LEVITICUS<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
The Jewish name for this book (as for all Old Testament books) is taken from the first word in the text\u2014Wayiqr\u00e1 (= \u201cAnd he called\u201d, from \u201cAnd the Lord called Moses\u201d). It is a name which fits in nicely with the content: when the people of Israel were in the desert, the Lord called them to himself, to make them a holy nation; and the rules and regulations contained in Leviticus are designed to show how to stay within the sphere of God (how to be holy) and what to do if one has strayed from him through sin.
\nIn the Septuagint Greek translation, this book was called Levitikon, a name which passed into Latin versions as Leviticus: most of it in fact deals with matters to do with priests and Levites.
\nLeviticus is really a book about the rites of Jewish Liturgy; it contains laws about worship in general and rules about the ceremonies to be used in offerings and consecrations and about how feasts should be celebrated.<\/p>\n
1. STRUCTURE AND CONTENT<\/p>\n
The book of Leviticus can be divided into four main parts:<\/p>\n
PART ONE: RULES CONCERNING SACRIFICE (1:1\u20137). This deals firstly with burnt offerings or holocausts (1:3\u201317), the main feature of which is that the animal was to be burned completely in acknowledgment of the Lord\u2019s absolute dominion. It then goes on to the cereal offering, minj\u00e1h (2:1\u201316); here what was offered was wheaten flour mixed with oil. It then comes to peace offerings or communion offerings, shelamim (3:1\u201317); in these sacrifices an animal\u2019s blood and fat (in which life was considered to reside) were burnt as an offering to the Lord, but the rest of the sacrificed animal was eaten at a sacred meal. This section is followed by ordinances on purification offerings, called \u201csin offerings\u201d in the RSV (4:1\u20135:13) and reparation (\u201cguilt offerings\u201d in the RSV: 5:14\u201326). In the case of the former, distinctions are made depending on whether the sin was committed by the high priest, the whole congregation of Israel, a ruler, or a member of the ordinary people.
\nThis first part finishes with two chapters which go over all these sacrifices again, but from the point of view of the priest (rules about how he is to perform the ceremony, and things to do with the \u201cpriests\u2019 portion\u201d (6:1\u20137:38).<\/p>\n
PART TWO: THE ORDINATION OR INSTITUTION OF PRIESTS (8:1\u201310:20). An account of the investiture of Aaron describes in effect the ceremony whereby priests are consecrated (8:1\u201336) and the sacrifices they are to offer at the start of their ministry (9:1\u201324). The last chapter in this part spells out rules that apply to priests when performing their duties.<\/p>\n
PART THREE: RULES CONCERNING THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN (11:1\u201316:34). This code specifies the circumstances or events which can give rise to legal uncleanness, and what purification needs to be done. First it spells out the criteria for an animal to be regarded as clean (11:1\u201347). This is followed by rules on purification after childbirth (12:1\u20138), and about identifying leprosy and other illnesses causing uncleanness in the sufferer (as also purification after cure) (13:1\u201315:33). The text then goes on to specify instances of sexual uncleanness (male and female) and purification of same. This third part ends with rules for celebrating the day of atonement or Yom Kippur.<\/p>\n
PART FOUR: THE LAW OF HOLINESS (17:1\u201326:46). Moving on from the defects which make for uncleanness in human beings, animals and things (all covered in the previous part), the book now deals with the quality attaching to things and persons involved in worship: they have to be holy because the Lord is holy. The laws pertaining to this are to be found in this elaborate code. It begins with regulations about certain sacrifices and offerings (17:1\u201316), about conditions for holiness in marriage, and avoiding defilement (18:1\u201330), and about various moral and religious duties (19:1\u201337); and then it specifies penalties for offences against these rules (20:1\u201327). This is followed by rules to do with the holiness of priests and of those partaking in sacred meals (21:1\u201322:33), and a section on the celebration of feasts, and sabbatical and jubilee years (23:1\u201325:55). A short conclusion exhorting respect for the Lord and his commandments is followed by a list of blessings and curses on those who keep or fail to keep the laws in the code (26:1\u201346).
\nThe last chapter is an appendix dealing with vows and their fulfilment or possible substitution by fee (27:1\u201334).<\/p>\n
2. HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF THE LAWS OF THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL<\/p>\n
Like many Middle Eastern peoples, Israel had its own laws governing worship and social life. By examining these laws it is often possible to identify the historical circumstances in which particular laws were promulgated, and the ethical and religious values specific to the people God had chosen as his own and to which he revealed himself over time by means of deeds and words.
\nNo Canaanite legal document is extant from the period prior to Israel\u2019s settlement in Canaan. Ungarit texts, which are rich in mythological references, contain very little of legal interest. The oldest extant laws are those of Ur-Nammu, founder of the third dynasty of Ur (c.2000 BC); the laws of Bilalama, containing 60 articles, and those of Lipit-Istar, the fifth king of the dynasty of the city of Isin in Mesopotamia, which has 30 articles, are about a century later. The most famous early legal text is the so-called Code of Hammurabi, largely a compilation of earlier laws, was made in Babylonia in the first half of the 18th century BC. These legal texts consist of three distinct parts\u2014a prologue, a collection of laws (the largest part of the document) and an epilogue containing blessings and curses.
\nIsrael too had its own rules of legally binding custom, similar to those of its neighbours. It is quite possible that as soon as the Israelite tribes settled in the promised land (even before the monarchy) some of these were collected and written down. A considerable part of those legal texts are now to be found in the Code of the Covenant in the book of Exodus (Ex 20:22\u201323:19). That code still reflects the lifestyle of a society relying on grazing and livestock rather than agriculture; it is a society in which the family is all-important. But even this first Israelite code of laws is markedly different from other codes of the ancient East in that the sacred and the profane are inextricably mixed\u2014a phenomenon which becomes even more pronounced as time goes on.
\nAfter the establishment of the monarchy and then the division into two kingdoms (10th century BC), the corpus of law continued to develop. The laws and customs of the ancients continued to be passed on to successive generations, and new circumstances led to new laws concerning worship and ordinary life. After a stable presence of some centuries in the promised land, the people\u2019s laws and rules concerning religious worship began to reflect an agricultural rather than a nomadic society: the liturgical cycle of feasts came to be more connected with the agricultural seasons.
\nThat is probably the way the people of Israel gradually developed a basic core of legal arrangements which would in due course take the form of legal codes (in form the same as other peoples\u2019 codes of the time); these codes would regulate the nation\u2019s religious life in line with its traditional customs, enriched by experience and adapted to new historical situations as they arose. Using the heritage of the old Code of the Covenant, two collections of laws began to take shape, independently of one another\u2014the Deuteronomic Code and the Law of Holiness.
\nThe Deuteronomic Code, so-called because it is to be found in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 12\u201325), is on many points the same as the Code of the Covenant, but there are also some differences; moreover, one can see that some primitive precepts have been reworded, and even some new ones included. The Deuteronomic Code still has a lot to say about many \u201chumanitarian\u201d aspects of ordinary life (particularly the protection of the weaker members of society) but it puts the stress more on the rights of God. It is mainly concerned with stressing the unity of the people and the dedicated worship they should render to their one true God, who has given them the land and all its fruits.
\nFor its part, the Law of Holiness, whose composition (by temple priests) began in the final years of the kingdom of Judah (6th century bc) and went on during the Exile, is much more clearly focused on matters to do with worship. It takes for granted a notion of God which transcends earthly matters; it sees worship as a way of accessing \u201choliness\u201d, a way of entering the sphere of the divine. This code, as it has come down to us, forms part of the book of Leviticus (Lev 17\u201326). It may well be that it includes the core of that great Priestly tradition which exerted such a great influence on the final edition of the Pentateuch (cf. pp 19\u201321 above).<\/p>\n
3. COMPOSITION<\/p>\n
The book of Leviticus, as it has come down to us, must have gone through various editions prior to receiving its present form via the Priestly tradition. Although it includes laws deriving from different periods, it is all very much of a piece. Its highpoint is the Law of Holiness, the great priestly legal code.
\nAs already pointed out, the Law of Holiness is a code which includes very early laws of the people of Israel. To these were added other precepts and rules to do with worship until over time the code eventually took the shape it has today.
\nSpecific regulations about worship must have been spelled out in more and more detail as time went by, thereby preparing the way for the rites which would eventually apply in the liturgy of the temple of Jerusalem\u2014establishing the various rites of offering and a law about cleanness and uncleanness, providing criteria to ensure that persons, animals and things used in divine worship had no legal defects. All these regulations would eventually find the way into Leviticus.
\nPride of place gradually came to be given to rites about the investiture ceremonies of priests and the rites that marked the start of their ministry.
\nThe sacred writer used all this material to compose a book designed to include all the main legal regulations governing the life of the chosen people. Around his central theme, the worship of the thrice holy God (cf. Is 6:3), the hagiographer built up a series of steps of legislative material. First came the rites to be followed when offering sacrifices; then, on a higher level, those to do with the ordination of the men whose task it would be to offer these sacrifices, the priests; higher still, the rules which show priests and people how to be \u201cpure\u201d, that is, to be worthy to take part in worship; finally, at the very top, the rules about divine worship itself, the rules about \u201choliness\u201d, which is what this Law covers.
\nSet as all this legal material is in the context of Sinai, after the book of Exodus and before the book of Numbers, great stress is laid on the fact that the Covenant of Sinai provides the basis for all Israel\u2019s legal superstructure.
\nThe evidence suggests that this book took its final form during the Exile (6th century BC) and the years immediately after it.<\/p>\n
4. MESSAGE<\/p>\n
A superficial reading of Leviticus could give one the impression that this book is very difficult to understand and has no relevance to our own time. However, if one bears in mind that it was written very long ago, and reflects an outlook very different from ours, one can come to see that it does contain a religious meaning which is always valid.
\nBehind the various sacrifices or offerings it describes lies a deep conviction that God is the Lord of all creation. Man\u2019s physical needs are such that he has recourse to God by means of rites and offerings closely connected with the world on which he depends. Thus, when the people are leading a nomadic existence in the desert, their sacrifice consists of an animal taken from the flock. Later, when they are more typically tillers of the soil, they add further sacrifices and offer agricultural produce, the first-fruits. However, animal offerings continued to have pride of place, on account of the value attaching to animals and the symbolism involved (especially in the sheddings of blood). Sacrifice was the highest act of worship, the best way man could show his feelings towards God\u2014adoration, recognition, gratitude and supplication.
\nBesides, in all ancient peoples man\u2019s religious sense always expressed itself in some form of ceremonial worship.
\nThis explains why, albeit in a way peculiar to it, the chosen people had a system of worship in which it performed certain rites to show that it acknowledged and worshipped the God of Israel. The rules surrounding this worship took shape over time. Initially certain basic rites developed and, alongside them, the requirement that they be performed by a person with a certain authority, someone who would be the people\u2019s representative before God. In other words, the need for a priesthood emerged, and for persons to exercise that priesthood, that is, priests. In the early stages of the people of Israel it was the father of the family who performed the liturgy. Once the monarchy was established, this role passed to the king: his role was both royal and priestly. Later still, priestly functions became the preserve of people who had this special role\u2014Eleazar and Zadok, for example, in David\u2019s time, and later on Zadok\u2019s descendants, the Zadokites, who exercised the high priesthood.
\nIn the Levitical system, the laws concerning cleanness (purity) and holiness also contain profound teaching which extends much further than the formalism which is apparent at first sight. We need to see that anything unsuitable for the worship of God was considered to be \u201cunclean\u201d. God is pure, beautiful, the source of health and life; and nothing dirty, harmful or dead can gain access to him. \u201cPurity\u201d or cleanness, then, is something external and ritual, but it had very much to do with man\u2019s relationship with God. For its part, \u201choliness\u201d is that inaccessible dwelling place of the mystery of God; it is just possible to glimpse that holiness through the way God\u2019s majesty shines out in the things that he has created and in his interventions in history. Similarly, when Leviticus speaks about man\u2019s \u201choliness\u201d, it is referring to a quality which is both internal and external and has set the Israelites apart from the sphere of the merely profane; he wants them to belong to him and to order their lives in line with the teachings contained in his commandments. That person is \u201choly\u201d who lives for God, in his inner life and in his external life. Hence God\u2019s call to the people of Israel: \u201cYou shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy\u201d (Lev 19:2).
\nThus, by carefully reading this sacred book in its entirety one discovers that Leviticus is not just a formal set of laws; it provides moral rules which contain teachings about God and about man, and about man\u2019s relationship with God. These rules often mention concrete aspects of ordinary life: there are rules, for example, about relationships within the family (cf. 19:3, 11, 35f; etc.) about duties to the elderly and the infirm (cf. 19:14), about kindness towards strangers or sojourners who are exiles from their own countries, and rules designed to counteract hatred and revenge (cf. 19:17ff). But in all these rules, and over and above the fact that some apply to particular cultural and historical circumstances, there is a religious message which is perennial and enduring.<\/p>\n
5. LEVITICUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT<\/p>\n
God\u2019s great loving-kindness and mercy is manifested in a sublime way through the Sacrifice of the New Law thanks to which man is enabled to offer the Lord a gift worthy of the divine Majesty. Because of this, the best way to read Leviticus is in the light of Christ\u2019s sacrifice on the cross. Its content prefigures what became a reality in the Redemption. Jesus has established a new form of worship in which true worshippers will worship the Father in union with Christ and moved by the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 4:23).
\nMany passages in the New Testament, particularly the Letter to the Hebrews, use Leviticus as a reference point: it comes up every time there is a mention of sacrifices, feasts or liturgy. Hebrews contains an entire section devoted to showing that the sacrifice of Christ is greater than all the sacrifices of the Old Law (Heb 8:1\u201310:18). For example, it speaks about the excellence of Christ\u2019s sacrifice over the most solemn sacrifice of the day of atonement as prescribed in Leviticus: \u201cThese preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption\u201d (Heb 9:6\u201312).
\nThere is also a section in the Letter to the Hebrews aimed at showing that Christ is the high priest and is greater than the priests of the Mosaic Law (cf. Heb 4:14\u20137:28). And, particularly, the rules given in the Old Testament about priests very clearly portray the special features of the eternal priesthood of Christ: \u201cIt was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself\u201d (Heb 7:26\u201327).
\nAmong the features of Christ the priest which most clearly come across from this passage in Hebrews are purity and holiness\u2014qualities to which Leviticus gives such importance and which never lose their validity. Indeed, it is in the New Testament that the need for purity comes into its own: the cleanness one needs to have to approach God is not confined, as in Leviticus, to a ritual purity; it is something that must come from inside man, from his heart, for \u201cfrom out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander\u201d (Mt 15:19). Thus, true cleanness calls for purification of the heart. Those who fit their mind, their will and their actions to what God\u2019s holiness requires will be happy, because that is how they will find their way to him: \u201cBlessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God\u201d (Mt 5:8).
\nIt is in the New Testament, too, that the meaning of holiness comes fully into its own. There we find that the Word became flesh in order to be our model of holiness. Jesus himself says so in the Gospel: \u201cI am the way, the truth, and the life\u201d (Jn 14:6). And it is plain to see that a person who orients his Christian life towards identification with Christ, who is God and man, is entered on the way that has been opened up for man to gain access to full intimacy with God. Moreover, Christ\u2019s mission was that of opening the gates of holiness to all the members of the people of God: \u201cChrist, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as \u2018alone holy\u2019, loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her (cf. Eph 5:25\u201326); he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God.\u201d
\nThe main teachings of the book of Leviticus find their climax and their marvellous synthesis in the teachings of Jesus: \u201cIn Jesus the name of the Holy God is revealed and given to us, in the flesh, as Saviour, revealed by what he is, by his word, and by his sacrifice. This is the heart of his priestly prayer: \u2018Holy Father, [\u2026] for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth\u2019 (Jn 17:19). Because he \u2018sanctifies\u2019 his own name, Jesus reveals to us the name of the Father. At the end of Christ\u2019s Passover, the Father gives him the name that is above all names: \u2018Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
PART ONE<\/p>\n
Rules concerning Sacrifice<\/p>\n
Burnt offerings (holocaust)
\n1:1\u20137:38. The book of Exodus ended with an account of the building of the sanctuary of the people of God (chaps. 35\u201340). The sanctuary was the central place for divine worship, so it was a good reference point for dealing with all the rules to do with the Lord\u2019s service (cf. Ex 25\u201331 and notes). At the start of the book of Leviticus, the Lord speaks to Moses from the tent of meeting and instructs him to pass on to the people the laws to do with the key act of worship\u2014sacrifice, or offering. And so the book begins by listing all the rules concerning the different types of offering and the ceremonies to go with them. In the early chapters (1:1\u20135:26) it deals for the most part with sacrifices offered by ordinary individuals and then it goes on to give rules about sacrifices offered by priests (6:1\u20137:35).<\/p>\n
1:1\u201317. The first of the sacrifices mentioned is the burnt offering, sometimes translated as \u201cholocaust\u201d, from the Greek word meaning \u201cburnt in its entirety\u201d. The main characteristic of this sacrifice lay in the fact that the victim was burned completely, in acknowledgement of the sovereignty and absolute dominion of the Lord. This type of sacrifice was unknown among the Assyrian-Babylonians, nor is it found among the Egyptians prior to the Hyksos (18th to 16th centuries BC). But it seems to have been offered in Israel from very early on and it held pride of place, especially from the time of the Judges onwards (cf. Judg 6:19\u201321; 13:19\u201320). It was offered as an act of thanksgiving, after God had made himself manifest. It was, therefore, a supplication expressing thanks to the Lord for a favour received, an offering that the angel of the Lord caused to ascend towards heaven amid the flames and smoke of the sacrifice. This fire flaming up into heaven symbolized man\u2019s desire to be one with God the Most High; the fact that the victim was entirely destroyed was a sign of one\u2019s recognition of God\u2019s dominion over all things.
\nOnce the people of Israel settled down in the promised land, a burnt offering took place in the temple every day, morning and evening (cf. Ex 29:28\u201342; Num 28:3\u20138), and on certain feast-days as well (cf. Lev 12:6\u20138; 16:3; etc.).
\nLeviticus 22:23\u201324 lists blemishes which make animals unsuitable as victims. The Hebrew word tamim is translated by the RSV as \u201cwithout blemish\u201d. Other early translations give \u201cperfect\u201d (Aquila) or \u201cwhole\/entire\u201d (Symmachus). The requirement that the animal offered should have no blemish, no matter how small, reminds us that everyone should offer God the very best: unless one has no choice, nothing defective should be offered to the Lord.<\/p>\n
1:4. The laying on of hands showed that the offering belonged to the person who presented it for sacrifice and that the offering was being made in his name even though it was being done by ministers. However, it is also possible that this gesture signified that the animal was taking the place of the offerer. That certainly seems to be the case in the day of atonement ceremony: the imposition of hands by the priest on the head of the goat which was then let loose in the desert (16:20\u201322) probably symbolized that the people\u2019s faults were being transferred to the animal, to get rid of them.<\/p>\n
1:5\u20139. The offerers did the necessary as regards preparing the animal for the offering\u2014passing it over by means of the laying on of hands, killing it, skinning it, cutting it up into pieces and cleaning its entrails and feet of anything dirty or unclean. It was the priests who put the victim on the altar (their special consecration equipped them to perform the sacred actions of the liturgy: cf. the note on Ex 29:1\u20139; Ezek 44:11; Ezra 6:20; etc.).
\nThe shedding of blood, a rite often used in Jewish religious ceremonies, was a way of acknowledging God\u2019s sovereignty, because the popular belief was that blood was the source and seat of life and that all life originated in God (cf. 17:11; Deut 12:16, 23). That was also the reason why it was forbidden to eat meat without its blood being first drained (cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 17:12; Acts 15:29); and it is why the Old Testament makes it clear how evil the shedding of human blood is (cf. Gen 4:10; Ezek 24:7\u20138; etc.).
\nBlood plays a central role in these sacrificial rites and in those of the Covenant (cf. 24:8; Heb 9:18f). For example, in the Covenant of Sinai part of the blood was poured onto the altar and the rest was sprinkled on the people; this shows the union between God and people brought about by the Covenant, because the same blood as touched God (represented by the altar) touched the people. The role of the Eucharist is reminiscent of this in a way, though it uses sacramental signs and is on a higher level\u2014mainly because it is no longer the blood of animals but that of Jesus himself which brings about the union (communion) of God and men.<\/p>\n
1:10\u201313. Some scholars think that the fact that the killing of the animal took place on the north of the altar had to do with the idea that God dwelt away in the north (cf. Is 14:13; Ezek 1:4; Ps 48:2). However, it seems likely that the only reason the north is mentioned is that this was the only part of the altar that was free. The southern side was taken up by the staircase leading to the altar; on the west was the bronze basin containing the water for the washings (cf. Exod 30:18; 40:30), while the east was where the ashes were collected (cf. Lev 1:16).<\/p>\n
Cereal offerings
\n2:1\u201316. This chapter deals with the various kinds of offerings to be done on the main altar of the sanctuary, the so-called altar of holocaust, the altar par excellence (in Hebrew ha-mizbeaj, etymologically the \u201cplace of immolation\u201d or \u201cplace of sacrifice\u201d). As regards the altar, cf. the note on Ex 27:1\u20138.<\/p>\n
2:1\u20133. After dealing with the burnt offering rites, which involved the sacrifice of animals, the text now comes to oblation ceremonies, that is, ceremonies to do with minj\u00e1h (etymologically, \u201cgift\u201d, \u201ctribute\u201d), in which agricultural produce was offered. This was an offering typical of an agricultural people; in other words, it implies that the Israelites were no longer nomads but had settled down. The offering consists of certain types of agricultural produce; only a part of the material offered was burnt, the flour being made into a shape with oil. This sort of offering is thought to be very ancient in origin: cf. offerings by Cain (Gen 4:3), Melchisedek (Gen 14:18) and Moses (Ex 29:40; Num 15:1\u20132).
\nThe text specifies that these offerings should consist of wheaten flour, the best kind of flour\u2014another reminder that only the best is good enough for God. In fact, on other occasions an offering of wheaten flour is made to personages of rank (cf. Gen 18:6). Along with the flour and the oil, incense was burned, to enhance the liturgical aura of the offering.
\nSince incense is a form of praise that wafts its way up to heaven, maybe the burning of the offering with incense symbolizes the submissive and supplicant attitude of the offerer, and the fact that God is pleased to accept it.<\/p>\n
2:4\u201312. All the offerings mentioned in this chapter include \u201cfine flour\u201d (= wheaten flour), whether baked or fried. Leaven is prohibited out of a concern to avoid offering the Lord anything unclean, because leaven, being in a state of fermentation, was seen as something rotting, something impure (cf. the note on Ex 12:15\u201320).<\/p>\n
2:13. Salt was one of the necessary ingredients in certain kinds of sacrifice (cf. Ezra 6:9). It was used to add savour to the foodstuffs offered in sacrifice and then eaten in the sacred meal. But it was used mainly because of its quality of preserving things from corruption, thereby symbolizing the enduring, inviolable quality of the Covenant (cf. 2 Chron 13:5). \u201cEating salt with someone\u201d meant making a pact, sometimes called a \u201ccovenant of salt\u201d, which established an enduring friendship (cf. Num 18:19). Thus, the Covenant between God and Israel, agreed to at Sinai, was not a passing event but something on-going, something real for every generation. The salt used in sacrifices symbolized the perpetuity of the Covenant, and it was a reminder of that irrevocable commitment.
\nIn the New Testament salt stands for wisdom and moral purity. The Gospel of St Mark makes mention of the salt of sacrifice, and of salt being a purifying element (Mt 9:49\u201350). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus tells his disciples that they are the salt of the earth, that is, they are the ones who give a divine flavour to everything human and who prevent the world corrupting. St Paul also uses the symbol of salt when he tells the Christians of Colossae to season their speech \u201cwith salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every one\u201d (Col 4:6). There is also the use of salt in Baptism, though now it is only optional (it was an Israelite custom to rub a new-born baby with salt: cf. Ezek 16:4), whereby the neophyte is given a little taste of salt while the words are spoken, \u201cReceive the salt of wisdom\u201d.<\/p>\n
Peace offerings (communion offerings)
\n3:1\u201317. This entire chapter deals with communion or peace offerings (shelamin). These were usually offered to keep a vow or as an act of thanksgiving; hence their also being called \u201ceucharistic\u201d sacrifices or offerings. These offerings could also be made as a rite of reconciliation with God, as a communion offering. They were normally private, freewill offerings, but later on they took on the nature of a public sacrifice (cf. 23:19). When a Nazirite vow was involved, this type of sacrifice was obligatory (cf. Num 6:14, 17\u201318).
\nThe text does not tell us everything about the rite for peace offerings. It seems to have been the same as that for a burnt offering except that the animal could be female, and it did not have to be burned entirely: only the fat and certain entrails needed to be burnt, that is, the best parts, which according to ancient thinking were the seat of the feelings (intestines and liver) or of the generative function (loins and kidneys). One of the features of peace offerings was the \u201cswinging\u201d or \u201cwaving\u201d of the victim (cf. the note on Ex 30:11\u201316). The rite began in front of the sanctuary or tent of meeting. Only after that were certain parts of the victim offered by the priest on the altar of holocaust.
\nThe rest of the animal (the portion not burned) was divided between the priest and the offerer(s), who had to eat it in a sacred place (cf. 7:11\u201321).<\/p>\n
3:6\u201317. In addition to large livestock, small livestock could also be offered in sacrifice, always provided it was unblemished. The part burned in the fire was regarded as food for God. This anthropomorphism meant that both the Lord and those partaking in the offering were sharing in the same food, thereby establishing a communion similar to that which obtains when people sit and partake of the same meal.
\nAll this, along with the fact that the peace offering often had the nature of thanksgiving, means that this sort of sacrifice was the one most like our Eucharistic sacrifice, in which \u201cbecause there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread\u201d (1 Cor 10:17).<\/p>\n
Sin offerings
\n4:1\u20135:26. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with sin offerings and the kinds of animals to be sacrificed as guilt offerings. It covers four types of persons\u2014priests, the entire community, rulers and ordinary people.
\nThe sort of ideas we have today are far removed from those which held sway when the rules given here were assembled. We need to make an effort to grasp what those ancient texts mean. The main thing about these rules concerning sin offerings is that they denote great respect for the Sinai Covenant: any violation of it had to be expiated. Whether the offence being expiated was voluntary or unintentional was a secondary matter.<\/p>\n
4:1\u20132. Unlike the sacrifices or offerings previously laid down (which were inspired mainly by recognition of God\u2019s sovereignty), these sacrifices all involve the idea of reparation and expiation.
\nOfferings of this sort seem to go back to very early times, as can be seen from evidence about other Canaanite peoples and from texts from Ras Shamra (Ugarit), on the coast of Syria (15th to 14th centuries BC).
\nAs regards things done unwittingly, the matters mentioned here were not sins strictly speaking: they were simply \u201cmaterial sins\u201d or ritual impurities. However, there is an underlying idea that some degree of imprudence is involved (cf. Num 15:22\u201329; Eccles 5:5). We prefer to translate it not as \u201cignorantia\u201d (New Vulgate) but by a word which (like the Hebrew original) conveys the idea that the ignorance was more the outcome of human limitation than of lack of due knowledge [so, the RSV \u201cunwittingly\u201d seems fine].<\/p>\n
Offerings for sins of the priest
\n4:3\u201312. At the start of the list of offerings to be made for sins committed by a priest, the point is made that his sin is particularly serious because it brings guilt on the people as well. Something similar happened with the sin of a king (cf. 2 Sam 24:10\u201315; 1 Kings 13:1\u201310). The ceremony contains elements we have seen in earlier sacrifices but there are new ones too. By burning the victim outside the camp (v. 12) the offerer was showing his sorrow for having sinned, for he renounced the possibility of eating the meat of the victim. This aspect of sin offerings is taken up in the Letter to the Hebrews, when it says that \u201cJesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood\u201d (Heb 13:12).<\/p>\n
Offerings for sins of the people
\n4:13\u201321. Sins committed by the whole people of Israel also had to be expiated. Because of their status as representatives of the people, it was the elders who laid their hands on the animal being offered. The Hebrew term (kipper), here translated as \u201cforgiven\u201d (v. 20), originally meant a supplication by the action of covering over or rubbing out something. In fact, the forgiveness of sins that the Old Testament talks about was no more than a plea for forgiveness; it was only when Christ died on the cross that the redemption of sins came about. \u201cThe Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of \u2018the righteous one, my Servant\u2019 (Is 53:11; cf. Acts 3:14) as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin (cf. Is 53:11\u201312; Jn 8:34\u201336)\u201d: that is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 601, expounds the atonement for sin that our Lord\u2019s death brought about. It goes on to say that \u201cJesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: \u2018My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?\u2019 (Mk 15:34; Ps 22:1). Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God \u2018did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all\u2019, so that we might be \u2018reconciled to God by the death of his Son\u2019 (Rom 5:10)\u201d (ibid., 603).<\/p>\n
Offerings for sins of a ruler, Offerings for sins of a private individual
\n4:22\u201335. Various Old Testaments passages refer to differences in status among members of the people of Israel\u2014prince (cf. Ezek 44:3), high dignitary (cf. Ezra 1:8), ruler (cf. Ex 16:22; Num 1:16), the lowest status being that of the plain people (\u2018am ha-ares, \u201cthe people of the land\u201d). Therefore, the lower a person was on the social scale, the less valuable a victim was required.
\nUnlike the major sin offerings, an offering could be made by any priest; it was not necessary for the high priest to perform it. And the rite was simpler, when the high priest was not involved.<\/p>\n
Other sin offerings
\n5:1\u20136. This chapter instances various sins, case by case. The first case is not very clear. Some think that it has to do with a cover-up on behalf of an offender by someone who was a witness to the offence (cf. Prov 29:24). Others think that it is about someone who refuses to give evidence about a crime he witnessed, despite being called on by a judge to do so. And others again think that it concerns a person refusing to give evidence about a crime of which he was the victim.
\nAs regards contact with unclean things, be they persons or animals, this will be dealt with again in chapters 11\u201315.
\nThe passage also refers to the Hebrews\u2019 bad habit of taking rash oaths. This was something that Jesus also criticized (cf. Mt 5:36); he, for his part, exhorted people to sincerity\u2014to tell the truth at all times, avoiding any need to back up one\u2019s words by oath: \u201cLet what you say be simply, \u2018Yes\u2019 or \u2018No\u2019; anything more than this comes from evil\u201d (Mt 5:37).
\nIn order to atone for sins one first needed to declare oneself guilty of them (v. 5). This practice of humble acknowledgement of personal faults seems to have applied to all sin offerings (cf. Num 5:7). It was laid down that that form of acknowledgment of guilt should take place on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. In later times this practice became the typical penitential act. Thus, people who flocked to hear John the Baptist not only received baptism but also acknowledged themselves to be guilty of their sins (cf. Mt 3:6). That confession of sin was a kind of preparation for the later system of sacramental confession. That sacrament continued an ancient biblical practice, inspired by God for the benefit of his people. The sacrament of Penance, instituted by Christ, involving the confession of sins as a condition for their being forgiven, goes back to the Old Testament rites. However, there is a difference in form\u2014and also a difference in effect: the Old Testament offerings were only a plea for forgiveness of sin, whereas the sacrament of Penance truly is an effective, sacramental forgiveness of sin. From the very start confession of sins was a practice held in high regard by the Church and a prerequisite for obtaining forgiveness.<\/p>\n
Offerings for sins of poor people
\n5:7\u201313. The consideration shown towards the poor (cf. 14:21; 27:8) indicates that the value of an offering did not really lie in the value of the animal; it had more to do with the dispositions of the offerer. Contrition and sorrow for having sinned has always been basic to a good relationship with God: \u201cYou already have something you can offer,\u201d St Augustine comments. \u201cDo not look to your flocks or fit out ships to go to far countries in search of spices. Seek within your heart what is pleasing to God. Make your heart contrite. Are you afraid that a contrite heart will perish? The psalm says, \u2018Create in me a clean heart, O God.\u2019 For God to be able to create a clean heart, the unclean heart has to be destroyed\u201d (St Augustine, Sermon, 19, 3).
\nAn ephah was a measure of dry grain equivalent to 21 litres (about five gallons): cf. the note on Ex 16:32\u201336. Unlike the cereal offerings no oil or incense was added, because these sacrifices were not joyful: they were made out of sorrow for sin committed against God.<\/p>\n
5:7. This rule shows that Jesus was born into a poor family, because, as we know, Mary and Joseph offered a pair of doves when the child was presented in the temple (cf. Lk 2:22\u201324). It was an instance of people who could not afford to offer a \u201clamb\u201d; still, they were not in abject poverty, because (as one can see from 5:11) a smaller offering was possible.<\/p>\n
Guilt offerings
\n5:14\u20136:7. Offerings in atonement for certain transgressions of the Law (\u201cguilt offerings\u201d) were different from those dealt with so far (\u201csin offerings\u201d) and from those for which atonement offerings were prescribed. The former transgressions were also unwitting, but the cases now being discussed involved unjust retention of sacred things (offerings, first-fruits etc.) or else a violation of divine rights (without specifying which).
\nThe Anchor Bible Dictionary prefers to translate the Hebrew as \u201cpurification offering\u201d in place of the traditional \u201csin offering\u201d, and \u201creparation offering\u201d in place of \u201cguilt offering\u201d. It says, \u201cin summary, one could say that the basic distinction between the purification and guilt offerings is that the purification offering deals with the issue of impurity while the reparation offering deals with profanation of sacred items.\u201d This does not always apply, but it is generally the case.
\nThere was guilt even if the person was unaware that he was committing an offence. So, it was a matter of a legal fault, not a moral fault. However, on occasion these rules were interpreted in such a rigorous and legalistic way as to make it almost impossible to keep the Law (cf. Acts 15:10).<\/p>\n
6:1\u20137. Offences against property called for some form of restitution. It is assumed apparently that the person who committed the offences mentioned here was aware of the harm he was doing. It should be noted that the penalty being laid down is not the legal penalty, which was even heavier (cf. Ex 22:1\u20134), but a religious one. The fine levied is the same as before (Lev 5:16), but in these cases it goes to the injured party.
\nAll these various rules are (distantly) reminiscent of the moral teaching of the Gospel, which the Church enunciates and interprets. So, for example, to obtain forgiveness of a sin committed against someone else\u2019s property, it is not enough to be repentant and to confess the sin in the sacrament of Penance and to be resolved not to sin in the future: one also needs to restore what one stole or unjustly kept. Therefore, \u201cin virtue of commutative justice, reparation for injustice committed requires the restitution of stolen goods to their owner: Jesus blesses Zacchaeus for his pledge: \u2018If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold\u2019 (Lk 19:18). Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another are obliged to make restitution of them, or to return the equivalent in kind or in money, if the goods have disappeared, as well as the profit or advantages their owner would have legitimately obtained from them. Likewise, all who in some manner have taken part in a theft or who have knowingly benefited from it\u2014for example, those who ordered it, assisted in it or received the stolen goods\u2014are obliged to make restitution in proportion to their responsibility and to their share of what was stolen\u201d (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2412).<\/p>\n
6:8\u20137:38. These verses contain rules about the rites or ceremonies for the sacrifices already listed in chapters 1\u20135. They apply to the priests involved, whereas the earlier chapters focused on the lay people, those making the offering.<\/p>\n
The priest and burnt offerings
\n6:8\u201313. Here it is laid down that the fire for burnt offerings is to burn continuously, night-time included. On certain occasions it was God himself who lit the holocaust fire (cf. 9:24; 2 Chron 7:1; 2 Mac 1:19ff). Keeping the fire burning day and night symbolized a desire to worship the Lord unceasingly.
\nIt is interesting to see the stress being put on the sacredness of liturgical acts and on priests\u2019 dress. The Church, too, makes the same point; thus, the General Introduction to the Roman Missal reminds us that \u201cin the Body of Christ not all members have the same function, and this diversity of ministries is shown externally in worship by the diversity of vestments. At the same time, the vestments should contribute to the appearance of the rite itself\u201d (no. 297).
\nBl. Josemar\u00eda Escriv\u00e1, reflecting on the nobility of Old Testament worship and the reverence required of priests when offering the sacrifices of the people of Israel, commented: \u201cRead the Scriptures. Go to the Old Testament and you will see how God our Lord describes point by point the way the Tabernacle is to be decorated, how the sacred vessels are to be made, how the priests are to dress, especially the High Priest, even down to his undergarments! Everything had to be of gold or other precious metals, and fine carefully fashioned fabrics. [\u2026] The priesthood of the Old Law was but a shadow of the true priesthood instituted by Christ. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit said: Nolite tangere Christos meos! \u2018Do not ill-treat my Christs, do not profane holy things.\u2019 It is the voice of the Lord defending his majesty! For his priesthood transforms the one who receives it into another Christ: alter Christus, ipse Christus, and it turns everything which is used for the renewal of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into something sacred\u201d (in Bernal, Monsignor Josemar\u00eda Escriv\u00e1, p. 330).<\/p>\n
The priest and cereal offerings
\n6:14\u201318. This repeats what is said in chapter 2 about the cereal offering. If someone who was not a priest touched this offering, that person became holy or consecrated and had to be purified before he could go back to ordinary life: a \u201choly\u201d person was not allowed to do ordinary things. Obviously, it is ritual, not moral, holiness that is being referred to. However, we can see a difference here from those who are sanctified and consecrated by the Baptism established by Christ. Ordinary everyday activity is not in any sense an obstacle for a Christian. In fact, it is precisely in everyday life that a Christian is supposed to try to attain holiness. Thus, the Second Vatican Council exhorts everyone to \u201crise to a higher sanctity, truly apostolic, by their everyday work itself\u201d (Lumen gentium, 41). St Josemar\u00eda Escriv\u00e1 put it another way by saying that one needs to sanctify oneself in work, to sanctify that work, and to sanctify others by means of that work: \u201cYou must not forget that any worthy, noble and honest work at the human level can\u2014and should!\u2014be raised to the supernatural level, becoming a divine task\u201d (The Forge, 687).<\/p>\n
The priest and sin offerings
\n6:19\u201330. Apparently, this offering by the high priest, and not only the daily burnt offering (regulated by Exodus 29:38\u201342), was supposed to take place every day (cf. Num 28:5; Sir 45:14).
\nThe holiness of the offering is stressed to the point of requiring that if any of the victim\u2019s blood gets spattered on a garment, the garment needs to be cleaned in a holy place (v. 27).<\/p>\n
The priest and guilt offerings
\n7:1\u201310. Verses 1\u20136 are a \u201cSemitic inclusion\u201d, a stylistic device for stressing an idea by opening and closing the passage with the idea one wants to emphasize: here it is stressing that the thing offered as a guilt offering is something holy (cf. 5:14\u20136:7).
\nThen we are told that the priest who makes the offering keeps the unburnt part of the victim; and he also keeps the skin. But the other cereal offerings (v. 10), whether the flour is mixed with oil or not, were more communal and they were distributed equally among all the priests.<\/p>\n
The priest and peace offerings
\n7:11\u201318. Peace or communion offerings could be made as a praise in thanksgiving (cf. Ps 50:14, 23; 26:13; etc.), or in fulfilment of a vow, or simply out of devotion. The meat of the sacrifice had to be eaten on the same day; this ensured that there was no danger of its being profaned or becoming rotten.
\n\u201cThat person shall be cut from his people\u201d (v. 21): this could mean death, but normally the sentence was commuted to exclusion from the community\u2014involving loss of the privileges of a member of the chosen people, with no social protection and with the threat of death hanging over him (cf. Num 15:30\u201336).<\/p>\n
Rites concerning victims
\n7:24\u201327. This passage repeats what was said earlier about the fat and blood of animals (cf. 3:17). Quite often such repetitions are due to the fact that laws have been copied into the text from different sources\u2014sources which reflected the state of the law at a particular time. Concern to ensure that these legal traditions were not lost prevailed over the editor\u2019s aim of producing a synthesis. It is often not easy to find a reason for a repetition.<\/p>\n
The priest\u2019s portion
\n7:28\u201335. The text moves on to deal with the rights of priests\u2014specifically as regards which parts of animals offered in sacrifice belonged to them (cf. Ex 29:26; Deut 18:3).
\nAs one can see from v. 34, the first portion of the victim was waved in front of the altar; it was swung forward and back. This ritual waving is called tenuf\u00e1h in Hebrew (see the notes on Ex 29:26\u201328 and Lev 3:1\u201317). The other portion was raised and then lowered, also in front of the altar. This ritual action of raising and lowering the offering was called terum\u00e1h. In both cases the action signified that the offering was being moved towards God and then He was returning it to the priest. There is a trace of this ritual in the Mass when the offering of the bread and wine is presented to the Lord by being raised up during the offertory. And maybe, when the consecrated host and the chalice are raised up after the consecration the same symbolism is at work: the victim par excellence is presented by the priest to the Father, who gives it back to us for our nourishment and salvation.<\/p>\n
PART TWO<\/p>\n
The Ordination of Priests<\/p>\n
Ordination rites
\n8:1\u201310:20. Chapter 8\u201310 form a kind of piece which is often called the \u201cPriestly Code\u201d and which constitutes the second of the two parts into which Leviticus can be divided (cf. \u201cIntroduction\u201d, pp 413\u2013414 above). It has two sections\u20141) chapters 8\u20139, which deal with priestly investiture; 2) chapter 10, which contains a number of other regulations to do with priests.<\/p>\n
8:1\u20139:24. Chapters 8\u20139 continue the theme dealt with in Exodus 29 and 40. The book of Exodus gave rules for the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests; Leviticus describes these rules being put into practice, adding the rule of anointing.
\nThe Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the priesthood of the Old Covenant in this way: \u201cThe chosen people was constituted by God as \u2018a kingdom of priests and a holy nation\u2019 (Ex 19:6; cf. Is 61:6). But within the people of Israel, God chose one of the twelve tribes, that of Levi, and set it apart for liturgical service; God himself is its inheritance (cf. Num 1:48\u201353; Josh 13:33). A special rite consecrated the beginnings of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. The priests are \u2018appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins\u2019 (Heb 5:1; cf. Ex 29:1\u201330; Lev 8). Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion with God by sacrifices and prayer (cf. Mal 2:7\u20139), this priesthood nevertheless remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish\u2019 (cf. Heb 5:3; 7:27; 10:1\u20134). The liturgy of the Church, however, sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders (cf. Num 11:24\u201325), a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant\u201d (nos. 1539\u20131541).
\nThe unction was usually made up of oil with various perfumes mixed in. By the rite of anointing, the person or thing anointed was consecrated to God for a particular role or function. In this passage, we find that, in addition to the priests, the tabernacle too is anointed and all that it contains. The pouring of the oil over the head of the high priest so that it flows down his beard (cf. Ps 133:2) showed that the fullness of priesthood was being conferred on him.<\/p>\n
8:6\u20139. For a description of the priest\u2019s sacred vestments, cf. Ex 29:1\u201343; 39:1\u201332. In his interpretation of the high priest\u2019s vestments, St Thomas, echoing tradition, says that the high priest \u201cought, firstly, to be constantly remembering God in contemplation; and this was signified by the golden plate with the name of God on it, worn on the forehead; secondly, to bear the weaknesses of the people; this was denoted by the ephod he bore on his shoulders; thirdly, to keep the people in his heart and mind by his charitable concern, signified by the breastplate; fourthly, his manner of life should be heavenly in the perfection of his acts, which is signified by the violet robe. Hence to the hem of this robe were fixed golden bells, signifying the teaching of divine things which ought to be conjoined to the heavenly mode of life of the priest. In addition to these there were the pomegranates, which signified unity of faith and harmony of conduct, because his teaching should be such as not to impair the unity of faith and peace\u201d (Summa theologiae, 1\u20132, 102, 5).<\/p>\n
8:14\u201332. Three sacrifices precede the rite of ordination strictly speaking (the rite begins at v. 22). The first (vv. 14\u201317) is a sin offering, designed to purify Aaron and his sons from their sins and to sanctify the altar at the same time; we have already come across this rite (cf. 4:1\u201312). The second is a burnt offering performed according to the rite already explained (cf. 1:10\u201313). The last-mentioned sacrifice (vv. 22\u201332) is a consecration sacrifice in the strict sense, with rites similar to those of the communion sacrifice described in chapter 3. For example, there are some variations in the blood ritual: the right ear, hand and toe are touched with the blood\u2014thereby preparing the priest to listen carefully and docilely to the word of God, and disposing him to good works and upright conduct. The gesture of filling the hands of the priests (v. 27) symbolized handing over the sacred powers they would use in their liturgical actions. Their vestments, too, were consecrated by being sprinkled with oil and blood (v. 30).<\/p>\n
8:33\u201336. The fact that the ceremony went on for a week shows how important it was, and also its very sacred character (the number seven has a special religious meaning in the Bible). On occasions these ceremonies will be recalled to the minds of the people and indeed the priests. Thus the book of Sirach says that this \u201cwas an everlasting covenant for him [Aaron] and for his descendants all the days of heaven, to minister to the Lord and serve as priest and bless his people in his [the Lord\u2019s] name\u201d (Sir 45:15). And the prophet Malachi, upbraiding priests for their misconduct, warns them that that pact (consecration) was one of life and peace and also one of fear (cf. Mal 2:5).<\/p>\n
The priests and their functions
\n9:1\u201314. After being consecrated, the priests begin to exercise their ministry. First, they make offerings for their own sins, and then for those of the people. Under Moses\u2019 supervision they perform the rites which are exclusive to priests (cf. 1 Kings 12:31; 2 Chron 13:9ff). The Letter to the Hebrews refers to this passage when it distinguishes the priests of the Old Testament from Jesus Christ, who \u201chas no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself\u201d (Heb 7:27).<\/p>\n
9:15\u201324. The rules about sacrifices or offerings on behalf of the people were given previously. The first offering is a sin offering (cf. 4:13\u201321); this is followed by a burnt offering (cf. 1:2\u201313) and then a peace offering (cf. 2:1\u20133). Aaron enters the tent of meeting with Moses (v. 23); this shows that the new high priest shares in the same intimacy with God as Moses has; the fact that he joins in blessing the people also shows his new status.
\nNo sooner have the people been blessed than God demonstrates his approval of the priesthood by making his glory manifest; and this is complemented by the fire that comes down on the altar (as happened on other occasions too: cf. Judg 6:21; 1 Kings 18:38; etc.).<\/p>\n
Punishment for ritual irregularity
\n10:1\u20133. We do not know the exact nature of these priests\u2019 infringement. Apparently they used a fire other than that from the altar of holocaust. Some scholars, on the basis of the rules that follow (vv. 8\u201311), think that maybe in the meal held after the ordination these two sons of Aaron drank to excess and were not quite aware of what they were doing. Anyway, they infringed the rules on worship laid down by Moses. The episode shows that God prefers obedience to sacrifice (cf. 1 Sam 15:22\u201323; Hos 6:6).
\nOn the use of censers cf. the note on Num 16:6\u20137.<\/p>\n
Rules for officiating priests
\n10:4\u201320. The other sons of Aaron were not allowed to take part in the burial of the dead priests because that would have rendered them unclean; that was why other close relatives took charge (cf. Exod 6:18, 22). Nor were they to engage in mourning after the style of the time; that was not considered proper in those who served at the sanctuary. A priest should remember his sacred status, even if that meant keeping a rein on his feelings.
\nThe reason why alcohol was banned was obviously because priests should be completely lucid all the time\u2014not only to be able to perform their liturgical ministry but also because they were the people\u2019s teachers, especially as regards the laws of ritual purity.
\nVerses 12\u201320 contains rules (some already known: cf. chap. 9) about how and where meat from sacrifices should be eaten. Moses takes Aaron to task (vv. 16ff) for not having obeyed the rules about the sacred meal after the sin offering. The high priest makes his excuse and explains that the reason why they did not eat the offering was that they were afraid of incurring a further punishment. Moses accepts his explanation.<\/p>\n
PART THREE<\/p>\n
Rules concerning the Clean and the Unclean<\/p>\n
Clean and unclean animals
\n11:1\u201316:34. These chapters about ritual cleanness form the third part of the book of Leviticus; they identify which animals are regarded as unclean and the various reasons why they fall within that category. Chapter 16 is a special section to do with the ceremonies on the day of atonement, Yom Kippur, when purification is prescribed for the entire people.
\nUncleanness came from four main sources\u2014animals, dead bodies, leprosy and improper use of sex. This does not mean that it is easy to see exactly why things were classified as unclean: the reason for some of the taboos is lost in antiquity; sometimes an animal might be classified as unclean just because it looked repugnant. Apropos of the rules given here, Novatian teaches that the forbidden foods were banned not because they particularly deserved to be but simply as a way of rendering homage to God: thus, it is a good thing to be frugal in eating and drinking, it fits in well with being a religious person, and it is almost essential for someone whose ministry it is to worship God; in the same way insobriety and the self-indulgence it causes are enemies of holiness (cf. De cibis iudaicis, 4).
\nThe uncleanness caused was normally something external; it did not mean that the person had committed a moral fault; that was why the uncleanness was removed by means of an external rite. God\u2019s holiness and purity have always led men to avoid anything unworthy of God, especially when they are worshipping him or petitioning him. Sometimes the uncleanness of an animal has to do with how neighbouring peoples regarded that animal (they may have made it an object of worship or reserved it as something untouchable in honour of a god: the pig, for example, was used for sacrifices to the Babylonian god Tammuz.<\/p>\n
11:1\u201346. This division of animals into groups is reminiscent of the Creation account in the book of Genesis. First came the quadrupeds (vv. 3\u20138), followed by fish (vv. 9\u201312), birds (vv. 13\u201319) and insects (vv. 20\u201323), with reptiles last (vv. 29\u201330). Of the four-footed animals those are clean (that is, eatable) which are cloven-hoofed and chew the cud. The reason why the passage says that the \u201crock badger\u201d (J.B. \u201chyrax\u201d, which OED explains as \u201crock-rabbit or rock-badger\u201d) chews the cud is that its nose moves when it eats, but in fact it is a rodent, not a ruminant. As regards fish, those which have no fins or scales are unclean\u2014perhaps because they look like snakes (as is the case with eels).
\nThe birds listed as unclean normally feed on carrion or reptiles\u2014which is what makes them unclean. However, it has to be said that it is not always easy to identify the birds (and some of the animals) mentioned in the Bible, because sometimes they are mentioned only once and their distinguishing features are not given.
\nAs regards insects, only the different kinds of land locusts or grasshoppers are clean. Most Westerners would not think of eating them, but we do know that St John the Baptist lived off them (cf. Mt 3:4) and the Bedouin still eat them.
\nContact with the carcasses of animals (clean or unclean, it did not matter) caused uncleanness (vv. 24\u201340).<\/p>\n
Purification of a woman after childbirth
\n12:1\u20134. Rules about uncleanness deriving from childbearing and allied subjects (touched on here) will be dealt with further in chapter 15.
\nAs regards the precept of circumcision (v. 3), this already came up in Genesis 17:10\u201314. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sees circumcision as prefiguring Baptism (cf. no. 527); and the Catechism of the Council of Trent sees the fact that circumcision was done on the eighth day after birth as being a figure for the baptism of children: \u201cCircumcision, which is a figure of Baptism, affords a strong argument in proof of this practice. That children were circumcised on the eighth day is universally known. If then circumcision, made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, was profitable to children, it is clear that Baptism, which is the circumcision of Christ, not made by hand, is also profitable to them\u201d (2, 2, 32).
\nFrom very ancient times, it was common for people to regard sex and generative faculties as something sacred. The coming to birth of a new being is always a sign of God\u2019s blessing. Besides, God himself commanded the first human couple to increase and multiply (cf. Gen 1:28). The sacredness of human generation was what led some ancient peoples to associate sexual practices with divine worship: hence so-called \u201csacred prostitution\u201d; in fact the moral fault in some sexual irregularities was compounded by their connexion with idolatry.
\nIt was also the case that man\u2019s abuse of his reproductive faculties (his search for mere pleasure, a pursuit at odds with the very nature of sex) gave him a sense of rejection because he (quite rightly) saw his behaviour as shameful. Feelings of this sort gave rise to purification rules and to high regard for virginity and continence, especially as regards anything to do with divine worship; hence the regulations which prohibit conjugal relations when a person is involved in something holy (cf. 1 Sam 21:5\u20137). Besides, man has an instinctive modesty as regards sex. The Genesis account about Adam and Eve\u2019s nakedness (cf. Gen 2:25; 3:7) before and then after they commit sin bears this out; and the same point is made by St Paul when he says that \u201cthose parts of the body that we think less honourable we invest with the greatest honour\u201d (1 Cor 12:23). So, among ancient peoples (Israel included) everything connected with human generation was wrapped in mystery; we find a mixture of veneration (even idolatry) and a sometimes irrational rejection of sex. Hence the advantage of rules and regulations on the subject.<\/p>\n
12:5\u20138. The different kinds of purification of a mother depending on whether her new child was a boy or a girl, was due, partly, to a belief at the time that the pregnancy for a female child was more severe on the mother and therefore (as one can read in Hippocrates) a long convalescence was needed. Also, it is well known that many ancient peoples had the conviction that women were inferior to men. This was an opinion held in Israel also at that time\u2014possibly due to a misinterpretation of the account of the first sin, in which Eve sinned first and then induced Adam to sin (cf. Gen 3:1\u20137). Yet, even so, by comparison with other cultures of the time, Israel did hold womankind in higher regard. Even the Creation account clearly shows the essential equality of man and woman when it says: \u201cGod created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them\u201d (Gen 1:27).
\nThere are passages in the New Testament which some have misinterpreted to mean that women are inferior to men. However, it needs to be said that when there is mention simply of \u201cman\u201d, that means both man and woman. Besides, as St Paul teaches, after the Redemption \u201cin Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [\u2026] There is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female\u201d (Gal 3:26, 28). John Paul II defends the dignity of women and their essential equality with men as something deriving from the very word \u201cwoman\u201d: \u201cIn biblical essential identity with regard to man\u2014\u2019is-\u2019issab\u2014something which unfortunately modern languages in general are unable to express: \u2018She shall be called woman (\u2019issah) because she was taken out of man (\u2019is): Gen 2:33\u201d (Mulieris dignitatem, 6). The Pope focuses particularly on the sublime figure of Mary, for she \u201cis \u2018the new beginning\u2019 of the dignity and vocation of women, of each and every woman\u201d (ibid., 11).<\/p>\n
Tests for leprosy, Leprosy in Clothes
\n13:1\u201314:57. These chapters contain the regulations to do with leprosy, its treatment, and purification after contact with the disease. They cover leprosy in persons (13:1\u201346; 14:1\u201332), in clothing and in accommodation (13:47\u201359; 14:33\u201353); the cleansing of the poor is specially facilitated (14:21\u201332). The section ends by looking at the different kinds of leprosy (14:54\u201357).<\/p>\n
13:1\u201359. According to the state of knowledge at the time, there were various indications for this terrible disease. Although some of the data given here may be of interest to historians of medicine, there was generally confusion between leprosy and other skin diseases. However, the fact that people suffering from these diseases are unsightly was sufficient reason to declare them unclean.
\nBecause leprosy was an infectious disease, every effort had to be made to keep it from spreading. It was widely held as being a punishment for some sin. Indeed, in the case of Miriam, who was leprous for a while, we are told that she got the disease because she had been murmuring against her brother Moses (cf. Num 12:1\u201310). Also, the suffering servant of Yahweh is portrayed as having leprosy, an affliction God sent him on account of our sins (cf. Is 53:4). And Job, who had something like leprosy, was accused by his friends of having committed some terrible, hidden sin: it was the only explanation they could think of for his sorry state.
\nLife was very different for a person with leprosy. He had to live in settlements or camps away from towns. When travelling about, he had to warn people he was coming by shouting to show he was unclean; he wore his clothes torn and hair uncombed: all this was meant to make him stand out, so that people could avoid him easily. We often come across wretched lepers in the Gospels, on whom Jesus has compassion and whom he makes clean (cf. Mt 8:2\u20133; Lk 17:12\u201314): the curing of lepers was one of the signs of the messianic times prophesied in the Old Testament (cf. Mt 11:5). And our Lord gives the apostles power to cure lepers (cf. Mt 10:8).
\nThe New Vulgate abbreviates the original Hebrew text, especially 13:52\u201353.<\/p>\n
Cleansing of leprosy, Cleaning of Houses Infected by Leprosy
\n14:1\u201357. In ancient times leprosy was incurable. However, because there were skin diseases which had symptoms similar to those of leprosy, rules are given here for the cleansing of \u201clepers\u201d. Once a leper was cleansed, he had to be certified by a priest: this makes sense if we bear in mind the theoratic nature of the people of Israel and also the conviction that divine intervention was responsible both for a person getting leprosy and for him being cured of it. Our Lord recognized the validity of these rules, as can be seen from the fact that he told lepers he cured to show themselves to the priest (cf. Lk 17:14).
\nThe whole ceremony is very rich in symbolism. The cedar tree was the symbol of eternity because it was so long-lived and it had various medicinal qualities. Hyssop was thought to have cleansing properties. The scarlet fabric symbolizes blood which like running water always flowed like life itself. The bird which takes flight symbolizes the freedom the newly cured leper obtains at that moment. In the language of liturgy a \u201ctenth\u201d was a tenth of an ephah of flour (cf. 15:11; 6:13), that is a tenth of the capacity of a receptacle that could hold about 21 kilos or 46 pounds (cf. the note on Exodus 16:32\u201336). A \u201clog\u201d (this is the only chapter in the Bible where the word appears) was a measure used for offertory wine; all we know is that it was very small, perhaps a third of a litre, less than a pint.<\/p>\n
Male uncleanness, Female uncleanness
\n15:1\u201333. We have already noticed, in connexion with chapter 12, how ancient peoples saw anything to do with reproduction as being very mysterious\u2014and how sexual irregularities were regarded as impure and obscene. This attitude was not exclusive to Israel; but in Israel a high ethical and moral sense in things sexual was developed.
\nIn the case of males there was a rule that no one should have any contact with a woman when on active service. In the last analysis war against pagans was regarded as something holy, and an unclean man could not fight in the holy name of God (cf. 1 Sam 21:5\u20137). Although this sort of thing sounds shocking to people nowadays, the opposite would have been the case at that time.<\/p>\n
The day of atonement
\n16:1\u201334. Due to the connexion between this chapter and chapter 10, and also the later description in 23:26ff, some scholars have thought that this passage was made up of fragments assembled at a later period, perhaps during the reforms led by Ezekiel. However, after the exile in Babylon there was no Ark of the Covenant, no mercy seat\u2014essential elements in the ceremonies on the day of atonement. Also, when Ezra speaks about the post-exilic Jewish institutions around the year 450 BC, he does not mention this feast. So, it may well be that what we have here is some early material elaborated on later. This theory is supported by the fact that there were feasts very like the day of atonement in very early civilizations such as that of Babylonia. Rome and Athens also had similar customs. In the capital of Imperial Rome, for example, every five years a \u201clustre\u201d was held (hence the verb \u201cto lustre\u201d, to clean or polish): that is, sins were officially expiated to \u201cclean\u201d the people.
\nGiven Israel\u2019s elaborate legislation on matters to do with worship, it was quite easy to infringe a rule, so there were lots of ritual transgressions on top of all the other sins that needed to be atoned for.
\nCertainly, the day of atonement came to occupy a pre-eminent place in the Jewish calendar. It was called \u201cthe big day\u201d, Yoma rabb\u00e1, as well as Yom Kippur. It was celebrated with great fervour by all the people, in hope of winning God\u2019s forgiveness. It was held on the tenth day of the seventh month, Tishri, at the start of autumn, five days before the feast of Tabernacles.<\/p>\n
16:10. This is the only place where \u201cAzazel\u201d appears. It is not easy to identify him. In fact, according to some early translations such as the Septuagint, Symmachus and Aquila, the name refers to the animal which is sent out into the wilderness. That is also the interpretation given by the Vulgate, which speaks of the \u201ccaprum emmissarium\u201d, the he-goat cast out. The New Vulgate [and the RSV] speak of \u201cAzazel\u201d, respecting the Hebrew proper name. So, what we have here is someone who is an enemy of the Lord\u2014according to some scholars, a kind of demon or fallen angel\u2014who appears also in the apocryphal book of Enoch as one of the leaders of the rebellious angels who is eventually shackled by the archangel Raphael. There were some who said that this demon was an object of worship in Israel: such was people\u2019s fear of him that they sought to appease him. St Cyril of Alexandria protested against that interpretation on the grounds that it was unthinkable that a rival of the Lord should be venerated (cf. Contra Iulianem, 8, 3). This name may also refer to the evil spirit of the desert whom Raphael bound (cf. Tob 8:3), but without there being any element of cult involved. Rather, the fact that the he-goat laden with the people\u2019s sins is sent out to Azazel indicates that he is someone despised, not worshipped.<\/p>\n
16:15\u201316. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes as follows the signification of the rite of purification on Yom Kippur: \u201cThe name of the Saviour God was invoked only once in the year by the high priest in atonement for the sins of Israel, after he had sprinkled the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies with the sacrificial blood. The mercy seat was the place of God\u2019s presence (cf. Ex 25:22; Lev 16:2, 15\u201316; Num 7:89; Sir 50:20; Heb 9:5\u20137). When St Paul speaks of Jesus whom \u2018God put forward as an expiation by his blood\u2019 (Rom 3:25), he means that in Christ\u2019s humanity \u2018God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself\u2019 (2 Cor 5:19)\u201d (no. 433).<\/p>\n
PART FOUR<\/p>\n
The Law of Holiness<\/p>\n
The place of sacrifice and the eating of blood
\n17:1\u201326:46. These chapters make up what is usually referred to as the \u201cLaw of Holiness\u201d or \u201cCode of Holiness\u201d, a very important part of the book of Leviticus. The \u201cLaw of Holiness\u201d has marked similarity to the liturgical regulations given in the book of Ezekiel. Although it is not easy for scholarship to prove that it was the case, it seems reasonable to think that when the life of Israel was being reconstructed after the Exile (as described in the book of Ezekiel) the inspiration for that renewal must have come from the legislation assembled in Leviticus.
\nThroughout the entire Bible, holiness is one of the essential attributes of God; even though Leviticus is not entirely focused on this subject, it does perhaps give it special emphasis (cf. 11:44\u201345; 19:2; 21:8, 15; 22:32: cf. Is 1:4; 5:19, 24). The main aspects of God\u2019s holiness include his transcendence and inaccessibility, which inspire man with religious fear and respect (cf. Exod 19:12; 2 Sam 6:7). Other persons share in that holiness (cf. Ex 19:6), particularly priests (Lev 21:6), and also some times and places (cf. Ex 16:23).
\nAlongside the idea of holiness we find that of ritual cleanness on account of its close connexion with divine worship. Thus, the \u201cLaw of Holiness\u201d also becomes a \u201claw of cleanness\u201d. As Old Testament revelation increased, the holy or sacred becomes separated from the profane insofar as the profane involves distance from God, drawing away from him, something connected with sin, whereas the sacred means drawing closer to God, moral sanctification through ritual purification.
\nSo, the kind of moral obligation envisaged in the chapters on the Law of Holiness puts the emphasis primarily on ritual cleanness in offerings, persons, institutions and (especially) priests; all of this is designed to promote a more interior moral perfection: the Most Holy God must be treated in a holy way.
\nThrough the Incarnation, the Word of God fully assumed a human nature with all its limitations, thereby rising above and transcending the tension between the sacred and the profane. Jesus has interiorized the Law by going right to its root\u2014love for God and love for others. And so St Paul can say, \u201cWhatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him\u201d (Col 3:17); \u201cso, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God\u201d (1 Cor 10:31).<\/p>\n
17:1\u20139. We can notice here an evolution in the rules about animal sacrifices. In the early period these offerings could be made in any place which in some way or other was connected with God (cf. Ex 20:24). Later, after the conquest of the promised land, all sacrifices had to take place in the sanctuary and on its altar; but an animal could be slaughtered anywhere, provided that it was not being offered as a sacrifice to God (cf. Deut 12:4\u201328). This passage seems to refer not to any ordinary immolation of an animal for all to eat, but rather to a sacrifice being specially offered to God. The latter had to take place in the sanctuary, to avoid any possible idolatry cult in honour of the devil-gods of the desert (this seems to be what v. 7 implies). The Hebrew word translated here as \u201csatyr\u201d means literally a \u201che-goat\u201d, but it was also used to refer to the little gods in animal form who were thought to live in the wilderness (cf. Is 34:14). Azazel may have been one of those.<\/p>\n
17:10\u201316. The commandment not to eat blood is a very old one (cf. Gen 9:4). Eating blood was regarded as an offence against God (cf. 1 Sam 14:33ff), because blood was thought to be the source of life (cf. note on Lev 1:5\u20139) and therefore something belonging to God. Hence also its atonement value: the blood shed by a sacrificed animal took the place of the offerer, who thereby was cleansed of his sin. Also, this commandment helped to keep Jews away from pagan cults in which the blood of an animal was sometimes drunk in the belief that the life of the victim thereby passed into the person who drank the blood.
\nFrom the New Testament we learn that the Jews kept up this practice\u2014even Jews who had become Christians. Some Jews, indeed, were scandalized by the fact that Christians of Gentile background did eat blood. To prevent this scandal, which pained some, the council held in Jerusalem prudently laid down the temporary ruling that Christians were to abstain from blood (cf. Acts 15:13ff).
\nThe cleansing quality of blood is recognized in the Letter to the Hebrews, which puts such stress on the redemptive value of Christ\u2019s blood: \u201chow much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God\u201d (Heb 9:14).<\/p>\n
Rules concerning marriage and chastity
\n18:21. One case for which Leviticus legislates is the sacrifice of children to Moloch. Archeological diggings at Gezer have revealed traces of such sacrifices. In Jerusalem these sacrifices were held in the valley of Ben-Hinnom (cf. 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; 23:10; Jer 7:31; 19:5; etc.), later cursed with a permanently burning rubbish dump (called Gehenna), which became a symbol of the literal fires of hell (cf. Mt 5:22; 10:28; Mk 9:42\u201350; Lk 12:5; etc.).
\nThe Jews needed to be protected from the influence of the peoples on its borders, whose cultures contained much immorality even to the extent of sexual perversions such as sacred prostitution, homosexuality, incest and bestiality. For example, in Egypt it was normal for a pharaoh to marry his own sister; in Greece the laws of Solon permitted the marriage of people who shared the same father. In spite of the precepts given here, Israel did at times fall into the same abominable behaviour (cf. Gen 19:1\u201338; Judg 19:22; 2 Sam 13:14; etc.). The early Church always condemned incestuous unions of this kind (cf. 1 Cor 5:1\u20138). The same holds for cults of the goddess of fertility, Astarte, in which male prostitution also was encouraged. In the time of the Roman empire similar aberrations were in vogue, as St Paul laments in his Letter to the Romans (cf. Rom 1:18ff).
\nAs regards homosexuality, the Church continues to describe it as a sin against nature, even though homosexual orientation is a disorder, not a sin; thus, the Church is openly at odds with the opinions of those who regard homosexual activity as normal; it says that such actions violate the order willed by God (cf. the note on Gen 19:4\u20135).<\/p>\n
Moral and religious duties
\n19:1\u201337. The holiness asked of the Israelites is much more than merely ritual holiness. As in 20:26, the exhortation made to them is based on the highest possible reason\u2014the fact that the Lord is holy. The injunction to honour parents, as also the obligation to keep the sabbath and the prohibition on idolatry, are commandments of the Decalogue already spelt out in Exodus 20:3\u20134, 12; 21:15, 17. The rules about peace offerings were covered in Leviticus 7:11\u201315, and the rules to protect the weaker members of society are repeated on a number of occasions (cf. 23:22; Deut 24:19\u201322).
\nVerse 2 (\u201cYou shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy\u201d: cf. also 20:26) and v. 18 (\u201cyou shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord\u201d: cf. also 19:33\u201334) sum up the entire ethic of Leviticus and indeed of the whole Law of God. Jesus himself says this, as reported in Matthew 22:34\u201340 (parallel texts in Mk 12:28\u201331 and Luke 10:25\u201328): \u201cWhen the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. \u2018Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?\u2019 And he said to him, \u2018You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets\u2019 \u201d (Mt 22:34\u201340).<\/p>\n
19:11\u201318. Our Lord refers to the criteria about perjury in his Sermon on the Mount, in which he rejects the prevalent abuse of swearing by holy things such as heaven, earth or the holy city for no good reason (cf. Mt 5:33\u201337). Jesus\u2019 teaching on this point is that all one need do is simply tell the truth, without any oath to back up one\u2019s words. St James reminds Christians of that same teaching (cf. Jas 5:12).
\nThe blind and the deaf (v. 14) are to be respected out of fear of the Lord: any harm done them he regards as done to himself.
\nFraternal correction is a practice which Jesus will put on a higher plane (cf. Mt 18:15f). He does the same for love of neighbour. For one thing, one\u2019s neighbour is not just members of the Jewish people or sojourners in Judea: for Christ everyone we meet is our neighbour, irrespective of his religion or race. And it is not just a matter of loving others as oneself, but of loving them as Christ loved us (cf. Jn 15:12).<\/p>\n
19:13. The social teaching of the Church, which is part of moral theology and is based on Revelation and on reason enlightened by faith, is summed up on the subject of the just wage by the Catechism of the Catholic Church: \u201cA just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice (cf. Lev 19:13; Deut 24:14\u201315; Jas 5:4). In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. \u2018Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good\u2019 (Gaudium et spes, 67). Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages\u201d (no. 2434).<\/p>\n
19:15. \u201cJustice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbour. Justice toward God is called the \u2018virtue of religion\u2019. Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbour. \u2018You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour\u2019 (Lev 19:15)\u201d (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1807).<\/p>\n
19:19\u201337. The regulations about the mating of animals of different species or about sowing with mixed seed or wearing garments of mixed textiles, seem to have been directed against pagan customs involving belief in magic: hence the prohibition. Also, the rules about abuses against slaves stem from circumstances and customs of the time. Behind all these rules and regulations lies respect for one\u2019s neighbour and the need to make atonement to God for offences committed. The criteria given here were designed to prevent the Jews\u2019 being affected by the superstitions and magical practices prevalent at the time. Yet despite this we know from the Bible that there are instances of the Jews\u2019 having recourse to various kinds of magic, such as summoning up the dead (cf. Deut 18:11; Is 19:3; 1 Sam 28:7), marking one\u2019s skin with cuts or tattoos (cf. 1 Kings 18:28; Is 44:5). The reference to making one\u2019s daughter a harlot probably has to do with Canaanite fertility rites and the cult of Astarte.
\nHonouring old people, who deserve respect for their experience (cf. Job 11:12), is a teaching to be found in many passages of the Bible. The book of Proverbs, for example, puts it this way: \u201cA hoary head is a crown of glory\u201d (Prov 16:31).
\nRegard for foreigners who are working away from home is also often instilled by the Bible (cf. Ex 22:20; Deut 10:19; 24:17); these, along with orphans and widows, were under God\u2019s special protection.
\nIn the Gospel we see that Christ has similar concern for the weak and needy, such as children (cf. Mt 9:36; Lk 18:16\u201317) or sinners, whom society looked down on (cf. Mt 9:11; Lk 7:34), or the poor and infirm (cf. Mt 8:2ff; Lk 5:12\u201314; etc.). In his encyclical Solicitudo rei socialis John Paul II says apropos of the option or love of preference for the poor: \u201cThis is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness\u2019 (no. 42).<\/p>\n
Penalties for offences against true worship
\n20:1\u20136. The text refers first to the idolatrous cult of Moloch (cf. 18:21). Here, as in other passages, idolatry is seen as a form of prostitution (cf. 17:7; Hos 1:2; 4:12\u201314; etc.), partly because the ceremonies involved sexual acts (as, for example, in the case of \u201csacred prostitution\u201d) and also because the love of God is seen as a spousal love and therefore to reject it and adore other gods amounted to a form of adultery (cf. Hos 2:4\u201315; 3:1; Deut 13:1\u201319). The punishment extended to the family of the sinner because acts of this type were regarded as tainting close relatives. In later times more emphasis will be put on personal responsibility for sin and its consequences, so the punishment will apply only to the true culprit (cf. Ezek 18). Calling up the spirits of the dead also implied disrespect for God.<\/p>\n
Penalties for moral faults
\n20:7\u201321. Because the Lord is the Holy One, everything to do with the chosen people should also be holy. Holiness lies in keeping his commandments (v. 8). The lifestyle, the morality, of the people of God must be on a higher plane than that of other peoples. Jesus says the same thing, but more clearly and directly: if we love him we will keep his commandments (cf. Jn 14:15). Therefore, someone who keeps his commandments abides in his love, just as Christ keeps the Father\u2019s commands and abides in his love (cf. Jn 15:10).
\nLove for one\u2019s parents is stressed (cf. Ex 21:17; Deut 27:16; Sir 3:11\u201316; Prov 19:26; etc.). Jesus will quote this passage to remind people of the importance of the precept, against some Pharisees who had distorted its application by bringing in new rules (cf. Mt 15:4\u20137).
\nIn many passages of the Bible \u201cneighbour\u201d (v. 10) means a person who belongs to the people of Israel.
\nJohn the Baptist used the rule of v. 21 to accuse Herod Antipas, telling him in no uncertain terms that it was unlawful for him to marry his brother\u2019s wife (cf. Mt 14:4; Mk 6:18).
\nThe penalties imposed for these various offences today seems to be disproportionate and draconian. However, that is not the case if they are set beside other laws and customs of the period: the Code of Hammurabi, for example, imposes heavier penalties. We also need to bear in mind that these penalties were designed to act as a severe deterrent (ancient peoples went in for that style of law).
\nTo be childless (vv. 20\u201321) was regarded as a punishment, because fertility was esteemed as a gift from God (cf. Ps 127).<\/p>\n
20:26. This verse, like 19:2, which we have already commented on, sums up the whole Law. St Cyprian of Carthage, writing from a Christian theological perspective, comments on this passage as follows: \u201c \u2018Be holy because I am holy\u2019: we pray that, sanctified by Baptism, we persevere in what we have begun to be. And we pray for this every day because every day we commit faults and we should be cleansed of our sins by constant sanctification. [\u2026] We have recourse to prayer, therefore, to ensure that this holiness stay in us\u201d (De oratione dominica, 12).<\/p>\n
The holiness of priests
\n21:1\u201322:33. Within the Law of Holiness, chapters 21\u201322 deal with the holiness of priests (chap. 21) and with that of offerings (chap. 22). Once again we can see that the closer a person is to God, the greater the requirement of cleanness and holiness. And more is demanded of the high priest than of other priests.
\nThe high priest was not allowed to perform his ministry if he was in mourning; he could not even be involved in the burial of his father or mother. The reference to hair being ungroomed and clothes rent has to do with burial rites; similarly, when it says that he shall stay in the sanctuary that means that he is not to get involved in funeral ceremonies. As regards marriage, he must choose a virgin\u2014which shows that even in the Old Testament virginity was held in high regard. There is in some sense a recognition that virginity has a sacredness about it, a prelude to being \u201clike angels in heaven\u201d which Jesus speaks about in the Gospel (cf. Mt 19:12 and 22:30).
\nFinally, there are rules which denote respect and concern for divine worship: its dignity and decorum called for, as they still do, special dispositions in ministers\u2014even in their demeanour. The rules about physical defects do not imply disrespect for people with physical disability; they aim, rather, to offer the very best to God, in all senses. Sons of Levi who did have a physical defect were held in high esteem, as can be seen from the fact that they enjoyed the same benefits and advantages as their brethren.<\/p>\n
21:4. \u201cAs a husband\u201d: it is not easy to work out what is meant. The Hebrew text differs from the Greek and Latin versions. Anyway, the point being made is that the high priest has a special position, and extreme ritual cleanness is demanded of him.<\/p>\n
Priests partaking of the sacred meal, Others partaking of the sacred meal
\n22:1\u201316. The sacred nature of the offerings entailed the holiness and purity of those who ate them, whether they were priests or lay people. In the case of priests there is first a general precept and then the text moves on to particular cases (these came up earlier: cf. 13:1ff; 15:2, 16, 18; 21:16\u201323). As regards lay people, even if they were guests of priests they were not to eat food which was offered in sacrifices.<\/p>\n
Victims to be unblemished
\n22:17\u201328. The rule about the age of the animal offered suggests that anything that could not be used as food could not be sacrificed to God either. The rule about not killing the mother and her offspring on the same day seems to be designed to avoid certain idolatrous practices, though some have interpreted it as indicating a kind of respect and compassion towards the animal being sacrificed.
\nThe requirement that victims should be unblemished reminds the Christian of his duty to offer the Lord the \u201cspiritual sacrifice\u201d (cf. 1 Pet 2:5) of work done with human and supernatural perfection. \u201cIt is no good offering to God something that is less perfect than our poor human limitations permit. The work that we offer must be without blemish and it must be done as carefully as possible, even in its smallest details, for God will not accept shoddy workmanship. \u2018You shall not offer anything that has a blemish,\u2019 Holy Scripture warns us, \u2018for it will not be acceptable for you\u2019 (Lev 22:20). For that reason, the work of each one of us, the activities that take up our time and energy, must be an offering worthy of our Creator. It must be operatio Dei, a work of God that is done for God: in short, a task that is complete and faultless\u201d (St Josemar\u00eda Escriv\u00e1, Friends of God, 55).<\/p>\n
Celebration of the sabbath
\n23:1\u20134. Some of the feasts mentioned in this calendar are also to be found in other books (cf. Ex 23:14\u201319; 34:18\u201326; Deut 16:1). It deals first with the sabbath, which becomes the paradigm for all the other feasts, especially as far as rest is concerned. Such importance was given to what could or could not be done on the sabbath that all sorts of absurd and formalistic exaggerations developed. More than once Jesus criticized the severe interpretations devised by the scribes\u2014a complicated and intolerable casuistry (cf. Mt 15:1\u20139; 23:41; Acts 15:10).<\/p>\n
Celebration of the Passover and the feast of the unleavened bread
\n23:5\u20138. The Passover is also dealt with in Exodus 12:1\u201314, 21\u201328 and 13:3\u201310. The first month was called Nisan; earlier on it was called Abib, \u201cspring\u201d or \u201cears (of grain)\u201d. The feast began at sundown. Here it is depicted as a preparation for the feast of the unleavened bread, which began the following day, 15 Nisan, and lasted seven days, during which bread was eaten unleavened. The religious assembly took place on the first day and the last. During these assemblies various sacrifices were offered and a sacred meal took place. We recall that it was during this feast that Jesus instituted the Eucharist, doing so in the context of the Passover supper. And it was during the Passover that Jesus was sacrificed on the altar of the cross. St John tells us that the sacrifice of Christ began at the sixth hour on the day of Preparation, the exact time that the passover lambs were sacrificed. This makes the beginning of a new Passover, in which a new victim is sacrificed, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (cf. Jn 1:29, 36; 19:14).<\/p>\n
Celebration of the first fruits
\n23:9\u201314. The feast of the first fruits, although the date is not a fixed one, is connected with the Passover. In the Jordan valley grain was already ripe for harvest by this time (cf. Num 28:26\u201331). The offering of first fruits is based on the conviction that everything comes from God. In recognition of that divine sovereignty the first sheaf to ripen was offered in sacrifice\u2014a tradition which developed to the point that no one could eat the crop without first making this offering to God. The \u201cmorrow\u201d after the sabbath was thought by some to have been the first sabbath after 14 Nisan. Other scholars think that the sabbath was 15 Nisan and then the offering of the first fruits took place on 16 Nisan. The \u201cmorrow\u201d was the base day for reckoning the start of the feast of Pentecost, seven weeks later. The offering of the first sheaves was accompanied by the sacrifice of a year-old lamb and two tenths of an ephah of flour (cf. the note on Ex 29:38\u201346), that is, approximately 4.2 litres, and a quarter of a hin of wine (approximately one litre or two pints).<\/p>\n
Celebration of the feast of Weeks
\n23:15\u201322. This feast, too, has elements connected with the grain harvest. Later on it became linked with the giving of the Law at Sinai. It was called Pentecost because it came fifty days after the Passover. In Hebrew it was called Aseret, the \u201cgreat convocation\u201d or assembly. Another name for it is the feast of Weeks (a reference to the seven weeks which had passed since the Passover). The offering of the loaves of bread made from the first sheaf expressed thanksgiving and joy for the harvest recently completed. The various sacrifices were also offered as a sign of repentance for sins and as an act of adoration for the greatness of God who had blessed the work of his people.
\nFrom a Christian point of view, it is interesting that it was on the feast of Pentecost that the Holy Spirit came down on the apostles. For one thing, that Pentecost marked the start of a new stage with another Law, a much more perfect one, written not on stones but in the depths of men\u2019s hearts (cf. 2 Cor 3:3). For another, because it also seems significant that it was at the moment when the fruits of the earth were being harvested that the Church should receive the most precious fruit of Christ\u2019s death on the cross, the strength of the Spirit who purifies and sanctifies men with his divine grace.<\/p>\n
Celebration of the New Year, Celebration of the day of atonement, Celebration of the feast of Tabernacles
\n23:23\u201344. In the Bible the number seven had a sacred character, symbolizing in some way the perfection of God. Therefore the seventh month, as also the seventh year, had special significance in Israel. Thus, in the seventh month (in Hebrew, Tishre) three feasts were held. The first was the feast of Trumpets, which took place on the seventh day. It began with the sounding of trumpets; hence its name. Trumpets were also used to greet the appearance of the new moon. These details probably reflect traces of astral cults; however, by becoming incorporated into the liturgy, they became purified and raised to a new plane, to express at different times and different ways a deep feeling of attachment to the Creator of heaven and earth.
\nOn the tenth of the same month the day of atonement was celebrated\u2014Yom Kippur. It was a day of penance and expiation. It began at sundown, with the start of the sabbath rest. The grave penalties imposed for transgressions show the importance this day had, and still has today, in Jewish liturgy.
\nThe other great feast is that of Tabernacles, celebrated over seven days, beginning on 15 Tishre. In the Code of the Covenant it is called the feast of ingathering (cf. Ex 23:16). The last of the harvest was saved around this time, particularly the grape harvest. The feast marked the close of the agricultural year; it was a most joyful feast. It was also regarded as preparation for the new period which would start immediately with the new sowing. Prayers were offered for early rains, which were so crucial to starting the work. This was why the rite of water was so much to the fore. Water was borne in procession from the pool of Siloe and then poured round the altar of the temple. In Jesus\u2019 time a bunch of myrtle and acacia branches (from trees growing on the river bank) was shaken during the procession, thereby invoking the divine blessing of rain. In the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, in the middle of the 5th century BC, huts made from branches of trees were set up on the terraces of houses or in the countryside, and the people camped in them over the days of the feast, in memory of the pilgrimage of the people of Israel in the desert, when they lived in tents. This custom still survives in the Jewish religion.
\nThe Gospel of St John has much to say about this feast and about Jesus\u2019 activity in connexion with it (cf. Jn 7:2ff), including the important revelations our Lord made apropos of its rites: it was on this feast that Jesus proclaimed that from his heart rivers of living water would flow, a reference to \u201cthe Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive\u201d (Jn 7:39).<\/p>\n
Rules about lighting the sanctuary
\n24:1\u20134. The seven-branch lampstand, the menor\u00e1h, was located in the Holy, in front of the curtain or veil which divided off the Holy of Holies in the temple. Exodus 25:31\u201340, also, describes the features of this candelabra. Here detailed instructions are given to ensure that it always stayed lit; it was a sign of Israel\u2019s unceasing adoration of God.<\/p>\n
Rules about the offertory bread
\n24:5\u20139. The offertory bread is also dealt with in Exodus (25:23\u201330). These loaves, replaced each week, became a symbol of Israel\u2019s permanent offering to God. Some grains of incense were placed on top of the loaves; the incense was later burned on the altar of holocaust, whereas the bread was eaten by the priests in a holy place. In 1 Samuel 21:1\u20137 we find an exception to this rule. Ahimelech the priest gave the loaves to David and his men, on condition that they were ritually clean. Our Lord used that incident to reject the rigorism of Pharisees who accused Christ\u2019s disciples of not keeping the sabbath (cf. Mt 12:4).<\/p>\n
Rules for blasphemy
\n24:10\u201316. Blasphemy was punishable by death because it was a grave sin. The case recounted here is of a proselyte, that is, the son of a pagan father and a Hebrew mother. The implication is that blasphemy was inconceivable on the lips of a Hebrew. This makes it easier to understand the malice involved in accusing Jesus of blasphemy (cf. Jn 10:33; 19:7); the same charge was laid against St Stephen (cf. Acts 7:51\u201358).<\/p>\n
The law of retaliation
\n24:17\u201323. This passage stipulates penalties for various offences, already included in the Code of the Covenant of Exodus 21. They apply to both Israelites and foreigners in Israel, and they evidence a higher ethic than that of other cultures of the time.
\nOn the law of retaliation, see the note on Dt 19:21.<\/p>\n
Rules about the sabbatical year
\n25:1\u20137. Here we can see concern for the conservation of land, trying to ensure that short-term productivity is not obtained at the cost of deterioration in the long term. It is always made clear that the earth is a gift from God: therefore, God\u2019s sovereignty over the land has to be periodically acknowledged. This is the primary reason for these rules about allowing the land to lie fallow.
\n23:10\u201311 also talks about the sabbatical year, but here there is reference to additional reasons for it, to do with the welfare of the under-privileged. These rules did not all have to be put into effect at the same time, because that might have created a huge problem of generalized idleness. In the book of Maccabees, for example, there are references to difficulties that arose at that time due to one sabbatical year (cf. 1 Mac 6:49).<\/p>\n
Rules about the jubilee year
\n25:8\u201322. Here again the number seven, by being applied to the calendar, creates a special situation. Now we have seven weeks of years, that is a run of forty-nine years; and this leads to the following year, the fiftieth, being a jubilee year. The rules about letting the land lie fallow are applied to the jubilee year; special clauses are added, such as that to do with the redemption of property. So, in the jubilee year, land acquired had to be returned to its original owner. This custom meant that what in fact was sold was the usufruct of the land and its price would be a function of the number of years\u2019 use the buyer was getting.
\nAgain, underlying this is the idea that the land is a divine gift which ought always to revert to those to whom the Lord originally granted it. Even so, these regulations were not obeyed very well. Thus, we find the prophets vigorously denouncing the way some people built up land holdings to the detriment of others. The basic reason for their complaint was not just a fine sense of social justice but the fact that God\u2019s rules were being violated (cf. Is 5:8; Mic 2:2).
\nVerses 14\u201315 here are [as in the Spanish edition, which is also in line with most modern vernacular translations] divided differently from the New Vulgate division.
\nVerses 18\u201322 round off the previous passage and introduce what follows. They remind people about the promises God makes to those who are faithful to his commandments, and they are meant to encourage those who might be tempted to think that God will not look after them if they have to face three years without harvest (the sabbatical year, the jubilee year and the year after it, at the end of which a harvest would be reaped). A provident God will ensure that those who stay true to him will experience no want.<\/p>\n
Rules about redeeming landed property
\n25:23\u201334. Keeping the rules about letting the land lie fallow and about its redemption gave rise to further consequences. The basic idea being stressed is that the land is a gift from God and therefore it must not be sold outright. So, the seller will always have the option to redeem the ownership of land which he sold and which his family had received from the Lord. If that seller could not afford to recover the property by paying back the price he sold it for, he could have a near relative help him to do so. That helper is called a goel, \u201cdeliverer, redeemer\u201d; the word occurs often in the Old Testament; sometimes it is used for an \u201cavenger of blood\u201d (cf. Num 35:19), sometimes for a man who raises up offspring for his dead brother by marrying his widow (cf. Ruth 3:13; 4:1\u201310), or someone who liberates a slave (cf. Lev 25:47). In this sense of \u201cdeliverer\u201d the word goel is also applied to God, because he delivered his people from bondage (cf. Ex 6:6; Deut 5:15; Is 41:14).
\nWhere the property sold is a house, the conditions for redemption vary, depending on whether it is in a walled town or in the countryside. In the case of a dwelling house belonging to a Levite, the right of redemption endures for ever. The reason for this is that Levites\u2019 houses are, in a special way, the sacred property of God which he has granted to his priests and Levites; the same applies to the fields adjoining these in some way sacred properties.<\/p>\n
Rules about loans, Rules about slaves
\n25:35\u201355. If God takes an interest in the earth, he takes much more interest in those who live on it, especially if they are descendants of Abraham. This is why special criteria apply to the children of Israel. They must not be charged any interest on loans, nor should they be treated as no better than slaves. At the very least an Israelite should be a day labourer, and in a jubilee year he must be relieved of any debt or charge. The episode recounted by Nehemiah about the favourable treatment given to impoverished Israelites shows how these rules were put into practice (cf. Neh 5:1\u201311); cf. also Ex 22:26 and Deut 23:20\u201321. The Code of the Covenant even lays down that an Israelite has to be set free from serfdom after six years\u2019 indenture (cf. Ex 21:1\u20136). Also, Deuteronomy 15:13\u201314 specifies that a liberated slave has to be given certain goods, to ensure he is able to survive. The duty to help a brother in need is a further indication that temporal goods have a social purpose. \u201cIf anyone has the world\u2019s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God\u2019s love abide in him?\u201d (1 Jn 3:17). The Fathers of the Church were very specific about the proper attitudes of the haves to the have-nots: \u201cIt is not part of your property,\u201d St Ambrose says, \u201cthat you are giving to the poor person; what you give him belongs to him. For what has been given for the use of everyone, you have appropriated to yourself. The earth has been given to everyone, not just to the well-to-do\u201d (St Ambrose, De Nabuthae historia, 12, 53). In other words, no one has an unconditional and absolute right to private property. There is no justification for keeping for oneself something one does not need if other people lack the basics for living (cf. Paul VI, Populorum progressio, 23).
\nIt is permissible for strangers to be enslaved, and there is no requirement that they be set free in a jubilee year. However, if an Israelite fell into the hands of a sojourner who became wealthy in the land of Israel, it was possible for him to be redeemed at any time, and when a jubilee came round he had to be set free. The reason for this always lies in God\u2019s sovereignty over his people. Because all Israelites belong to him, no one is allowed to own an Israelite in perpetuity. However, it must be admitted that these just criteria were often a dead letter. When that happened, the prophets protested and threatened punishment to make people take the Lord\u2019s laws to heart (cf. Jer 32:7; Ezek 46:17).<\/p>\n
Blessings for observing the Law
\n26:1\u201346. This is really the concluding chapter of Leviticus, though there is a further chapter (27) by way of appendix. The present chapter is an exhortation encouraging the fulfilment of all the rules and regulations laid down; it promises blessings on those who are faithful to God\u2019s will and threatens punishment on those who fail to obey his laws. It is reminiscent of the end of the Code of the Covenant (in Ex 23:20\u201323); and we find a similar passage in Deuteronomy 28. All these texts are reminders that God\u2019s justice will apply to each according to his deeds. This same truth is taught in the New Testament, albeit in different ways. Thus, in addition to the reference to the last judgment (cf. Mt 25:31\u201346) it speaks of the book of life (cf. Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12) in which are written the names of the elect, because the consequences of what man does during his earthly life will follow him beyond the grave (cf. Rev 14:13).
\nThe promises are prefaced by verses about idolatry which repeat the second commandment; and there are many other passages in the Pentateuch which repeat the same teaching (cf. Ex 20:4; Deut 5:8; etc.). It was essential to hammer home this point because the polytheism and idolatry of neighbouring peoples were always a temptation for Israel.<\/p>\n
26:12. Throughout the Bible one finds a crescendo which runs from the goods and circumstances of this life to those of eternal beatitude. In this verse we can see once again this gradual raising of sights. In his masterpiece, The City of God, St Augustine, taking his cue from this very passage, puts it this way: \u201cPerfect peace will reign [in heaven], since nothing in ourselves or in any others could disturb the peace. The promised reward of virtue will be the best and the greatest of all possible prizes\u2014the very Giver of virtue Himself, for that is what the Prophet meant: \u2018I will be your God and you shall be my people.\u2019 [\u2026] He will be the consummation of all our desiring\u2014the object of our unending vision, of our unlessening love, of our unwearying praise. And in this gift of vision, this response of love, this paean of praise, all alike will share, as all will share in everlasting life\u201d (De civitate Dei, 22, 30).<\/p>\n
Curses for disobedience
\n26:14\u201346. The punishments are not listed in any particular order, which makes it difficult to see any penalty \u201cstructure\u201d. Many, if not all, aspects of life can be affected by the wrath of God. So, the land will become unproductive, health will be undermined even unto death, implacable and cruel enemies will beset the people, hunger will force people even to eat the flesh of their children. In this connexion we cannot but remember Flavius Josephus\u2019 description of the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD which led to the destruction of the temple. One of the horrors he reported was of a woman so crazed by hunger that she ate her own son (cf. Josephus, De bello Iudaico, 7, 8).
\nBut the people will admit their sins, confess their faults, and realize they have deserved those terrible punishments; and the Lord, once again, will have compassion on them, remembering the Covenant he made with the three great patriarchs\u2014Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX<\/p>\n
The discharge of vows, Evaluation of an animal offered to the Lord, Evaluation of landed property offered to the Lord, Compensation for the redemption of persons, Rules about tithing
\n27:1\u201334. This chapter is an appendix which rounds off all the laws and regulations that have gone before it; it focuses mainly on vows (vv. 1\u201329) and on the question of tithes (vv. 30\u201334).
\nA vow could be made to consecrate to God a person over whom one had authority\u2014as, for example, the vow Hannah made to dedicate Samuel to God (1 Sam 1:24\u201328).
\n27:16. A \u201chomer\u201d meant literally an ass\u2019 burden but it was also used as a measure of grain (cf. Ezek 45:13; Hos 13:2), the equivalent of 210 litres (46 gallons).
\n27:28\u201329. \u201cDevoting something to the Lord\u201d, as the RSV puts it, translates the Hebrew j\u00e9rem, which means \u201cseparating something off for the Lord\u2019s exclusive use\u201d. When applied to war, it involved destroying all booty in honour of God; this had the effect of making Israel less keen to invade weak peoples purely for the purpose of enriching itself at the expense of those it defeated (cf. the notes on Ex 22:18\u201331; Num 21:3; Deut 2:24\u201327).
\nThe Jerusalem Bible translates the RSV\u2019s \u201cdevoted\u201d as \u201claid under ban\u201d. When applied to divine worship this \u201cban\u201d or \u201canathema\u201d means an offering made because of a vow; once offered, the thing can no longer be used to one\u2019s own advantage (vv. 21\u201328) because it is a very holy thing. In the sphere of judicial sanctions, \u201claid under ban\u201d applies to every condemned wrongdoer (and in biblical law to be condemned means to be sentenced to death). Therefore, a person condemned to death was \u201claid under law\u201d and could not be used as a slave or put to forced labour. The prescription in v. 29 helped lessen any desire to accuse or condemn one\u2019s neighbour in order to benefit the community or its leaders. All these rules contained imperfections which became very clear in the light of the New Testament\u2019s precept of love of God and neighbour.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
LEVITICUS Introduction The Jewish name for this book (as for all Old Testament books) is taken from the first word in the text\u2014Wayiqr\u00e1 (= \u201cAnd he called\u201d, from \u201cAnd the Lord called Moses\u201d). It is a name which fits in nicely with the content: when the people of Israel were in the desert, the Lord … <\/p>\n