Leviticus: A Pastoral and Contextual Commentary

Series Preface

In recent years, we have witnessed one of the greatest shifts in the history of world Christianity. It used to be that the majority of Christians lived in the West, but Christians are now evenly distributed around the globe. This shift has implications for the task of interpreting the Bible from within our respective contexts, which is in line with the growing realization that every theology is contextual. The questions that we bring into our reading of the Bible will be shaped by our present realities as well as our historical and social locations. There is a need therefore to interpret the Bible for our own contexts.

The Asia Bible Commentary (ABC) series addresses this need. In line with the mission of the Asia Theological Association Publications, we have gathered Asian evangelical Bible scholars to write commentaries on each book of the Bible. The mission is to produce resources that are biblical, pastoral, contextual, missional, and prophetic for pastors, Christian leaders, cross-cultural workers, and students in Asia. Although the Bible can be studied for different reasons, we believe that it is given primarily for the edification of the Body of Christ (2 Tim 3:16–17). The ABC series is designed to help pastors in their sermon preparation, cell group or lay leaders in their Bible study groups, and those training in seminaries or Bible schools.

Each commentary begins with an introduction that provides general information about the book’s author and original context, summarizes the main message or theme of the book, and outlines its potential relevance to a particular Asian context. The introduction is followed by an exposition that combines exegesis and application. Here, we seek to speak to and empower Christians in Asia by using our own stories, parables, poems, and other cultural resources as we expound the Bible.

The Bible is actually Asian in that it comes from ancient West Asia, and there are many similarities between the world of the Bible and traditional Asian cultures. But there are also many differences that we need to explore in some depth. That is why the commentaries also include articles or topics in which we bring specific issues in Asian church, social, and religious contexts into dialogue with relevant issues in the Bible. We do not seek to resolve every tension that emerges but rather to allow the text to illumine the context and vice versa.

May the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writers of the Bible, bring light to the hearts and minds of all who use these materials, to the glory of God and to the building up of the churches!

Federico G. Villanueva

General Editor

Author’s Preface

My interest in the book of Leviticus began during my PhD studies at Durham University (2011–2013) in England. I was working on Chronicles and discovered that I needed to examine priestly practice in Leviticus before I could effectively explain what the Chronicler had done. Looking at the priestly rituals through anthropologic and symbolic lenses, I found that they are not as boring as people assume. I discovered that the Asian context does not always view ritual as something important, and this in some sense downplays the importance of Leviticus in Asian churches. My prayer is that Leviticus can be well accepted by the believing communities in Asia as well as the world and that people will see how this book is relevant to the life of Christians.

Writing this commentary would have been impossible without the help of colleagues and family. I would like to give thanks to Alliance Bible Seminary, which has supported and encouraged me in finishing it. I feel honored to have been able to play a part in the Asia Bible Commentary series. Federico Villanueva and Bubbles Lactaoen have played an important role in guiding, editing, and encouraging me as one of the writers. I am also grateful to Prof. Walter Moberly for his supervision during my MA degree at Durham University and for his well-crafted endorsement to this commentary. I would also like to thank Prof. David W. Pao for offering his sincere endorsement and Prof. Mary W. Tse for her kind introduction to this commentary. I have enjoyed working with Langham and am grateful for their professional editorial service and funding.

God’s faithfulness has been the constant source of uplifting in this project. God encouraged me during my tears and worries, gave me many surprises during my struggles and conflicts, listened to my prayers and responded in his own way. God showed mercy when I investigated the ritual world of Leviticus and helped me to re-experience the salvation of Jesus Christ through the symbolism of the priestly world. This commentary could not have been finished without God’s unending and unfailing love.

My deepest gratitude goes to the members of my family: my wife, Yuk Lin Ma, and my daughter, Yan Yuet Ko. I thank my wife for taking care of the whole family, for her love, patience, and continual encouragement to me and my daughter. My daughter is a constant source of happiness, and she always has many ideas to make me laugh. They remind me that God’s love is not an abstract idea but is fully integrated into every aspect of my life.

This commentary aims to situate the book of Leviticus in the Asian context, especially in greater China and in Chinese believing communities. Within this context, Leviticus is earnestly needed to address issues such as sexual disorder and social justice. This book proclaims a holistic worldview and meaning of life, so that people will not lapse into reductionism and mechanical manipulation. Economic growth is one of the most important concerns in this region, but this will endanger our life insofar as people regard one another as instrumental. This book rejects the objectification of life and provides a full sense of meaning to any individual. I pray that God will speak to us through Leviticus and shape the believing communities to be a faithful witness to the distorted world of Asia.

Ming Him Ko

Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies

Alliance Bible Seminary, Hong Kong

List of Abbreviations

Introduction

Asian Christians generally do not like liturgy. We are a goal-oriented people who thrive on busyness. We focus on the outcome or result of our work instead of enjoying the process of achieving the goal. We think that money and power are the ultimate achievements in life, and so non-productive practices, such as liturgy or ritual, seem extremely unattractive. This is probably the reason a book like Leviticus, with its long and repetitive descriptions of complex sacrificial procedures, seems boring in the eyes of Chinese Christians.

The economy of China has increasingly become more significant in the global economy. This remarkable economic achievement carries with it the very real risk that money and power will be identified as the only things that give life meaning. This reductionism downplays the significance of other aspects of life, and so precisely at this point, we need liturgy and ritual symbolism. The complex rituals in Leviticus reject a reductionist sense of life, reflecting the fullness of life in terms of the offering of gifts and the leading of a well-ordered lifestyle that is pleasing to the Lord. These theological underpinnings for the performance of sacrifices transform the ritual from a dead rite without any spirit into a fruitful sermon that conveys the fullest sense of life according to God’s will.

The purpose of this commentary is to explain the theology and symbolism of the priestly traditions[1] in Leviticus for Christian life in the Asian context, so that the biblical ritual world is not peripheral to our worldview, but rather important to our theology. The priestly ritual world proclaims the full value of life, rejects the objectification of human life into a mere money-earning machine, promotes divine lordship over the environment and animals, and requires holiness and purity in our moral decisions. This full sense of life comes from the central concept of Leviticus 19:2: Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. I will explain this holiness concept in this introduction and the commentary.

Priestly Ritual and the Created Order

Many, such as the Communists in China, do not regard the world as created but as merely the product of natural evolution. Thus any sort of so-called order should only be explained by natural phenomena or social interaction, not by any divine superimposition. Therefore, the order that communists would like to maintain is political, social, and economic security in terms of their own interests. This, in effect, reduces multi-dimensional values into mere economic growth and social stability, downplaying other values, such as environmental protection and the upholding of virtue, human rights, marital fidelity, and love. The ritual worldview in the book of Leviticus generates a symbolism that enables us to live with life-celebrating values in relationship to the divine created order.

Symbolic Approach

In this commentary, I would like to interpret the ritual world in Leviticus by exploring the symbolic meaning of each ritual act that communicates theological meanings in the Israelite culture.[2] Human beings conceptualize the world through a cluster of symbols. Each person inherits a symbolic system that is contextually defined, and this system contains a cluster of symbols that point to different concepts and ideas.[3] A study of a symbolic system assists us in interpreting the priestly ritual world. Although the biblical text tells us the symbolic meaning of some ritual acts (e.g., the daubing of blood symbolizes purification and sanctification in Lev 8:15), the text does not elucidate the symbolic meaning of most ritual acts. We can only interpret the text through the insights from cultural anthropology, in which the symbolic approach could help us locate the theological meanings in the priestly symbolism.

Created Order and Its Symbolization

Christians claim that this world is created and has not merely evolved. This means that the created order is imposed by a divine hand. Of course, human beings are continually creating culture, economy, politics, society, and customs in this world. But when we add together all these social, political, and economic dimensions, the result can only reflect certain aspects of our society. When Christians see this world as having a created order, this means that we consider other dimensions, especially the theological one that directs us. In this regard, priestly rituals aim to symbolize the created order to help worshipers see their place in this world.

When worshipers wish to recognize their place in the world, they have to know how the created order came to exist. Separate/set apart (badal) is a keyword in Leviticus and Genesis, which determines the relationship between priestly ritual and the created order. When God created the world, he separated many things: (1) he separated the light from the darkness (Gen 1:4); (2) he made a vault to separate the water under the vault from the water above it (Gen 1:7); (3) he made lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night (Gen 1:14) and to separate light from darkness (Gen 1:18).

God made a distinction between light and darkness, day and night, and water from water. The divine separation created boundaries or divisions in the former chaotic world, and this in effect imposed an order into creation. Frank H. Gorman offers a helpful comment regarding this:

Inherent in such a conceptualization of creation is the idea that the order of creation was brought about through the separation and classification of the basic elements of creation. Order is brought about through divisions, separations, and distinctions between one element and another. It is only as these lines of demarcation, or boundaries, are established that order is realized. If true, it means that these divisions must be recognized and maintained if the created order is to continue to exist and not collapse into confusion and chaos.[4]

This order was established by God when he separated things in Genesis 1, and it marks the foundational creation theology in priestly traditions (i.e., the worldview of the priests within the ancient Israelite community). In Leviticus, the word separate appears in numerous places: (1) [S]o that you [i.e., Aaron, priests] can distinguish [separate] between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean (Lev 10:10); (2) You [i.e., Israelites] must distinguish [separate] between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten (Lev 11:47); (3) I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart [separate] from the nations. You must therefore make a distinction [separate] between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground – those that I have set apart [separate] as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart [separate] from the nations to be my own (Lev 20:24–26).

As can be seen, the author uses the word separate in various ways. First, the main occupation of Aaron and the priests is to separate the holy and the common, the clean and the unclean and to maintain clear boundaries between these categories[5] so that the order can exist without lapsing into chaos. The concepts of separate, boundary, and order match the concerns of the creation theology outlined in Genesis. Thus when priests symbolically separate the world into these four categories and create boundaries, they are creating a worldview that reflects a creation theology. In addition, Leviticus 11:47 and 20:24–26 require Israelites to symbolize their diet by using clean and unclean categories so that they can be properly distinguished from all other nations as God’s own people, thereby maintaining an ordered relationship between Israelites and other nations. Therefore, the priestly rituals and dietary categories create a cluster of symbolic acts and habits that help to maintain a part of the created order. The priestly ritual system is a kind of enactment of the world in the context of creation theology. In this regard, Frank H. Gorman provides a helpful insight in defining ritual as a composite performance of symbolic acts with an aim to regulate the social order.[6] The sacrificial system not only helps to symbolize and maintain social order, but the structuring of time and calendar, the compartmentalization of spaces and geography, and the organization of proper moral decisions also provide a symbolic system that governs the life of Israelites. Jenson also explains the holiness spectrum in terms of the dimensions of space, time, person, and ritual in the priestly theology.[7] Therefore, we can conclude that priestly rituals are a collection of symbolic and communicative acts that provide complex meanings of life by symbolizing the created order, so that the culture can maintain social order through enduring symbolic remembrances.

This symbolic system rejects the reduction of life into economic and political dimensions, extending the full value of life into the maintenance of the created order. When some people, such as Chinese communists, live without this system, the boundaries and order in society will collapse into chaos, and the social order cannot be rebuilt simply through economic power and political stability. Therefore, in humanity’s constant search for the meaning of life, Christians must inherit the legacy of the priestly creation theology in order to proclaim to the materialistic world that the universe is created, not merely evolved.

Holiness, Purity, and Divine Presence

If we look for our meaning of life in economic, political, and social spheres, we will look in vain because a materialistic lifestyle only fulfills the basic needs of human beings and cannot connect us to the divine reality. As explained in the previous section, the Christian worldview sees an intrinsic linkage between the divine reality and the created order. Priestly rituals aim to symbolize this worldview by maintaining boundaries between various spaces, times, and persons in order to avoid confusion and chaos. However, the concepts of divine presence, holiness, and purity are crucial to this symbolization. We will explain these concepts in this commentary.

Divine Presence

The divine presence in the Israelite community constitutes the main precondition for the sacred order, reflecting the holiness of God inside the sanctuary and ensuring the bestowing of divine blessings. If Israelites wish to obtain divine blessings and stability, they must avoid any pollution and impurity in the tabernacle in order to provide a clean place for the divine presence. The order of Israel’s life can only be maintained when the Lord is in the midst of the community.

The term before the Lord (lifne YHWH) is key in Leviticus. Jacob Milgrom thinks that this term is spatially equivalent to at the entrance to the tent of meeting (Lev 1:3), which is the outer half of the Tabernacle court between the entrance to the enclosure and the altar.[8] Although this term entails a spatial dimension, we should not diminish the theology behind it, which assumes the presence of the Lord within the realm of the Holy of Holies. Thus whenever Israelites come to offer their gifts, they are performing the ritual before the presence of the Lord. If the tabernacle does not assume the divine presence, all the rites would be in vain, and the Israelites would not be able to maintain the stability and order of the community.[9]

In order to assure the divine presence in the tabernacle, the Israelites have to be absolutely clear about the concepts of holiness and purity in establishing appropriate boundaries and classifying categories in terms of space, time, and person. I will briefly explain these concepts here.

Holiness Spectrum

Philip Peter Jenson explains the holiness spectrum with four biblical terms from Leviticus 10:10: holy (qodesh), profane (hol), clean (tahor), and unclean (tame’). These four terms can be classified into two opposed pairs: holy and profane, clean and unclean.[10] The holy-profane pair denotes the divine realm and the human realm. The divine realm must be holy and clean. The human realm may be clean or unclean, but the unclean must not be holy. The divine presence of the holy God must match with the holy sanctuary, which is completely clean, and this overlapping view is crucial in the priestly ritual system.[11]

We can look at the complex relationships through this diagram:[12]

God is holy in the divine realm and can be present in the clean human sphere. The profane represents a human sphere, and this sphere can either be clean or unclean. The unclean human sphere is separate from and does not overlap with the divine realm. The Israelites must keep the tabernacle clean (or pure) as a precondition for the divine holy presence because, as Jonathan Klawans argues, any sacrificial system assumes ritual purity as a precondition.[13] How should we construe the concept of purity?

Ritual Impurity and Moral Impurity

In the priestly worldview, impurity can be divided into two categories, namely ritual impurity and moral impurity.[14] Ritual impurity refers to non-moral pollution that poses a threat to the sanctuary as the dwelling place of God and assumes the symbolism of completeness. For example, All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you (Lev 11:20). They are impure (or unclean) because we cannot be sure whether these flying insects are completely in the category of sky or in the category of land, since they contain both wings and four legs. To give another example, anyone who has skin diseases (e.g., shiny spot, rash, etc.) should be regarded as impure (Lev 13 and 14), because their skin does not completely belong to one category. However, if the disease has covered their whole body, he shall pronounce them clean. Since it has all turned white, they are clean (Lev 13:13). This means that the skin is completely white, which fulfills the principle of completeness and thus should be regarded as pure. In this way, ritual purity has nothing to do with moral purity, but rather marks the ability to symbolize the concept of completeness in order to prepare the sanctuary and the worshipers to be completely pure before the presence of the Lord.

Moral impurity refers to the impurity that comes from immoral acts, such as improper sexual relationships (Lev 18 and 20) and social injustice (Lev 19). Moral impurity also poses a threat to the divine presence in the tabernacle, but it includes the three sinful practices – sexual sins (e.g., Lev 18:24–30), idolatry (e.g., Lev 19:31; 20:1–3), and bloodshed (e.g., Num 35:33–34) – that incur a moral defilement on the land of Israel (Lev 18:25) and the sanctuary of God (Lev 20:3). This defilement eventually leads to exile (Lev 18:28)[15] and threatens the divine presence.

Leviticus 1–16 describe the laws that handle ritual impurity, while chapters 17–26 describe the laws that handle moral impurity. I will explain this division later in this introduction.

The Concept of Holiness

Leviticus 19:2, Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy, tells us that the holy nature of God is not meant to expel Israelites from the divine presence, but rather requires Israelites to imitate the holy nature of God (imitatio Dei).

But as for Israel the holy is the extension of God’s will, it means more than that which is unapproachable and withdrawn. Holiness means not only separation from but separation to. It is a positive concept, an inspiration and a goal associated with God’s nature and his desire for man. You shall be holy, for I am holy. That which man is not, nor can ever fully be, but that which man is commanded to emulate and approximate, is what the Bible calls holy. Holiness means imitatio Dei – the life of godliness.[16]

When Israelites remove ritual impurity and live in symbolic completeness, they symbolize that they are holy persons belonging to God.[17] When Israelites live in line with the moral laws, they remove moral impurity and imitate the holy nature of God. In 1 Corinthians, Paul requires the church to follow [imitate] the example of Christ (1 Cor 11:1). Ephesians 5:1 also requires us to follow [imitate] God’s example. First Thessalonians 1:6 requires us to be imitators of the Lord. In Pauline theology, the concept of imitatio Dei still occupies the central concept of any Christian life. In this way, the ritual and moral demands outlined in Leviticus should not be perceived as irrelevant to the Christian life, but rather as central to the path of sanctification.

Christians must imitate God and be holy so that we can be a witness to this world, proclaiming a message that we should not live in a mechanical and materialistic way, but rather with fruitful values that affirm meaning in life.

The Two Portions of Leviticus and Their Theologies

We can divide Leviticus into two main parts: Leviticus 1–16 and Leviticus 17–27. According to Israel Knohl, Leviticus 1–16 is the Priestly Torah,[18] while Leviticus 17–26 is the Holiness Code.[19] I will first explain the Holiness Code and then the Priestly Torah.

The Holiness Code[20] (Leviticus 17–26) was first introduced by Klostermann, a nineteenth-century biblical scholar, and it underwent continual amendments by various scholars. Nowadays, when people refer to the Holiness Code, they are usually referring to the text in Leviticus 17–26 (or 18–26). Scholars have discovered that the Holiness Code contains its own special vocabulary and theology. For example, in An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, S. R. Driver offers a summary of its vocabulary.[21] I repeat here a small portion:

The special vocabulary in the Holiness Code differs from the Priestly Torah. The latter contains its own theology and vocabulary, which need to be understood within its own context. However, this does not mean that the Priestly Torah and the Holiness Code are completely separate.[22] Though they inherit the same priestly worldview, they convey the concepts of holiness and purity in two different aspects. Thus it would be worthwhile to consider the similarities and differences between the Priestly Torah and the Holiness Code.

In The Sanctuary of Silence: Priestly Torah and the Holiness School,[23] Israel Knohl carefully distinguishes the sources and editorial layers of Leviticus, pointing out some similarities and differences between the Priestly Torah (1–16) and the Holiness Code (17–26):

First, the Priestly Torah focuses on the purification of the tabernacle, attempting to perform rituals and sacrifices to maintain the purity of the sanctuary so that God will not depart from the holy place. This is a kind of self-contained ritual system, and the spatial holiness is limited to the tabernacle, with no attempt to extend the holiness to other spheres. Therefore, this theology promotes the specialization and profession of priests, whose holiness status is separated from that of the people, because only priests can know the purity laws and instructions.[24]

Second, the Holiness Code focuses on the motto, Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy (19:2). This instruction is offered to all Israel, requiring them to be holy because the realm of holiness is not limited to the priestly family, but to the whole camp. Israelites can achieve this holiness by observing moral laws, thereby living a holy lifestyle in conformity with the holy nature of God.[25]

These two points highlight the main differences between the Priestly Torah and the Holiness Code regarding the concept of holiness. Since purity is the precondition for holiness, we can then understand that the Priestly Torah and the Holiness Code deal respectively with two different kinds of impurity.

The Priestly Torah handles ritual impurity related to corpses, carcasses, scale diseases, and genital discharges. These impurities do not relate to morality but guarding the sanctuary from them keeps it free from pollution, resulting in the lack of completeness (or holiness) of the divine presence. Only in a ritualistic context should Israelites need to maintain a strict separation from this kind of impurity.

The Holiness Code handles moral impurity, such as adultery, other sexual violations, idolatry, and social injustice.[26] Its concern is to extend the realm of holiness from the sanctuary to all Israel by proper moral practices in non-ritualistic contexts. Therefore, the Holiness Code requires Israelites to implement moral laws in their lifestyle by exercising proper sexual relationships (18, 20) and social justice (19, 25), so that they can share the holy nature of God (19:2). Although the Priestly Torah focuses on the removal of ritual impurity, and the Holiness Code focuses on the removal of moral impurity, they share the common concept that purity is the precondition of holiness. The Holiness Code assumes the ritual laws in the Priestly Torah, and they should not be separated when we read Leviticus as a whole.[27]

Regarding the use of ma‘al, the Priestly Torah tends to refer to it as a desecration, an unauthorized trespass upon sancta, and a sin against God (5:15, 21).[28] The Holiness Code, on the other hand, tends to refer to it as rebellion and treachery against God and man in the moral dimension (26:40). But both the Priestly Torah and the Holiness Code use ma‘al to describe the violation of the covenant oath (26:15, 40).[29] Jacob Milgrom affirms that these two aspects of ma‘al are one, because [b]oth trespasses are against the Deity. Moreover, trespass upon sancta is simultaneously trespass upon the covenant, since reverence for sancta is presumed in the covenant relationship.[30] Such a trespass incurs the Lord’s wrath, based on his covenantal relationship with his people. Therefore, although the two portions of Leviticus use ma‘al in different ways, they share the fact that this term has a close relationship to the covenant with God. However, the Holiness Code does place more emphasis on impurity