous passage in Deuteronomy 6:4\u20136 quoted daily by faithful Israelites (cf. Matt 22:34\u201340).
\n19:19 No reason is assigned here for the LORD\u2019s prohibitions against crossbreeding different kinds of domesticated animals, sowing two kinds of seed in the same field, and mixing fabrics in the same clothing (Deut 22:9\u201311). Such laws did serve to remind Israel that allegiance to the LORD involved every aspect of life. Perhaps these laws also reinforced the Levitical emphasis upon ceremonial purity, such mixing of diverse elements being regarded by the Israelites as contrary to the divine order in creation.
\n19:20\u201322 A betrothed slave girl counted legally as the concubine of the man who had betrothed her, unless she were ransomed or given her freedom (cf. Exod 21:7\u201311). Violating such a concubine demanded due punishment, but the death penalty was not required. A betrothed free woman was considered legally as a man\u2019s wife, and consenting sexual relations by her with another man was adultery, punishable by death (20:10; Deut 22:23\u201324). A problem arises because the word translated due punishment (\u05d1\u05b4\u05e7\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea, biqq\u014dreth) is quite rare; perhaps better would be \u201ccompensation shall be paid\u201d (to the offended master or to the girl\u2019s future husband). The word may also speak here of a legal inquiry. Certainly the circumstances of the matter would have to be determined legally, but due punishment would doubtless have been the outcome of the inquiry. Guilt in the present instance demanded a ram as the appropriate guilt offering (cf. 5:14\u201319).
\n19:23\u201325 Numerous laws in the Pentateuch look forward to the time Israel would enter the land of Canaan, and await that time for their implementation. In Canaan, the fruit of newly planted trees was for three years to be considered forbidden, literally \u201cas uncircumcised,\u201d i.e., \u201clike a child unconsecrated.\u201d The stunted fruit of a young tree, unsuitable for an offering of first fruits, was thus forbidden; the mature fruit of the fourth year was counted holy and given to the sanctuary as an offering of first fruits. Following their dedication of the fourth year\u2019s fruit, the people could enjoy in subsequent years produce made richer by the LORD\u2019s blessing.
\n19:26\u201329 Eating meat with the blood still in it not only violated the principles noted at 17:10\u201316, but also the eating of blood seems to have been associated with various heathen rites, and therefore the prohibition has special force here as part of a rigid prohibition of idolatrous practices generally. Divination and sorcery as well as resorting to mediums and spiritists (v. 31) were commonly practiced by Israel\u2019s religious neighbors, and allegiance to the holy LORD demanded a stand against such abominations (cf. Deut 18:9\u201314). Likewise, to cut the hair of head or beard in certain ways, to cut the body distinctively and to tattoo the body were all heathen practices, usually associated with reverence and\/or fear of the dead. These practices, too, excluded commitment to the holy LORD. The warning, do not degrade your daughter, is also directed against Canaanite idolatry. Tragically, a distinctive practice in Canaanite religion was cult prostitution, and numerous girls in Canaanite society were dedicated by their parents to serve as temple prostitutes, sexual relations with whom were thought by the Canaanites to induce crop fertility as a blessing from their heathen god. Such girls were even called \u201choly women.\u201d Strong condemnation of this abomination is therefore highly appropriate in the present passage with its emphasis upon holiness of life.
\n19:30\u201337 Calling for observance of Sabbaths and reverence for the sanctuary (cf. 19:3, 26:2), the text turns from prohibition of idolatrous practices to positive emphasis upon requirements of holiness. Such requirements include true and sincere worship, proper attitudes toward others (vv. 32\u201333), and just conduct in all business (vv. 35\u201336). Respecting the aged, set forth in a synonymous couplet in verse 32, was also a means of showing respect for the LORD (cf. 1 Tim 5:1). Dramatically, the text calls for loving treatment of the resident alien (cf. Exod 12:48, 49; 22:21). The command to love him as yourself and thus be concerned for the positive welfare of others applied not only to fellow Israelites, as in verse 18, but rather to all men. Prohibition of dishonest standards reminds that unethical merchants kept two sets of weights and containers and manipulated them to their advantage in buying or selling (cf. Deut 25:13\u201316; Ezek 45:10\u201312; Amos 8:4\u20135). Such unscrupulous acts, prohibited in principle by the eighth commandment, are here indicted as violations of holiness. The ephah was a dry measure (equaling about one-half bushel); the hin was a liquid measure (about one gallon). The closing exhortation repeats again the foundation motivation I am the LORD. Allegiance to the holy LORD demanded that the Israelites strive for holiness in heart and life. The character and will of God stood behind the numerous statutes and ordinances of the Law. The Israelite who sought to follow the LORD\u2019s commands hallowed the LORD\u2019s name, but he who spurned the laws profaned the LORD\u2019s name.<\/p>\n
E. PUNISHMENTS LISTED FOR VIOLATION OF HOLINESS REQUIREMENTS (20:1\u201327)<\/p>\n
Closely connected with the preceding two chapters, this chapter primarily gives the penalties for sins already severely condemned in chapters 18 and 19. Motivational and hortatory paragraphs (vv. 7\u20138, 22\u201326) separate three penalty sections (vv. 1\u20136, 9\u201321, 27).
\n20:1\u20136 Among the degenerate Canaanite practices later emulated by Israel was child sacrifice (Ps 106:38; Jer 7:31; 32:35; and other passages attest to this). It is such sacrifice that is apparently described as making children to \u201cpass through the fire to Molech\u201d (18:21, KJV) or giving children to Molech. The word \u201cMolech\u201d is interesting because it may have several connotations. First Kings 11:7 identifies the abomination (idol) of the Ammonites as \u201cMolech.\u201d Again, the consonants of this term are the same as the word for \u201cking\u201d (\u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05da, melek), and it has been suggested that several idols were worshiped as the \u201cdivine king.\u201d In this case the change of vowels might well have been designed by the Israelites to dishonor the title. Further, it is interesting that the people of Carthage and their Phoenician forefathers sacrificed children to their idol and termed the sacrifice a molk, the consonants of which term are again the same as Molech or melek above. This evidence might suggest that the term Molech describes, in some places at least, a type of human sacrifice, i.e., a molk offering, one in which living infants were placed in the arms of an idol which had been intensely heated and thus offered in sacrifice. It is noteworthy also that numerous earlier expositors interpreted \u201cpassing through the fire to Molech\u201d as a purificatory fire-baptism by which infants were not killed but merely dedicated to the idol. Whatever precise form Molech-worship took, it was idolatry, punishable by stoning. If the people of the community did not execute the offender, the LORD himself would punish him and all who followed him in the spiritual adultery of idolatry (vv. 4\u20135). To be cut off from the people was therefore to be punished at the hands of God, which punishment would appear in the present passage, though perhaps not always, to involve death (cf. 7:19\u201321). Like Molech-worship, consulting mediums and spiritists was also associated with idolatry, spiritual harlotry, and deserved the same fate.
\n20:7\u20138 By violating the holy covenant, an Israelite cast reflection both on the sanctuary (see 15:31; 16:16) and on the holy name of the LORD who had called him (18:21; 19:12). As in 19:2, the LORD calls for the people to consecrate themselves and be holy because the LORD is holy and it is he who makes holy his people who keep and follow his decrees.
\n20:9\u201321 The penalties in this section seem roughly organized in decreasing degrees of severity, beginning with capital crimes, the first of which is cursing of parents (cf. 19:3; Exod 20:12; 21:17). The individual legally executed for a capital crime had brought death upon himself; no bloodguilt was reckoned upon others as it was in unlawful taking of human life, hence his blood will be on his own head (cf. Gen 9:6; Exod 22:2). The death penalty was also exacted for some of the sexual crimes condemned in chapter 18. Among these were adultery (20:10; cf. 18:20), incest (20:11, 12, 14; cf. 18:8, 15, 17), homosexuality (20:13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (20:15, 16; cf. 18:23). Capital punishment in these cases was probably by stoning (compare v. 2) with the corpses then being burned (cf. Joshua 7:15, 25). Not all sexual sins were punished by death. Illicit relations with a half-sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9) and intentional sexual relations with a menstruous woman (v. 18; cf. 18:19) seem to have been punished by excommunication. (They must be cut off was interpreted by the rabbis to mean punishment at the hands of God, here involving excommunication; cf. 7:19\u201321). In cases of illicit relations with an aunt (v. 19; cf. 18:12\u201313), with the wife of an uncle (v. 20; cf. 18:14) or with the wife of one\u2019s brother (v. 21; cf. 18:16) the community was to take no action but to realize the offenders would be held responsible before God and such illicit marriages would be childless. Omitted in the discussion are penalties for incest with one\u2019s mother (18:7) or with one\u2019s granddaughter (18:10), but the death penalty is to be assumed in both cases.
\n20:22\u201326 Like chapter 18, the present discussion of penalties concludes with a solemn charge to obey the LORD and a warning against disobedience (18:24\u201330). Motivating obedience was the promised inheritance of Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey, i.e., a very fruitful land (cf. Exod 3:8). Israel must not live according to the customs of the nations whose behavior was abhorred by the LORD and who were to be expelled from the land. Because the holy LORD had set Israel apart from the nations, Israel was to observe also the LORD\u2019s ritual commandments and thus be different in conduct from the surrounding nations. The laws regarding clean and unclean animals are given in 11:1\u201347 and Deuteronomy 14:3\u201321.
\n20:27 Not only those who consulted a medium or spiritist (v. 6) but also these idolatrous practitioners themselves were to be executed.<\/p>\n
II. Holiness Demanded in Priesthood and Offerings (21:1\u201322:33)<\/p>\n
Continuing the emphasis upon holiness of conduct, chapters 21\u201322 are concerned with maintaining the sanctity of the priesthood (21:1\u201324), protecting the sanctity of the priestly portion of the offerings (22:1\u201316), and defining the qualifications for animals acceptable for sacrifice (22:17\u201333).<\/p>\n
A. LAWS OF PRIESTLY SANCTITY GIVEN (21:1\u201324)<\/p>\n
This section sets forth requirements for the priests (vv. 1\u20139), special regulations for the high priest (vv. 10\u201315), and physical qualifications for priests serving in the sanctuary (vv. 16\u201324).<\/p>\n
1. Requirements Given for All Priests (21:1\u20139)<\/p>\n
21:1\u20139 If the LORD\u2019s covenant demanded holiness on the part of the people, how much more it required holiness of conduct on the part of the LORD\u2019s chosen ministers, the priests. The priests were, of course, subject to the holiness laws incumbent upon all Israel, but beyond these, additional, more stringent, requirements were placed upon priests. Except for the members of his own family mentioned in verses 2\u20133 and for his wife (who is assumed, being regarded biblically as closer than his nearest kin, Gen 2:24), a priest could not make himself ceremonially unclean by coming in contact with a corpse, either by preparing the body for burial or by entering the room where the body lay prior to burial. Further, priests were not to shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. All these practices were forbidden to the priests as idolatrous mourning customs (19:27\u201328; Deut 14:1). It is noteworthy that such prohibitions would guard the priests and all Israel against idolatrous veneration of the dead or ancestor worship. As servants of the LORD\u2019s altar who present the offerings, the priests were to be particularly holy. As in 3:11, the offerings are called the food of their God several times in the present context. Again, as the LORD\u2019s ministers, priests were to marry in keeping with their holy profession. Forbidden to marry a woman defiled by prostitution, a violated woman, or one divorced, the priest could marry only a virgin or a widow, and the high priest could only marry a virgin (vv. 13\u201314). The priest\u2019s family was also to live in a holy manner. A priest\u2019s daughter who became a harlot was therefore to be executed (20:14).<\/p>\n
2. Special Regulations for High Priest Given (21:10\u201315)<\/p>\n
21:10\u201315 The high priest had been especially anointed and ordained for his position (8:12, 30; 16:32). Because he had been especially consecrated (v. 12; 10:7), requirements more stringent than those for the other priests were placed upon the high priest. He was not to let his hair become unkempt or tear his clothes as public signs of mourning (cf. 10:6, 7). He was further to avoid all contact with the dead and therefore could not ritually make himself unclean, even for his father or mother (contrast vv. 1\u20132), nor leave the sanctuary to participate in mourning. The high priest was only to marry a virgin (vv. 13\u201314; contrast v. 7). An improper marriage would defile his offspring, i.e., corrupt the Aaronic line of descent.<\/p>\n
3. Disqualifying Blemishes Listed (21:16\u201324)<\/p>\n
21:16\u201324 Like the sacrifices they offered, the ministers in the LORD\u2019s sanctuary were to be physically unblemished. Numerous defects disqualifying one for service are listed in verses 18\u201320. Descendants of Aaron who had such physical defects were permitted to share with their brethren in the priestly portions of the offerings, but were strictly prohibited from sanctuary service. Some priestly portions were designated as most holy, others as simply holy (cf. 2:3). The curtain divided the most holy place from the holy place in the tabernacle (Exod 26:33). A priest disqualified by a physical defect could not go near the curtain or approach the altar for fear his blemish would desecrate the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
B. SANCTITY OF OFFERINGS PROTECTED (22:1\u201316)<\/p>\n
22:1\u20139 Certain portions of the sacred offerings were reserved for the priests. (Num 18:8\u201320 neatly summarizes the priestly portions.) Although intended as food for the priests, these portions were not to be treated totally as common food, but rather their sanctity was to be protected in two ways: (1) no priest was to eat of them while in a state of ritual uncleanness (vv. 1\u20139); (2) no unauthorized person was to partake of them (vv. 10\u201316).
\nThe laws of ritual uncleanness are recorded primarily in chapters 11\u201315. Like a nonpriest, a priest was made ceremonially unclean through leprosy (v. 4; cf. 13:45\u201346), bodily discharge (v. 4; cf. 15:2), contact with the dead (v. 4; cf. Num 19:11, 22), emission of semen (v. 4; cf. 15:16), contact with unclean animals (v. 5; see 11:24), or contact with ritually unclean persons (v. 5; cf. 15:7, 19). The priest who became ritually defiled in any of these ways and ate of the priestly portions while in that state was to be cut off, which penalty in this instance apparently involved death (see v. 9). The individual rendered unclean by touching unclean things remained unclean until sunset, the end of the day, at which time he could bathe and be ritually clean again. Uncleanness was also contacted by eating the flesh of anything found dead or torn by wild animals (cf. 17:15\u201316).
\n22:10\u201313 The sanctity of the priestly portions was also protected by specifying the people permitted to partake. Only persons who were fully incorporated into a priest\u2019s family shared the privilege. Thus, visitors and hired servants were excluded (v. 10), whereas slaves, whether bought or born in his household, were permitted to eat (v. 11). A priest\u2019s daughter married to an outsider was forbidden to eat (v. 12), but if she later regained legal status as a member of her father\u2019s house, she was again permitted to eat (v. 13).
\n22:14\u201316 An ordinary Israelite who unknowingly ate of the priestly portion by mistake was to make restitution with equivalent food, adding ten percent as penalty (as in 5:15\u201316). The priests were not to desecrate their holy portions by giving them to unauthorized persons, who by eating the sacred offerings unwittingly would be made subject to the penalty mentioned in verse 14.<\/p>\n
C. ANIMALS ACCEPTABLE FOR OFFERINGS DELINEATED (22:17\u201333)<\/p>\n
22:17\u201325 Generally, an animal offered as a fellowship offering or a burnt offering by either Israelites or non-Israelites had to be a male without defect (cf. 1:3). Votive offerings, freewill offerings, and thanksgiving offerings (v. 29) were three types of fellowship offerings (7:11\u201336). Afflicted, diseased, disabled, or mutilated animals were therefore prohibited for sacrifice (v. 22). Animals overgrown or stunted, but otherwise sound, were permitted for freewill offerings but prohibited for the offering brought in consequence of a vow (v. 23). Animals whose testicles were bruised, crushed, torn, or cut were not to be offered. In these ways animals were castrated; all castrated animals were considered deformed, having defects. You must not do this in your own land is somewhat ambiguous, but likely prohibits in Israel not all castration of animals but instead the offering of castrated animals.
\n22:26\u201333 A newborn animal could not be offered immediately but was instead to remain with its mother for seven days (cf. Exod 22:30). Animals offered in sacrifice had to be mature enough to be considered a self-sustained life. Further, a cow or a sheep and its young were not to be sacrificed on the same day (cf. Exod 23:19; Deut 22:6\u20137). It seems that sacrificing animals along with their young was practiced by the Canaanites as a fertility rite. Again, failure to observe the requirement that a thank offering had to be eaten that same day (7:15\u201316) rendered this type of fellowship offering unacceptable. The section closes with exhortation and motivation to maintain the laws of holiness. Chosen for a holy purpose by the holy LORD and thus identified as his covenant people, Israel was not to profane the LORD\u2019s holy name through rebellious disobedience but rather to sanctify it in every aspect of life through loving obedience.<\/p>\n
III. Holy Times and Seasons Regulated (23:1\u201325:55)<\/p>\n
A major division of the laws of holiness are laws relating to the observance of special holy days and seasons. Chapter 23 is devoted to the weekly Sabbath and the annual holy seasons. Chapter 25 deals with the less frequent sabbatical year and jubilee year. Chapter 24 treats of the holy oil and showbread and tells of the enforcing of the law against blasphemy.<\/p>\n
A. SABBATH, ANNUAL FEASTS REGULATED (23:1\u201344)<\/p>\n
The basic holy day for Israel was the weekly Sabbath, given as one of the ten commandments and illustrated by appeal to the activity of God in creation (Exod 20:8\u201311). In addition to the weekly Sabbath, a number of annual feasts were commanded. These were Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the first month, the Feast of Weeks or Harvest (later called Pentecost) in the third month, and the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles (also called Ingathering) in the seventh month. All of these holy times are termed in Hebrew \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b0\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd (m\u00f4\u02bf\u0259d\u00eem) or \u201cappointed feasts.\u201d Among the appointed feasts, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles are termed \u05d7\u05b7\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd (\u1e25agg\u00eem), \u201cpilgrim festivals.\u201d On these three joyous occasions Israelites were to appear before the LORD at the sanctuary (see Exod 23:17 and Deut 16:1\u201317). In addition to these holy times, every new moon or first day of the month (the Hebrews using a lunar calendar) was a time for special offerings (Num 10:10; 28:11).<\/p>\n
1. Sabbath Law Repeated (23:1\u20133)<\/p>\n
23:1\u20133 For most of their sacred assemblies, the Israelites were called together by the blowing of two silver trumpets (Num 10:2, 10). The term Sabbath means \u201crest.\u201d On this day no work at all was to be done. Both creation and the exodus were recalled in emphasizing the Sabbath law (Gen 2:3; Deut 5:15). Although the Sabbath commandment had been clearly set forth previously (Exod 16:29; 20:8\u201311; 31:14\u201316; 35:2), it is fittingly repeated here as introduction to the discussion of holy times and seasons in general.<\/p>\n
2. Passover, Unleavened Bread Treated (23:4\u20138)<\/p>\n
23:4\u20138 These important festivals took place in the first month of the religious year, Nisan (March\u2013April), earlier called Abib. The origin of Passover, which commemorated the LORD\u2019s sparing the Israelites in the plague upon the firstborn in Egypt, is recorded in Exodus 12:2\u201328, 43\u201349. Closely associated with Passover was the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread, which also commemorated the exodus (Exod 12:14\u201320, 39; 23:15). The fifteenth of Nisan was the first day of the seven days during which unleavened bread was to be eaten. The offerings for the Feast of Unleavened Bread are described in Numbers 28:16\u201325. Doing regular work, i.e., pursuing one\u2019s occupation (see note above), was prohibited, but such acts as the preparation of food were permitted (cf. Exod 12:16); on the Sabbath and the annual Day of Atonement even preparing of food was prohibited (cf. 23:3, 28).<\/p>\n
3. Firstfruits Commanded (23:9\u201314)<\/p>\n
23:9\u201314 Like numerous other laws (14:34; 19:23; 25:2) the law of firstfruits introduced here was to be implemented after Israel\u2019s entrance into Canaan. Because the offering of the barley firstfruits occurred during the week of Unleavened Bread (v. 11), the instructions for this annual offering are given here. A sheaf of the first grain you harvest, although not specified, was a sheaf of barley, this grain being the first to ripen (cf. Exod 9:31\u201332). The sheaf brought by the Israelites was waved before the altar to symbolize the giving of the firstfruits of the barley harvest to the LORD, and then it was given to the priests. Sabbath in verse 11 apparently refers to the day of rest marking the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as the Pharisees maintained, and not to the regular weekly Sabbath, as the Sadducees held. Accordingly, the barley sheaf was given to the LORD on the 16th of Nisan. On this day, a lamb was sacrificed as a burnt offering (1:10\u201313). Accompanying this offering was the appropriate grain offering (cf. 2:1\u20133, 14\u201316) and the appropriate drink offering (cf. Exod 29:41). The people were not to eat any bread or new grain, i.e., consider the barley harvest theirs, until the sheaf of the firstfruits had been given to the LORD. By offering the firstfruits, the people solemnly acknowledged the LORD as the source of the blessing of barley harvest.<\/p>\n
4. Pentecost Commanded (23:15\u201322)<\/p>\n
23:15\u201321 Unlike other holy seasons mentioned in the chapter, the Feast of Weeks has no introductory formula, \u201cAnd the LORD said \u2026\u201d apparently because this festival was considered as the completion of firstfruits ceremonies begun with the offering of the barley sheaf at Passover time (v. 10). Accordingly, the Mishnah knows the feast as \u05e2\u05b2\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea (\u02bf\u0103\u1e63ereth), \u201cconcluding feast\u201d (of Passover). Because the festival here commanded took place seven full weeks (plus one day) after the offering of the firstfruits of the barley harvest (see vv. 11\u201312), it was known by the Israelites as the Feast of Weeks (\u05d7\u05b7\u05d2 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u05bb\u05e2\u05b9\u05ea, \u1e25ag \u0161\u0101b\u016b\u02bf\u014dth). From the Greek term for fifty comes the New Testament name for this festival, \u201cPentecost\u201d (Acts 2:1; 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). The Feast of Weeks celebrated the completion of the wheat harvest (Exod 34:22), and it was therefore also known as the Feast of Harvest (Exod 23:16). On this occasion an offering of new grain in the form of two loaves of bread was to be presented as a wave offering of firstfruits. The loaves of firstfruits, being leavened, were not to be burnt on the altar (2:11\u201312), but were instead symbolically waved before the altar in recognition of the LORD as the source of harvest blessing, and then given entirely to the priests (v. 20). These loaves were baked with yeast because they represented the consecration of the firstfruits of the people\u2019s daily food, which was prepared with leaven. The Feast of Weeks, like the other festive occasions, had a complex of sacrifices and offerings prescribed for it (cf. Num 2:1\u201329:40). These included one young bull and two rams as a burnt offering (1:1\u201313) accompanied by the appropriate grain offerings and drink offerings (compare v. 13), one male goat for a sin offering (cf. 4:1\u20135:13), and two lambs as a fellowship offering (cf. 3:1\u201317). On this day of sacred assembly, as on the seventh day of Unleavened Bread (v. 8), no regular work was to be done.
\n23:22 As the Feast of Weeks was a harvest festival, the required provision for the poor during harvest is repeated for emphasis (cf. 19:9\u201310). Just as the Israelite thanked the LORD for harvest by means of the offering of firstfruits and the attendant sacrifices, he was also to honor the LORD\u2019s claim upon harvest by generously sharing with the poor and the alien. (As regards Pentecost in general, it is interesting to note that later Judaism, after the destruction of the temple, made the day a commemoration of the giving of the law at Sinai.)<\/p>\n
5. Feast of Trumpets Proclaimed (23:23\u201325)<\/p>\n
23:23\u201325 In addition to the festivals of the first month together with their complement, the Feast of Weeks in the third month, the Israelites observed a threefold cycle of festival in the seventh month, Tishri (September\u2013October). This cycle included the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, the most solemn observance of the year, and the week long Feast of Tabernacles. The seventh month of the religious year was the first month of the civil year for Israel. Therefore, the Feast of Trumpets on the first day of this month marked the beginning of the new civil year. New Year\u2019s Day and the beginning of the month\u2019s cycle of sacred observances was to be heralded by abstinence from unnecessary (laborious) work and by the appropriate offerings (see Num 29:1\u20136 for a detailed discussion). According to tradition, not the silver trumpets (Num 10:1, 10), but instead the \u0161\u00f4ph\u0101r or ram\u2019s horn, which emitted a dull but penetrating sound, provided the trumpet blasts announcing the sacred assembly on this occasion.<\/p>\n
6. Day of Atonement Reemphasized (23:26\u201332)<\/p>\n
23:26\u201332 The second holy occasion in the cycle of the seventh month was the Day of Atonement, the most solemn day of the entire year. Described in detail in 16:1\u201334, this day is here listed in its appropriate place in the festival calendar. On this day, the Israelites were to hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves, i.e., by fasting (see note to 16:29), and to present their fire offering (Leviticus 16 and Num 29:7\u201311). On the Day of Atonement not only \u201cregular work,\u201d but all work was prohibited, as on the Sabbath. Anyone who refused to fast on this day was to be cut off from his people. The Jewish rabbis understood this penalty as equivalent to that mentioned in verse 30 and thus suggested that punishment was not to be executed by a human court. That such is not always true is seen in the examples of the expression in chapter 20. The individual who violated the solemnity of the Day of Atonement by working or by refusing to fast and to confess sins (v. 29) could anticipate punishment from the hand of God. A day was reckoned from evening to evening; thus this ceremonial day, during which the people were to keep their sabbath, i.e., observe their rest, began at dusk.<\/p>\n
7. Feast of Tabernacles Described (23:33\u201344)<\/p>\n
23:33\u201336 The last of the annual holy occasions in the seventh month was the week long Feast of Tabernacles, or booths, so called from the fact that the Israelites were commanded to make, and dwell in, temporary shelters in observance of this festival (v. 42). This feast was also known as the Feast of Ingathering (Exod 23:16) because it marked the end of the crop year in that by its date all the harvest of fields, vines, and trees had been gathered (v. 39). Holding a sacred assembly and abstaining from regular work on the first day, the Israelites were to bring their fire offerings for seven days. The offerings for the Feast of Tabernacles are described in detail in Numbers 29:12\u201338. Not technically part of the seven-day Feast of Tabernacles (Deut 16:13), the additional eighth day with its sacred assembly and offering marked the end of the festivals for the year. Rendered closing assembly is a rare term (\u05e2\u05b2\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea, \u02bf\u0103\u1e63ereth) which is used specifically here and in Deuteronomy 16:8 for a concluding ceremony.
\n23:37\u201338 In verses 37 and 38 the text provides a brief summary statement of the sacrifice schedule for the appointed feasts, a topic treated at much greater length in Numbers. The various kinds of offerings are discussed, of course, in chapters 1\u20137. Votive offerings and freewill offerings were two types of fellowship offerings (Leviticus 3).
\n23:39\u201344 The text closes with a summary of the regulations for the Feast of Tabernacles. Although it is not expressly stated, the fruit from the trees, and palm fronds, leafy branches and poplars were the materials to be used in constructing the temporary shelters or booths (cf. Neh 8:15). During the week of Tabernacles, the Israelites were to rejoice in gratitude for harvest and also in memory of the LORD\u2019s care during the wilderness (23:43; Deut 16:15). Tabernacles was thus to serve as a continuing memorial proclamation of the LORD\u2019s provisions for Israel during her wilderness experience. As an Israelite observed the feast, he gratefully acknowledged the LORD as giver of the present harvest and also recalled the LORD as gracious sustainer of Israel in the wilderness when there was no regular annual harvest (cf. Deut 8:14\u201316). Regardless of how prosperous and stable Israel might become, by reenacting annually the period of living in humble and temporary booths, the faithful Israelite would recognize his past, present, and future dependence upon his LORD.<\/p>\n
B. HOLY OIL, BREAD OF PRESENCE TO BE PREPARED (24:1\u20139)<\/p>\n
24:1\u20134 In conjunction with the festival obligations of people and priest at the holy sanctuary, the text considers another priestly function at the tabernacle\u2014that of keeping the lamps burning (vv. 1\u20134) and the bread of the Presence arranged (vv. 5\u20139). Exodus 25:31\u201340 gives the design for the lamp stand of seven lamps, and Exodus 27:20\u201321 first mentions the priestly requirement to keep it continually burning every night from evening to morning (v. 3; cf. 1 Sam 3:3; Exod 30:7\u20138). Aaron himself first kindled the lamp (Num 8:3), but the parallel passage in Exodus 27:21 calls for \u201cAaron and his sons\u201d to tend the lamp.
\n24:5\u20139 Twelve loaves of bread as the \u201cbread of the Presence\u201d (Exod 25:30) were to be continually arranged in two rows, perhaps better \u201ctwo piles,\u201d on the holy table in the sanctuary (Exod 25:23\u201330; Num 4:7). The number of loaves corresponded to the number of the tribes of Israel. According to tradition the pure incense was placed in golden saucers upon each row (or pile) of loaves. When the bread was renewed each Sabbath, the loaves removed were given to the priests as a most holy portion (v. 9) and the incense removed was burned on the altar as a memorial portion (cf. 2:2\u20133). Although described here for the first time, the bread was arranged by Moses at the consecration of the tabernacle (Exod 39:36; 40:23).<\/p>\n
C. PENALTY FOR BLASPHEMY SET, EXECUTED (24:10\u201323)<\/p>\n
24:10\u201312 The text deals here with a precedent case in which an individual blasphemed the name, i.e., the divine name, \u201cthe LORD\u201d (Exod 3:13\u201315; 6:2\u20133). Although blasphemy had been strongly condemned (Exod 20:7; 22:28), no penalty had as yet been announced for this heinous offense. Further, the fact that the offender was the son of an Egyptian father and thus legally a \u201csojourner\u201d or \u201cstranger\u201d (perhaps one of the \u201cmixed multitude\u201d of Exod 12:38) raised the question of the applicability of any blasphemy law to him.
\n24:13\u201316 The awaited divine decision was revealed clearly. The people who heard the blasphemy were to lay their hands on the offender\u2019s head, thus symbolically putting the guilt of blasphemy solely on him, and then the entire assembly was to stone him. The blasphemy law applied to either alien or native born (v. 16) and the penalty was to be death by stoning.
\n24:17\u201323 The text moves beyond the specific case of the blaspheming half-Israelite to address other cases involving equal treatment for both Israelites and non-Israelites. While intentionally and illegally taking the life of a human being involved the death penalty (cf. Exod 20:13), taking the life of someone\u2019s animal involved just restitution. Implied in Exodus 21:33 and elsewhere, the penalty for unjustly killing an animal belonging to another is here expressly spelled out. Further, the penalty of \u201ceye for eye\u201d (Exod 21:23\u201325) is here extended to include the foreigner as well as the Israelite. Known as lex talionis or \u201cthe law of retaliation,\u201d this eye for eye, tooth for tooth principle established in Mosaic law a basis for exact justice. The principle was not originally designed to permit the private and irresponsible retaliation of personal revenge, but rather to provide a basis for the public administration of justice by setting a limit upon the amount of retaliation possible after a given offense (cf. Exod 21:23\u201325). Although the principle has sometimes been misinterpreted as permission for private revenge, which attitude Jesus specifically opposed (Matt 5:38\u201342), the principle in Moses\u2019 law was an improvement over massive unjust retaliation for offenses, as practiced in many ancient societies and, tragically, in some areas of supposed Christendom. Hebrew tradition clearly understood the principle of lex talionis as providing for equal or equivalent loss on the part of the offender and accordingly permitted a convicted offender to pay monetary compensation to the victim instead of forfeiting the equivalent member of his body. No such compensation was to be permitted in cases of murder (Num 35:31\u201332). Penalties for blasphemy, murder, killing of beasts, and injurious assault (vv. 16\u201319) were thus to be administered impartially to both the alien and the native-born. Although it is not explicitly stated, this principle of legal equality protected the rights of sojourners even while it placed religious and civil responsibility upon them. The chapter concludes with a statement of the people\u2019s compliance with the divine command to stone the blasphemer (v. 23).<\/p>\n
D. SABBATICAL, JUBILEE YEARS REGULATED (25:1\u201355)<\/p>\n
In the festival cycle of ancient Israel the number seven appears predominant. The seventh day was a special day, the seventh month witnessed high holy days, and the seventh year was to be observed as a sabbath for the land. Further, seven weeks were counted from Passover to Pentecost, and seven weeks of years were counted in figuring the Year of Jubilee (v. 8). The present chapter completes the ancient festival cycle by giving instructions for the sabbatical and jubilee years.<\/p>\n
1. Sabbatical Year Treated (25:1\u20137)<\/p>\n
25:1\u20137 Just as the people were to observe a day of rest from labor every seventh day, so also the land was to have \u201crest\u201d from cultivation every seventh year. Introduced in Exodus 23:10\u201311, the law of the sabbatical year is here elaborated. The sabbatical year began at the time of sowing, thus in the fall of the sixth year. This corresponded with the beginning of the civil year, which was the seventh month of the religious year (compare v. 9). Only agricultural pursuits were to be suspended during the sabbath year; other kinds of work were to be carried forward. The year offered additional opportunity for meditation upon the LORD\u2019s instructions (Deut 31:10\u201313). The voluntary produce of fields, vineyards, and trees would provide food sufficient for all. This was not to be systematically harvested by landowners (v. 5), but instead all, including the poor (Exod 23:11), were to have free access. An obedient Israel would also be supplied from previous bountiful harvests (cf. 25:20\u201322; 26:10).<\/p>\n
2. Year of Jubilee Commanded (25:8\u201355)<\/p>\n
25:8\u201312 Every fiftieth year was to be a special sabbatical year (v. 11) called a jubilee, at which time most landed property (vv. 25\u201334) was to be returned to the family of its original (Israelite) owner, and Israelite slaves were to be released (vv. 35\u201355). The jubilee year was proclaimed by the sounding of the ram\u2019s horn trumpet (compare 23:24) on the Day of Atonement (23:27), and thus with the theme of spiritual cleansing of that great day was combined at jubilee time the theme of freedom and social renewal for all Israel. The basic idea of jubilee was liberty. Property was to be restored, and slaves were to be freed. The remainder of the chapter deals primarily with the profound spiritual and legal implications of this remarkable social institution. The Hebrew word rendered \u201cjubilee\u201d (\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1\u05b5\u05dc, y\u00f4bel) means \u201cram\u201d or \u201cram\u2019s horn,\u201d and signifies in present context the time marked by the blowing of the ram\u2019s horn (v. 9). The terms \u0161\u00f4ph\u0101r and y\u00f4bel are used interchangeably in Exodus 19:13, 19.
\n25:13\u201317 Because land was to revert to its original owner in the Year of Jubilee, nearness to jubilee was always to be figured in property transactions. Israelites were scrupulously to avoid defrauding or taking advantage of each other by ignoring or misrepresenting this important matter in negotiations. The land belonged to God (v. 23). All \u201cpurchases\u201d of farmland in Israel were actually to be lease agreements for the use of the land until the next jubilee so that what he is really selling you is the number of crops.
\n25:18\u201322 The sabbatical year ordinance itself would raise the important question, what will we eat, in the mind of the people, but the fear of want would be most disturbing, as Israel faced successive sabbatical years, i.e., the regular sabbatical year in the forty-ninth year and the jubilee in the fiftieth year. The LORD assured his people that he would grant the blessing of a bountiful harvest in the sixth year to yield enough for three years, i.e., the sabbatical year, the year of jubilee, and the year after jubilee up until harvest. The sabbatical year began in the autumn, the time of sowing in the land Israel was to inhabit. Thus sowing was suspended for the sabbatical year from autumn of the sixth year until autumn of the seventh year, and, at the jubilee, also from autumn of the seventh year until autumn of the eighth year.
\n25:23\u201328 The LORD\u2019s ownership of the land (the land is mine) made the Israelites legally aliens and tenants and not full owners of their holdings. Therefore, the Israelites could only buy or sell the use of the land as regulated by the jubilee (vv. 13\u201317) and by the laws of property redemption following in the text. Whenever anyone purchased (the use of) land, the land remained open for redemption. Three possibilities therefore existed: (1) one near of kin to the seller might buy his land back for him (v. 25); (2) the seller might later buy back his own holding (vv. 26\u201327); (3) unredeemed, the land would remain in the buyer\u2019s control until it reverted to the original owner at jubilee (v. 28). The text assumes that a man would not sell his family holding unless forced by poverty to do so (cf. vv. 48\u201349). Since only the use of the land had been sold (v. 16), the one wishing to redeem his property calculated the years of use which the buyer had purchased but had not yet enjoyed and returned the value of those unused crop years to the buyer.
\n25:29\u201334 The redemption law regarding houses varied with the status of the property. A house in a walled city was not regarded as an intrinsic part of the landholding and could therefore be transferred permanently, provided a one-year right of redemption was observed (vv. 29\u201330). Houses in villages without walls, on the other hand, were regarded as intrinsic parts of the respective landholding and therefore fell under the same regulation as cropland or open country (v. 31). Property of the Levites in their cities came under special regulations (vv. 32\u201334; Num 35:1\u20138). Though in walled towns, these were redeemable like those in unwalled hamlets. In verse 33 the present translation simplifies to a summary statement what is in Hebrew a quite problematic text. The pastureland belonging to their towns (Num 35:2\u20133) was possessed collectively, not individually, and hence must not be sold even under restrictions.
\n25:35\u201343 Not only did property revert to its original owners in the jubilee, but also all Israelite slaves were to be freed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A WORD FROM THE PUBLISHER Years ago a movement was begun with the dream of uniting all Christians on the basis of a common purpose (world evangelism) under a common authority (the Word of God). The College Press NIV Commentary Series is a serious effort to join the scholarship of two branches of this unity … <\/p>\n