Leviticus
Leviticus is a highly theological book. It contains the core of the priestly ritual material of the Pentateuch and, in fact, the entire OT. The regulations themselves are often specific and detailed, being tied to the very fabric of personal and communal life in ancient Israel, but always from a markedly priestly point of view. Leviticus is filled with various kinds of regulations that carry theological impact for the OT as well for the NT on many different levels (e.g., holiness, purity, sacrificial atonement, forgiveness, etc.).
Many have observed that all the major sections of OT law begin with altar laws. The solitary altar law in Exod 20:22-26 stands at the front of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 21-23); Lev 17 stands at the beginning of the Holiness Code (Lev 17-25; ch. 26 is the covenantal curses and blessings section, and a comparison of 26:46 with 27:34 suggests that ch. 27 is an appendix) and limits wilderness slaughter to the tabernacle altar; and the central sanctuary and altar regulations in Deut 12 introduce the core of the deut. laws (i.e., Deut 12-26; see Kaufman, 106, and the literature cited there). Since Exod 25-40 (excluding ch. 32-34, the golden calf incident) focus on the construction of the tabernacle, including altars, one can also claim that altar legislation precedes the priestly tabernacle legislation that extends from Exod 25- Lev 16.
Furthermore, these same collections of laws each conclude with ritual worship legislation. The regulations of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20-23) conclude with the cultic worship for Sabbaths (23:10-13), the three main festivals (vv. 14-17), and the offering of the firstfruits to the Lord (vv. 18-19; vv. 20-33 exhort the people to faithfulness, but are not truly legislative in character). The Priestly Code (Exod 25- Lev 16) ends with the holy convocation that was most important to the overall purification of the tabernacle—the annual Day of Atonement (Lev 16). The Holiness Code proper (Lev 17-25) concludes with a catalogue of regulations for all the major Sabbaths and festivals that were to be observed in order to preserve the holiness of the people and the land (Lev 23-25). Finally, Deut 12-26 ends with regulations for a firstfruit festival (26:1-11) and the third-year tithe festival (vv. 12-15; cf. 14:28-29).
These and other points of interest suggest that the major concern of all the canonical collections of law in the OT was above all else faithful worship of the Lord, the only God of Israel. The book of Leviticus, in particular, focuses on the system of tabernacle worship and the associated concern for community holiness and purity. Its central theological concern is the presence of God in the midst of Israel (Wenham, 16-18; Hartley, lxiii-lxiv; for the relationship between the higher critical approaches to the book and its theology see the section on Literary Structure, below).
A. Historical Context
1. From the beginning of his ministry Moses had relied on the promise of God's presence and help (Exod 3:12, the Lord said to Moses “I will be with you”), and this was the essential purpose of the tabernacle according to God's command to Moses: “Have them (the Israelites) make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them” (25:8). The Lord's plan was actually to dwell in a visual way in their midst (cf. the same later regarding the temple, 2 Sam 7:1-2, 5-7, 13; 1 Kgs 8:27). One might say that the Lord God made himself literally, tangibly, even “physically,” present in the tabernacle even though no such place could contain him (cf. 1 Kgs 8:13, “I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever,” with 8:27, “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!”).
The golden calf incident (Exod 32-34) separates the instruction from the fulfillment sections of the tabernacle building account (ch. 25-31 and 35-39, respectively). In the midst of that incident the Lord said to Moses, “I will send an angel before you” (33:2), for the Lord reasoned that if he himself went with them he would surely destroy them on the way (v. 3). Moses responded, “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here. How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?” (33:15-16). The Lord responded to Moses’ plea by agreeing to continue his personal presence with them (v. 17).
2. This promise of presence is the background for the final chapter of Exod, where Moses set up and prepared the tabernacle for the Lord (Exod 40:1-33), which led directly to his habitation there in the form of the cloud of his glory with fire in it by night (40:34-38; cf. the theophany on Mount Sinai, 19:16-25; 20:18-21; and the cloud by day and fire by night even on the way to Sinai, 13:21-22). A second expanded description of the cloud and its function in leading Israel through the wilderness appears in Num 9:15-23. These two descriptions of the glory cloud and fire form an envelope around the tabernacle-related ritual and communal legislation in Lev 1:1- Num 9:14.
The literary and theological significance of this overall structure is threefold. (a) The only mention of the appearance of the glory of the Lord to the people between Exod 40 and Num 9 is Lev 9:23 (cf. v. 6). In that context, “the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people,” and “fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar” (9:23-24). (b) The only place between Exod 40 and Num 9 where the text explicitly states that the cloud of the glory of the Lord appears is Lev 16:2, where the Lord explains, “I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover.” (c) The death of Nadab and Abihu in 10:1-2 occurred sometime during the same day the Lord manifested his glory to all the people as recorded in Lev 9 (see esp. 9:1, 23-24), but before the expected eating of the sacrificial meat of the sin offering by the priests on that same day (cf. 10:16-19 with 9:15, and the more detailed discussion of this catastrophe in the article “Clean and Unclean: Theology”). Just as fire had come out from the presence of the Lord and consumed the altar offerings in 9:23-24, a few verses later “fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD” (10:2). Moreover, 16:1-2 refers back to the 10:1-2 catastrophe as the context and basis for the careful regulation of the Day of Atonement.
Thus, the death of Nadab and Abihu provided an opportunity for the Lord to state the basic principles underlying priestly theology and, therefore, summarize the primary theological concerns of the book of Leviticus (see Theological Themes, sec. 1). All of these concerns reflect primarily upon the fact that the Lord was dwelling in the midst of Israel. He was present there in the tabernacle, manifesting his glory in cloud and fire.
B. Literary Structure
1. The overall structure of Leviticus. Leviticus divides naturally into two major sections, Lev 1-16 and 17-27. The first section deals primarily with consecrating and cleansing the tabernacle itself; the second section, while still concerned with the holiness and purity of the tabernacle, broadens the focus to encompass the whole land and the people at large. One might say that the shift is from tabernacle holiness and purity to national holiness and purity.
This distinction between the world of the tabernacle and the everyday national life of common Israelites should not, however, lead one to conclude that the two were not closely connected throughout Israel's history (contra the proposal of Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 225-30). On the contrary, one of the main features of the Lord's proposal of covenant to the nation, upon their arrival at Sinai, was that Israel would become “a kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6). They were consecrated as such in the ritual of 24:3-8. The consecrating blood of the sacrificial animal was applied to the whole congregation. “Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, ‘This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words’” (24:8). For the priests the blood was applied to the right earlobe, thumb, and big toe of the priests (29:20-21; µl,v&,, peace offering, H8968, for a complete explanation of this connection between 24:8 and 29:20-21). In relation to the book of Leviticus, the national priesthood of all the people corresponds to the need for national holiness and purity as outlined in Lev 17-27. The family of Aaronic priests, however, had charge of the tabernacle and, therefore, the responsibility to make sure that neither they nor the people (individually or as a whole) violated the holiness and purity of the tabernacle as outlined in Lev 1-16.
A careful theological analysis of the book of Leviticus will relate the categories of holiness and purity (i.e., holy and common versus unclean and clean, see Theological Themes, sec. 1) to both the tabernacle itself and the nation as a whole. Similarly, atonement applies to both and, in fact, is especially emphasized at the point of transition in the book (i.e., Lev 16, the Day of Atonement), thus once again focusing on the primary concern for the presence of God in the tabernacle in the midst of the Israelite community. The internal literary and theological structure of the book, therefore, features these three main topics: atonement, tabernacle holiness and purity, and national holiness and purity.
2. Leviticus 16 as the literary and theological center. Although structurally Lev 16 is the conclusion to the first major section of the book (i.e., Lev 1-16, see below), it also functions as the theological center of the book and binds the two halves together. On the Day of Atonement the holiness and purity of both the tabernacle and the nation were in view (Milgrom, 51; see Wright for a full analysis of the “disposal of impurity” in ancient Israel). There were actually five offerings on that day: the two blood atonement sin offerings for the priests and the people (16:3, 5, and esp. vv. 11-19), the single scapegoat sin offering for the whole congregation (including the priests and the people, 16:20-22) and, finally, the two burnt offerings for the priests and the people (16:23-24). All of these offerings are specifically said to have made atonement (vv. 6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34).
The sin offering blood atonement rituals for the priests and for the people cleansed and (re)consecrated the tabernacle from the impurities of the people (16:11-19; note esp. ha;m]fu, impurity, uncleanness, in vv. 16 and 19; cf. 5:3; 7:20-21; 14:19; 15:3, 19-25, 30-31; 18:19; 22:3, 5). The scapegoat ritual, which was a different kind of sin offering, but a sin offering nevertheless (16:5, 7-10, 20-22; rp'K;, H4105) also made a kind of atonement (v. 10). But in this case the atonement facilitated the removal of all the iniquities of all the people of the nation by sending them away from the tabernacle and the nation on the head of the goat into the wilderness (16:20-22; note esp. vv. 21-22 and the term ˆwO[;, iniquity, sometimes translated wickedness, guilt, or punishment, in 5:1, 17; 7:18; 10:17; and esp. 17:16; 18:25; 19:8; 20:17, 19; 22:16; 26:39-43).
Thus, the sin offering rituals on the Day of Atonement cleansed not only the tabernacle (Lev 16:32-33, referring to the blood rituals in 16:11-19) but also all the people (16:29-31, referring to the scapegoat ritual in 16:20-22).
3. Leviticus 1-7 and the offerings. The tabernacle holiness and purity regulations in Lev 1-16 fall into two main subsections, ch. 1-7 and 8-16. The latter describes occasions on which the offerings described in the former were applied. Thus, ch. 1-7 consists of detailed regulations for the basic sacrificial procedures (see the general summaries in Wenham, 25-29; Hartley, lxvii-lxxii; Milgrom, 49-51; Offerings and Sacrifices: Theology; for more detailed remarks hl;[o, burnt offering, H6592 [1:3-17 with 6:8-13 (1-6) and 7:8]; hj;n“mi, gift, grain offering, H4966 [2:1-16 with 6:14-23 (7-16) and 7:9-10]; µl,v&,, peace offering, H8968 [3:1-17 and 7:11-34]; taF;j', sin offering, H2633 [4:1- 5:13 and 6:24-30 (17-23)]; and µv;a;, guilt offering, H871 [5:14- 6:7 (5:14-26) and 7:1-7]). Lev 1:1 a links these sacrificial regulations in ch. 1-7 back to the erection and occupation of the tabernacle recounted in Exod 40: “The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting” (Lev 1:1 a). The presence of the Lord is not only the primary theological concern of Leviticus but also the motivating force and the occasion of the book.
The structural indicators in Lev 1-7 are helpful. Lev 7:35-36 is the conclusion to the priestly dues regulations in 6:8- 7:34 [6:1- 7:34], and 7:37-38 seals off the whole section that extends from 1:1 through 7:38. This results in two major divisions in ch. 1-7: the descriptions of rituals in 1:1- 6:7 [5:26] (see above), and the regulations for the disposition of the sacrificial portions to the priests and the people in 6:8 [6:1]- 7:34. Breaking this down further, Moses is introduced 4x in Lev 1:1- 6:7 [5:26]: (a) 1:1 a, “The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting”; (b) 4:1, “The LORD said to Moses”; (c) 5:14, “The LORD said to Moses”; and (d) 6:1 [5:20], “The LORD said to Moses” (for the details of structure here hl;[o, burnt offering, H6592; taF;j', sin offering, H2633; µv;a;, guilt offering, H871; and the article Offerings and Sacrifices, secs. 12-13). Each of these introductions constitutes a literary break within the Lev 1-7 unit on one level or another.
4. Leviticus 8-16 and the tabernacle. In light of the reference to the ordination offering in 7:37 it seems that Lev 1-7 was placed at the beginning of the book at least in part as necessary background to the narratives of ordination and inauguration of the tabernacle and priesthood in Lev 8 and 9. Lev 8:1-2 opens this section of the book with the Lord's command to Moses that he consecrate the tabernacle and priesthood. Lev 9 is the inauguration of the tabernacle, which ends with the fire from the Lord consuming the sacrifices (9:22-24) as well as Nadab and Abihu (10:1-2; see Historical Context, above). Lev 16 returns to the Nadab and Abihu incident (vv. 1-2) as the basis of the legislation for the annual Day of Atonement, the purpose of which was to purify, consecrate, and inaugurate the tabernacle, priesthood, and congregation for the next year.
It is esp. important to recognize the connection between the original inauguration of the tabernacle in Lev 9 and the annual renewal of the tabernacle system on the Day of Atonement in ch. 16. There are significant differences between these two chapters (e.g., the scapegoat in ch. 16 but not ch. 9 and, conversely, the peace offerings in ch. 9 but not in ch. 16), but in both cases the focus is clearly on the tabernacle itself, and there are both sin offerings and burnt offerings for both the priests and the people (cf. 9:7-17 with 16:5-19, 24). The ordination procedures in ch. 8 prepared the priesthood for their work in the tabernacle on behalf of the congregation at large in ch. 9-16.
We cannot deal with the details here (Clean and Unclean: Theology), but Lev 11-15 represents a hiatus in the progress of the narrative framework of ch. 8-16. In itself it is a coherent unit of regulations focusing almost exclusively on the problems of holiness, purity, and atonement (cf. 10:10, 17) and their importance for the community, and especially the tabernacle presence of God (15:31, “You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them”). These three themes—holiness, purity, and atonement—are the core theological categories in Leviticus (see Literary Structure, sec. 4; Theological Themes, sec. 1).
In the ANE world it was common for people to struggle with the fear of unseen supernatural malefic forces (e.g., witchcraft, demons, vitriolic gods, etc.), which might break out against them in the form of disease or other misfortunes in life, especially if a person should violate some sort of taboo. Some scholars would argue that such concerns were also central to the ritual system of Israel in the OT. Although it is true that the people could have been influenced by magical conceptions of things in their cultural context (see e.g., Levine, 1974, 63-91, esp. 77-78 for a convenient summary of his view), nevertheless, the OT itself lends no credence to such fears. Instead, the only real danger is that the people of Israel might defile the sanctuary of God so that he himself might break out against them (e.g., 10:1-2) or abandon the sanctuary altogether (e.g., Ezek 8-11; see Milgrom, 42-44, 47 for this antimagical view of the levitical system). Lev 15:31 emphasizes this point.
The emphasis on physical purity and impurity has troubled many readers of the OT. As we have already observed, it is important to recognize that, in the OT, God made himself visually, one might say even physically present with Israel by inhabiting the tabernacle in the form of the glory cloud (see above, esp. the discussion of Exod 40:34-38; Lev 9:22-24; 16:1-2; Num 9:15-23). This place of visible physical presence was precisely the focus of the priestly worldview and the theology with which the book of Leviticus is so closely identified. The physical purity laws correspond to the physical presence of the Lord in the tabernacle.
On the level of offerings and sacrifices, according to Heb 9:13, “The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean” (lit. for the cleansing of the flesh). To put it simply, the OT sacrifices cleansed on the level of the physical flesh of the ancient Israelites, corresponding to the visual (i.e., physical) presence of God in their midst (tabernacle). The next verse says: “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!” (9:14). The sacrifice of Christ cleanses the conscience, corresponding to the presence of the Holy Spirit in our midst, spiritually (see the details in Clean and Unclean: Theology, sec. 2; Offerings and Sacrifices: Theology, secs. 14-16).
It was in fact, the holiness of the people that the Lord was primarily concerned with in the clean and unclean animal laws (see Budd for a brief review of scholarship on this subject and Houston for a recent full monograph). It is here that we find the first canonical occurrence of the slogan “Be holy, because I am holy” (Lev 11:44-45). Holiness in Israel began with the sanctification of the tabernacle and the priests (see esp. 8:10-15, 30; 10:3, 12-13, 17-18; 16:19, 24), but it extended to all the people and the whole nation, which is the primary concern of the so-called “Holiness Code” (i.e., ch. 17-27; see esp. the connection of 11:44-45 with 20:22-26 and next sec.). The priestly conception of things embraces all of creation and its relationship to Israel as a nation with the Lord dwelling in its midst (Gorman). Within the nation as a place of God's presence there was a graduated spectrum of holiness that extended from the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle to the community outside the tabernacle complex (Jenson). It included not only the spatial dimension but also the personal dimension (from the priests to the Levites to the people), the sacrificial dimension (from holy to most holy offerings), and the temporal dimension (from the weekly Sabbath to the annual festival holy days).
5. Leviticus 17-27 and national holiness and purity. The conclusion of Lev 16 in v. 34 and the reintroduction of Moses again in 17:1 signal another structural break, this time a major one. The structure and thematic development of ch. 17-26 (the second major section of the book, called the Holiness Code since Klostermann in the late nineteenth century, abbrev. H) is more difficult to discern than that of ch. 1-16 (ch. 27 is an appendix). The literary and theological relationship between these two sections of the book is likewise complicated (see the brief summary of critical scholarship regarding ch. 17-26 in Knohl, 1995, 1-6; the survey in Offerings and Sacrifices: Theology, secs. 10-11, and the next few paragraphs here).
Wellhausen stated plainly, “the collection of laws embraced in Lev xvii-xxvi, it is well known, has merely been redacted and incorporated by the author of the Priestly Code, and originally was an independent corpus marking the transition from Deuteronomy to the Priestly Code, sometimes approximating more to the one, and at other times to the other” (Wellhausen, 86 n. 1). Furthermore, “the fact that the last edition of the Law of Holiness proceeds from the Priestly Code, is universally acknowledged” (ibid., 379), and “the criticism of Lev xvii seq. leads us to the result, that a collection of laws which took form during the period of the exile was received into the Priestly Code, and there clothed with fresh life” (ibid., 384). Thus, according to Wellhausen, “H constitutes an intermediate stage between the J, E, and D sources and the P source; thus, it still contains some of the spirit of popular ritual worship, but it also shows signs of the Priestly conception that was to reach its full consolidation in the creation of P” (Knohl, 1995, 4).
As popular as Wellhausen's theory concerning P and H has been among late nineteenth- and twentieth-century critical scholars, there have been those who have observed that at least substantial elements of the ritual customs of P were known in the ANE already in the second millennium BC (see Weinfeld). Certain scholars have used this data to support an earlier (i.e., preexilic) date for P, which, in turn, creates major problems for the dating of H in the exilic or early postexilic period and its historical priority over P. Among such scholars there have been two general tendencies or proposals in regard to P (see Knohl, 1995, 4-6). One group of scholars has treated H as essentially part of P, not a distinct source. Others have argued that P and H were distinct sources, both of which were written by the priests who were a social elite that had little contact with or impact upon the common people.
Most recently, Knohl has proposed another solution. He views H and P as two totally distinct priestly sources that were produced by two separate priestly schools: the P school that produced the Priestly Torah (PT), and the H school (HS) that produced the Holiness Code. However, he reverses the order of composition, suggesting that H school was responsible for the final editing and shaping of the Pentateuch. In terms of their theology: “The PT philosophy is focused on the priestly views of belief and ritual, and on differentiating them from the beliefs and ritual of the masses, while the HS attempts to interweave and blend the priestly elements of belief and ritual with popular traditions and customs” (ibid., 6-7). Thus, he ends up with a bifurcation between the strictly priestly worldview of Lev 1-16 (i.e., PT) and the more socially integrated world view of Lev 17-26 (i.e., HS).
Knohl goes so far as to argue, against Milgrom, that “PT perceives a total separation between the ethical realm and the cultic” and, in fact, asserts that “the legal system promulgated in Moses’ time does not include a single command whose exclusive concern is the maintenance of morality and social justice” (ibid., 226). His conclusion is that the prophetic point of view emphasized morality and social justice in contradiction to PT, which emphasized the cultic command to the exclusion of the ethical and moral concerns of the prophets. “Only with the appearance of the later Priestly school, the ‘Holiness School,’ do we find the interpenetration of ethical and cultic considerations” (ibid., 229-30).
This is not the place to summarize, analyze, and critique Knohl's position in every detail. In general, what we have in the shift from Lev 1-16 to Lev 17-27 is not so much a matter of a change in topic as it is a shift in perspective (on the relationship of ch. 27 to ch. 17-26, see next sec.). Lev 17-27 offers another look at cultic procedures from the larger perspective of the community and nation as a whole. These distinctive viewpoints, however, are not theologically contradictory but rather complementary. Moreover, they need not be historically sequential, but could survive and indeed thrive side by side contemporaneously. It would have been natural for the priests to view the tabernacle from the inside out, but in order to connect the tabernacle to the people they would also need to be able to view it from the outside in, which would have been the natural viewpoint of the common people. Essentially, this is the distinction between Lev 1-16 and Lev 17-27, respectively. As Milgrom puts it, although there are striking differences between P and H (Milgrom, 48-49), nevertheless, by and large P and H “form a single continuum: H articulates and develops what is incipient and even latent in P” (ibid., 42).
For example, although Lev 17-27 still make reference to the holy offerings, here they are viewed from the perspective of how the priests, their families, and the rest of the people of Israel should handle the offerings at communal feasts (ch. 22), or the relationship between that which has been consecrated as holy and the community at large (ch. 27). Similarly, this section of the book still refers to the tabernacle, but it does so from the larger perspective of the effect that reverence for the tabernacle presence of God should have on the entire nation whether traveling through the wilderness (ch. 17) or after settling in the Promised Land (see esp. 19:30; 20:3; 26:2).
6. National holiness and purity in regard to tabernacle worship (Lev 17). As far as the structure of the book is concerned, Lev 17 is problematic because it has strong connections to both Lev 1-16 and 18-27. On the one hand, like ch. 27, it does not use the standard formulas that are so characteristic of the Holiness Code proper, ch. 18-26 (see Theological Themes, sec. 3). Also, ch. 17 is concerned with the relationship between the tabernacle and the people while traveling through the wilderness, whereas ch. 18-27 shifts the focus to their occupation of the land. These features suggest that ch. 17 should be treated separately from ch. 18-27.
On the other hand, the compliance formula in Lev 21:24 (“So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites”) seems to conclude a subsection that is introduced with the very same terminology in 17:2 (“Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites”). Moreover, the primary goal of the regulations in ch. 17 was to reinforce one of the major concerns of the Holiness Code: the absolute exclusivity of Yahweh worship. By demanding that all domestic animals killed for food be brought to the tabernacle as peace offerings to the Lord (v. 5), ch. 17 removed even the opportunity to engage in what it terms (spiritual) “prostitution” (v. 7), at least while they were on their way to the Promised Land. The same term is used in the Holiness Code proper (i.e., ch. 18-26) for Molech worship and recourse to mediums and spiritists, which would become a potential danger especially after they had occupied the land of Canaan, where such practices were common (20:5-6; cf. 18:21; 19:31; 20:27).
It is especially significant that, although Lev 1-16 surely assumes that worship in Israel should be exclusively Yahwistic, the first expressed prohibition against idolatry in Lev is that in ch. 17. This corresponds to the first element of the summary in 26:1, “Do not make idols....” In ch. 17-27 national cultic fidelity is not assumed but, instead, legislated and emphasized. This is part of the broader nationalistic perspective of the Holiness Code as it relates to the presence of the Lord in the tabernacle in the midst of the nation.
7. National holiness and purity in the land (Lev 18-20). The nationalistic emphasis continues into Lev 18-20, which is set off as a distinct unit by the correspondence between the introduction in 18:1-5 and the conclusion in 20:22-26. In 18:2-3 the Lord instructed Moses: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.” Lev 20:23-26 concludes in a similar vein: “You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.... I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations.... You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own” (recall here our previous remarks on the clean and unclean animal laws in v. 25).
Thus, Lev 18-20 especially exhorts the Israelite nation to adhere to holiness and purity standards that would distinguish them from all the nations with which they have had or will have contact, including the Egyptians and the Canaanites. Lev 18:4-5 and 20:22-24 refer to the intervening statutes and ordinances, which, if they followed them, would separate them from the other nations. In this section the danger of defiling the tabernacle (20:3, cf. 15:31) is extended to include the danger of defiling the land (18:24-30), and the danger of profaning the name of the Lord by swearing a false oath (19:12) is extended to profaning one's daughter by “making her a prostitute” (19:29).
At first glance Lev 20:27 appears to be out of place but, on closer examination, one can see that it helps to create an envelope around the case laws in 20:9-21 (cf. 20:6-8 and 20:22-27 as beginning and ending sections). These framing passages themselves are arranged chiastically: the prohibition against mediums and spiritists (vv. 6 and 27), variations of the holiness formula (vv. 7 and 25-26), and the references to statutes (and judgments; vv. 8 and 22-24). While structurally these framing passages encapsulate the case laws in 20:9-21, theologically they once again emphasize the importance of national holiness. It is possible that one should add 20:1-5 to the chiasm and use it to connect ch. 20 to ch. 21-22, where the focus once again shifts back to the sanctuary itself (cf. 20:3).
8. National sanctuary holiness and purity in the land (Lev 21-22). In 20:7-8 the Lord says through Moses: “Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God.... I am the LORD, who makes you holy.” Similar variations of the holiness formula echo throughout ch. 21-22 (see esp. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16) until it concludes with another reference to the entire nation as a holy nation, sanctified by the Lord himself: “I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the LORD, who makes you holy and who brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the LORD” (22:32-33; cf. Exod 19:6 a, “you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”). However, the other references here refer not to the sanctity of the nation at large but, instead, to the sanctity of the priests (21:8, 15), the various precincts of the tabernacle (21:24), and the sacred offerings (this is probably the best interpretation of the pl. “them” in 22:9, 16).
Once again, however, though the focus here shifts back to the tabernacle, nevertheless, the tabernacle itself is seen from the perspective of contact with the surrounding community and nation. A priest or high priest could defile and profane both himself and the name of his God by wrong kinds of contact or involvement with the community (21:1-15). A defective priest could profane the holy precincts (21:16-23). A defiled priest or a common person could profane the holy gifts (22:1-16). Finally, the common people of the holy nation could profane the name of the Lord by mishandling their portions of the various kinds of peace offerings (22:17-31). The latter shows that at least one element of holiness crosses the boundary between ch. 18-20 and 21-22, namely, the emphasis upon the sanctity of the name of the Lord God that appears in every chapter (18:21; 19:12; 20:3; 21:6; and 22:32).
9. National sabbatical observance in the land (Lev 23-27). The concern for the name of God continues into the next subsection, where the primary focus shifts from sanctuary to sabbatical holiness in Israel. Lev 24:10-23 raises the question of what to do if someone in Israel “blasphemed the Name with a curse” (v. 11; “the Name” is a euphemism here for the name “Yahweh”). The judicial resolution of this case (vv. 13-16, 23) provides the occasion for a textual expansion to include legislation for the judicial resolution of other cases of death and injury in ancient Israel (vv. 17-22; cf. Exod 21:23-25).
The legislative expansion here and, in fact, in a significant number of the other statutes and ordinances elsewhere in the Holiness Code is similar to some parts of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 21-23). Speaking in general terms, these parallels seem to suggest that the Holiness Code is the way in which the kind of law we find in the Book of the Covenant looks when seen from the perspective of holiness rather than legal process. After all, it seems that Moses received the Book of the Covenant from the Lord before there was a tabernacle. The Holiness Code may have been the Lord's way of showing how all this looks from the perspective of his personal presence as the God who dwelt in their midst in the tabernacle.
The term holy is used extensively to refer to the sabbatical regulations in Lev 23 and 25. Legislation about the weekly Sabbath and yearly festivals begins in ch. 23; the regulations about the sabbatical and Jubilee Year in ch. 25 conclude the sabbatical legislation. In the midst of this legislation is Lev 24, which emphasizes the daily (vv. 1-4) and weekly (vv. 5-9; see “Sabbath” in v. 8) presence of the Lord in the tabernacle and, in light of that, the importance of treating both the Name of the Lord (vv. 10-16, 23) and his people (vv. 17-22) with due respect (see above). The concern for the Sabbaths is, however, not limited to ch. 23-25. In ch. 19 the command to observe the Sabbath comes almost immediately after the holiness formula (v. 2), just after the command to revere one's mother and father (v. 3). In the same chapter it is paired with reverence for the sanctuary as one of the major concerns for holiness in ancient Israel: “Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD” (Lev 19:30).
The introduction to the concluding chapter of the Holiness Code uses the same wording as Lev 19:30 to summarize two of the major theological concerns in this section of the book: “Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD” (26:2). From a literary point of view as well as from the perspective of its focus on the sabbatical and Jubilee Year, Lev 25 flows directly into ch. 26. There is no division. In fact, near the end of ch. 26 the rationale behind the future exile is given in sabbatical terms: “For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its Sabbaths while it lies desolate without them” (26:43; cf. vv. 34-39).
Lev 25 ends with the Lord's claim on the nation as his servants because he himself had delivered them out of their Egyptian slavery and they belong to him alone: “They are my servants (i.e., slaves), whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God” (v. 55 b). The Lord uses the Egyptian deliverance motif once again at the end of ch. 26 when he emphasizes his future fidelity and permanent commitment to the nation in spite of their rebellious nature: “for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the LORD” (26:45). In both 25:55 and 26:45 the recollection of the deliverance from Egypt leads to the Holiness Code formula, “I am the LORD (your God).” Therefore, the overall point of ch. 17-26 seems to be that the nation of Israel had been delivered from Egypt to become a holy nation devoted completely to the exclusive worship and service of the only true God, Yahweh, who was personally present in the tabernacle in their midst.
Finally, Lev 27 is normally treated as an appendix to the book (cf. 26:46 with 27:34). Although it too focuses on matters related to holiness, it does not use the standard “I am the LORD (your God)” formula found in ch. 18-26. Instead, it is a collection of regulations concerning the consecration and redemption of vows and votive offerings (27:1-14), freewill offerings (27:15-25), firstborn animals (27:26-27), devoted things (27:28-29), and tithes (27:30-33). In a sense, however, it relates to the laws in ch. 17-26 like the laws in 6:8- 7:36 relate to those in 1:1- 6:7; that is, it is concerned with the disposition of sancta once they have been consecrated (cf. also 22:17-29).
C. Theological Themes
1. The threefold theological core of Leviticus. In Lev 10:3 Moses explains the Lord's action against Nadab and Abihu, “This is what the LORD spoke of when he said: ‘Among those who approach me I will show myself holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honored.’” There are two categories of people referred to here: “those who approach” the Lord (i.e., the priests) and “all the people.” In one way or another the Lord will show his holiness so that he might be honored among the people. In this instance, he accomplished that goal by striking out against Aaron's two sons who had not paid due attention to the requirements of holiness as they “approached” the Lord and “offered (lit., brought near) strange fire before the LORD” (10:1).
The Lord emphasized the importance of this lesson when he spoke directly to Aaron (not Moses) in Lev 10:9-11 and instructed him and his sons to: (a) avoid “fermented drink” when approaching the Lord lest they die in his presence (v. 9; the point seems to be that this might cloud their minds and cause a similar disaster), (b) “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” (v. 10; cf. Ezek 22:26; 44:23), and (c) “teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses” (Lev 10:11). To understand the core theology of the book of Leviticus requires a clear grasp of the two polarities in v. 10 (i.e., holy versus common and unclean versus clean), which are the primary concern of the decrees of the Lord in this context (v. 11; for useful summaries see Hartley, lvi-lxiii; Wenham, 18-25; Milgrom, 43-49). Lev 10:17 adds another essential element to this theological core: “atonement.” Moses highlighted this when he spoke to Aaron: “Why didn't you eat the sin offering in the sanctuary area? It is most holy; it was given to you to take away the guilt of the community by making atonement for them before the LORD.”
Holy versus common (v. 10 a) is concerned with the status of a person, place, or thing. Clean versus unclean (v. 10 b) is a matter of their condition whatever their status might be (i.e., holy or common). There has been a tendency among some scholars to allow these dual categories to fall together and lose their distinctiveness (see, e.g., the thesis that “holiness summoned Israel to cleanness ... holiness requires purity,” Gammie, 195 and throughout this otherwise fine monograph). It is, indeed, true that holiness and uncleanness were to be kept apart, but uncleanness is not the opposite of holiness. According to 10:10, “holy” is opposite “common” and “unclean” is opposite “clean” (see the fuller discussion in the article, Clean and Unclean: Theology, sec. 5).
Atonement (v. 17; the Eng. word comes from archaic Eng. “at-one-ment,” suggesting reconciliation and agreement) is the primary focus of sacrificial procedures for dealing with violations of boundaries or with transitions between the categories of holy and common or clean and unclean (for a full discussion see rp'K;, H4105). With regard to clean versus unclean, the making of atonement was required for cleansing irregular or severe uncleanness (e.g., Lev 12:6-8, the woman after childbirth; 14:18-20, the leper; and 15:13-15, 25-30, irregular discharges from male and female genitalia). With regard to holy versus common, atonement was required in consecration procedures for sanctifying persons, places, or things to make them holy (e.g., 8:15, 34, the tabernacle and the priests). Finally, atonement brings forgiveness for violating the Lord's decrees (10:11; cf. 4:20, 26, 31; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7 [5:23], etc.), whether they have to do with any of the Lord's commandments (4:2, 13) or, specifically, matters of clean versus unclean (5:2-3) or violation of the boundaries of holiness (5:15-16).
These, then, are the three core theological concepts in the book of Leviticus: holiness, purity, and atonement. The many and sometimes complicated regulations associated with this theology of consecration, purification, and atonement are treated in other articles (esp. amef;, unclean, H3237; rhef;, clean, H3197; rp'K;, make atonement, H4105; taF;j', sin offering, H2633; µv;a;, guilt offering, H871; and the articles on Clean and Unclean: Theology and Offerings and Sacrifices: Theology). The following discussion is limited to the way these concepts and their associated regulations lend theological substance and shape to the book of Leviticus as a whole.
2. It has already been observed that, from a literary point of view, the rules for burnt, grain, and peace (fellowship) offerings in Lev 1-3 form a unified whole, separate from the sin and guilt offering regulations in 4:1- 5:13 and 5:14- 6:7 [5:26], respectively, which are in turn separate from one another (i.e., the sin and guilt offering sections are separated by the introduction of Moses in 5:14; see Literary Structure, sec. 5). The significance of the first literary break is that it reflects the historical reality that outside the tabernacle the burnt offerings and peace offerings (along with the grain and drink offerings that normally came with them) constituted a system of ritual worship used by the faithful at solitary Yahwistic altars throughout the land (see, e.g., Gen 12:7-8; 22:2, 9; Exod 24:4-8; Deut 27:5-8; Judg 6:25-27; cf. the references and discussion in Offerings and Sacrifices: Theology secs. 8-9).
These offerings were, or course, incorporated into the tabernacle system of worship from the previously existing solitary altar system. As a gift to the Lord, the acceptable burnt offering had the same effect in relation to God as Jacob's gifts to Esau in Gen 32:20 [21]—it caused him to look with favor on the worshiper (see rP,Ki, make atonement, in both Lev 1:4 and Gen 32:20 [21]). The peace offering was more concerned with communion between the Lord and his worshipers and among the worshipers themselves. The offering of the fat parts to the Lord while distributing the meat to people and priests for their consumption lends a distinct sense of community and fellowship to this offering that is not expressed in the burnt offering ritual. Both of these offerings together, along with their complementary grain and drink offerings (cf. Lev 2; Num 15:1-16), constituted the foundation of the tabernacle system of offerings and sacrifices (see Offerings and Sacrifices: Theology, secs. 3-4).
Because of the general atoning effect of blood (Lev 17:11), the manipulation of the blood of burnt and peace offerings became closely associated with the blood atonement, which was the special focus of the sin and guilt offerings (Lev 4:1- 6:7 [5:26]). Thus, for example, according to Exod 29:33 the ordination offering, which was a kind of peace offering for the priests, had the effect of making atonement (cf. Lev 1:4 and 16:24 for the burnt offering; cf. hl;[o, burnt offering, H6592; µl,v&,, peace offering, H8968, for more thorough treatment of the issues introduced here).
Of course, the sanctuary system of sacrificial worship required additional offerings and sacrifices, esp. the sin and guilt offerings (Lev 4:1- 6:7). The primary reason for these additions to the system was that the sanctuary was more than an altar through which one could approach and commune with the God of heaven. It was to be a place of God's perpetual residence (i.e., God's house or tent, see above). One could have an altar and altar worship without a sanctuary (see j'Bez“mi, altar, H4640), but this stands quite apart from the essentials of proper maintenance of the presence of the Lord, which was the primary focus of the tabernacle ritual procedures (Knohl, 152; Milgrom, 176).
The fact that the Lord actually resided in the tabernacle or temple sanctuary required that special attention be paid to maintaining the sanctity and purity of his presence there. As we have already observed, distinguishing “between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” was central to the priestly responsibilities in the tabernacle (Lev 10:10, see above). The break between the sin offering section (4:1- 5:13; recall the second introduction of Moses in 4:1) and the guilt offering section (5:14- 6:7 [5:26]; recall the third introduction of Moses in 5:14) corresponds roughly to the twofold dichotomy in 10:10.
As for the sin offering, Lev 15:31 warns: “You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.” Lev 16 follows immediately with its multiple sin offerings for the purification and reconsecration of the tabernacle (rp'K;, H4105). Thus, sin offering blood atonement focused primarily on the concern to purify the tabernacle and altar (i.e., make them clean versus unclean), but, in the meantime, it could also (re)consecrate the tabernacle and altar (i.e., make them holy versus common; see, e.g., 16:19 for this combination of purification and consecration of the altar by the blood of sin offerings). The manner of the manipulation of blood in ch. 16 and elsewhere shows the cleansing intent of the blood ritual in the case of the sin offering (taF;j', sin offering, H2633). It dealt with the boundary between clean and unclean.
The guilt offering, however, was concerned primarily with the need to deal with problems of desecration caused by transgressing the boundary between the holy and the common, not clean and unclean (cf. Lev 10:10 a, cited above, and µv;a;, guilt offering, H871). The new introduction of Moses in 6:1 [5:20] splits the guilt offering pericope into two sections. The details have been treated elsewhere (µv;a;, guilt offering, H871; taF;j', sin offering, H2633), but it is esp. important to emphasize here that 5:1-6 and 6:1-7 [5:20-26] link these issues of tabernacle purification and consecration by sacrificial atonement with the moral and judicial concerns and practices of the community at large. The holiness and purity of the tabernacle was intimately connected to community holiness and purity (see the discussion of ch. 17-27 below).
3. The clean and unclean animal laws that threatened to uphold the “wall of partition” between Jews and Gentiles in NT days (see Leviticus in the NT, below) actually provide one of the primary links between Lev 1-16 and 17-27 and their theological emphases. According to 20:25-26, “You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds ... those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.” There are absolutely no specific clean and unclean animal laws in ch. 17-20. Instead, 20:25-26 assumes ch. 11 and, in this way, the clean and unclean animal serve to link ch. 1-16 and 17-27 together in spite of the obvious separation and differences between them.
From the perspective of holiness, both Lev 11 and 20 connect the clean and unclean animal laws with the holiness formula (e.g., “be holy, because I am holy,” 11:45), but they make the connection in two different ways. Lev 11 focuses simply on the matter of physical contact with unclean animals (11:44-45). But in the Lev 20 context the expression “You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy” refers to the intended effect clean and unclean animal laws should have upon setting Israel “apart from the nations” around them (see the citation of 20:25-26 above; cf. 19:2; 21:8). This setting apart of Israel from the other nations was God's intention from the very start of their national existence as “a kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (see Exod 19:6).
There is an obvious literary connection between the holiness formula just mentioned and the “I am the LORD (your God)” formula, which occurs frequently in Lev 18-26 (see 18:2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 30; 19:3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37; 20:7, 8, 24; 21:8, 12, 15, 23; 22:2, 3, 8, 9, 16, 30, 31, 32, 33; 23:22, 43; 24:22; 25:17, 38, 55; 26:1, 2, 13, 44, 45; cf. 11:44, 45). Both formulas begin with “I am” and 20:7, for example, combines them: “Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God.” In its various contexts this “I am the LORD (your God)” formula emphasizes the importance of exclusive worship and obedience to Yahweh because he is truly the Lord. It is with Yahweh as their God and their lawgiver that Israel must concern itself.
4. Sex-related purity laws (Sexual Ordinances: Theology) were of special interest in Lev 1-16 (see esp. chs. 12 and 15), but in that case the concern was to avoid personal physical impurity lest someone defile the tabernacle. Lev 18 and 20 regulate marriage, sexual relationships, and childbearing on another level. The broad nationalistic point of view results in the concern that violation of these laws would eventually defile the land (not just the tabernacle), which would then “spew them out” (18:24-30). Lev 20:10-21 lays out the judicial means of dealing with violations of these same sexual prohibitions in Israel. As far as idolatry is concerned, 18:21 and 20:1-5 specifically prohibit them from “prostituting themselves to Molech” (20:5). The reason for focusing on this particular form of idolatry in chs. 18 and 20 is its direct relationship to sexual fertility, the bearing of children. The nation must not profane the name of the Lord (18:21; 20:3) and thereby defile the sanctuary in their midst (20:3) by offering their children to Molech. Lev 20:6 leads directly from Molech worship to another form of prostitution, namely, turning to mediums and spiritists.
It is interesting that the law against cursing father or mother stands at the front of the list of casuistic laws in Lev 20:9-21. Lev 19 begins with “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (19:2 b) and then goes on to list various kinds of statutes and ordinances (19:37) that would affect Israel's national holiness and purity. The first command is: “Each of you must respect his mother and father” (19:3 a). In this case, the following set of laws is quite diverse and the especially frequent occurrence of the “I am the LORD (your God)” formula is probably due to the need to set each unit off from its neighbors (vv. 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37). We cannot deal with all the details here, but the overall effect of placing Lev 19 between chs. 18 and 20 is to broaden the holiness and purity concerns even further to include all levels of relationship in Israel, not just sex and the family. Holiness in Israel was to have its effect in all walks of life and for everyone who lived there, not just one's family and Israelite neighbors (note esp. vv. 17-18) but even strangers and aliens in the land (vv. 33-34). The presence of the holy Lord in their midst demanded a kind of lifestyle that set this nation apart from other nations (see Gammie's development of this theme in the priestly, prophetic, and sapiential writings of the OT).
5. The word “covenant” occurs 10x in the book of Lev, 8x in Lev 26 (vv. 9, 15, 25, 42 [3x], 44, 45; cf. only elsewhere at 2:13 and 24:8). Form critically, ch. 26 fits “the pattern of most ancient covenants from the Middle East” (i.e., the blessings and curses; Hartley, lxvi; Wenham, 29-32), and it fleshes out the covenant relationship between God and Israel primarily in terms of their keeping of the Sabbaths, specifically the sabbaths of the land (25:1-17), as well as their adherence to the other statues and ordinances outlined in ch. 18-25 (cf. 18:4-5 with 26:2-3; see below). According to 26:43, “For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees.” In the two surrounding verses (vv. 42 and 44) the word “covenant” occurs 5x out of the total of 10x in the entire book of Lev, referring first to the Abrahamic covenant and then to the Mosaic covenant, respectively. These covenants are presented as the underlying reason for the Lord's continued faithfulness to Israel in spite of her lack of faithfulness to the Lord. According to 26:44 b God will not give up on Israel no matter how much they test his grace: “When they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the LORD their God.”
6. The conclusion to the Holiness Code proper is Lev 26, which contains the blessings for covenant obedience and curses for covenant disobedience. Israel was to have no other gods; the Lord alone was their God. This, in fact, would also have the effect of distinguishing Israel from the other nations who worshiped and served other gods (e.g., Molech; cf. 18:21 and 20:1-5). One legitimate way of looking at the Holiness Code is, therefore, to view it from the perspective of the summary in 26:1-2, “Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD.” Once again, both of these introductory verses end with the formula, “I am the LORD (your God).” There are three categories of concern here: (a) national fidelity to the Lord (i.e., no idolatry and distinctively pure and holy community life, ch. 17-20; cf. 26:1), (b) national sanctuary and sancta reverence (ch. 21-22; cf. 26:2 b), and (c) national Sabbath observance (ch. 23-25; cf. 26:2 a). Overall, the theology of the book of Leviticus focuses on the presence of God in the tabernacle, but that presence was to affect everyone and everything in ancient Israel.
D. Leviticus in the New Testament
There is an important contrast between the OT physical purity laws associated with the physical presence of the Lord in the tabernacle (see Historical Context, sec. 1, and Literary Structure, sec. 4) as opposed to the NT view of the presence of God in the church. The presence of the Lord in the NT church is connected to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17), the concept of the temple where God dwells can be applied metaphorically to the corporate body of believers (1 Cor 3:16-17) or individuals (6:19-20), and our cleansings are the cleansings of our “hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). The presence of God in and amidst us is by nature a particularly spiritual presence (cf. John 4:24, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” in its context). Of course, this does not mean that the Lord was present in ancient Israel in only a visible physical sense. Where he is physically present, he is also spiritually present and, for example, concerned not only about physical circumcision (Gen 17:9-14) but also the circumcision of the heart (Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; cf. Rom 2:26-29). Only the latter could transform his people into those who would love the Lord with all their heart and soul (Deut 30:6 b).
Conversely, the Holy Spirit's presence of the Lord in the NT church corporately and in the life of the individual Christian is most certainly to have physical manifestations in terms of moral character (1 Cor 6:18-20) and service to the Lord (3:16-17). This, however, is not the same as the physical clean and unclean laws in Lev 11-15. In fact, the wall of partition that such laws naturally raised between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down in the church age precisely because the church is made up of both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:11-22, esp. vv. 15 and 18; see also Acts 15:5, 9, 19-21, 28-29). Peter's vision of the sheet coming down out of heaven in Acts 10:10-16 illustrates the special place that the clean and unclean animal regulations of Lev 11 had in separating the Jews from the Gentiles in the OT context and would otherwise have continued to have in NT days (cf. the conflict between Peter and Paul over this matter in Gal 2; see Clean and Unclean: Theology, sec. 7 for the principles underlying Lev 11).
Bibliography P. J. Budd, “Holiness and Cult,” The World of Ancient Israel, 1989, 275-98; J. G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel, OBT, 1989; F. H. Gorman, Jr., The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology, JSOTSup 91, 1990; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC, 1992; W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in the Biblical Law, JSOTSup 140, 1993; P. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOTSup 106, 1992; S. A. Kaufman, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” MAARAV 1/2, 1978-1979, 105-58; I. Knohl, “Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship Between Prayer and Temple Cult,” JBL 115, 1996, 17-30; idem, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, 1995; B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 1974; idem, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary, 1989; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991; H. T. C. Sun, “Holiness Code,” ABD, 1992, 3:254-57; M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” Proceedings of the Eight World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1983, 95-129; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 1878, ET 1885; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979; D. P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, SBLDS 101, 1987.
Richard E. Averbeck
Sumber: NIDOTE
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar