Leviticus 3-6

October 28th, 2009

We noticed that the structure of the Book of Leviticus itself replicates the three-fold structure of plain/mountainside/mountain-top.  The first two chapters deal with whole-burnt offerings, and take place at the altar, which in the description given of the mountain in Exodus 19 and 24 sits precisely at the boundary between the plain and the mountainside.  In the description in Exodus, the people must remain on the plain, and not touch the mountain.  The seventy elders eat in the presence of God on the side of the mountain (Exodus 24:11), and Moses alone goes to the mountain top.  In Leviticus, the people do not go past the altar toward the Tent.  When the offering involves a portion for the priests to eat (as in the cereal burnt offering), the priests eat in the holy precincts (the mountainside). 

Beginning in Chapter Four of Leviticus, we come to the regulations regarding sin offerings.  In these, the priest is to take some of the blood of the offered animals, and smear it on the horns of the altar of incense, just outside the holy of holies.  The incense provides the cloud which covered the mountain top when Moses went up.  The priest is also to sprinkle some of the blood toward the curtain which hides the holy chamber.  The rest gets poured on the altar outside the Tent, thereby re-establishing the connection between God and the people which had been broken by the sin, whatever it was.

As for inadvertent sins, what are we to make of that?  For us, sin and intention go hand in hand.  If I did something inadvertently, it’s not a sin.  Leviticus and all post Exilic religion had suppressed the use of divination.  There are no oracles to be consulted, lots to be thrown, mediums to consult.  So, when something goes wrong in community, how do you figure out what?  In most religions, there is some kind of rite for establishing blame.  Look at the liver of an animal to determine who broke contract, or cursed someone else.  Read the tea leaves, cast the sacred circle (or pentagram, or whatever).  Leviticus doesn’t allow this.  But, still, if something is wrong in the community, there must have been a sin.  Leviticus leaves the discover of that vague:  If a person should discover he or she sinned inadvertently . . .

Then, there is plenty of ritual described for re-establishing the broken connection, and almost all of it involves blood.  Blood provides the link that re-establishes the kinship between God and the people.  The bullock burned outside the camp expiates whatever residue of the sin remains.

The special cases interestingly involved the refusal to testify (since there is no other way to determine guilt), and the confusion of property and ownership, which functions like the confusion of lineage.  Blood cleans it up.

Leviticus 1-3

October 15th, 2009

Last Sunday, we noticed that the Tent of Meeting is at the center of the camp.  In Exodus, it is outside the camp.  Leviticus moves it to the center, so it can function like the Temple in Jerusalem, when it stood.  The Tent of Meeting also functions like Mount Sinai.  Moses goes into the tent when God speaks to him, and his face glows when he comes out, just like when he came down from the mountain.  When Moses went up the mountain, he built an altar and twelve pillars at the base of the mountain.  No animal and only select humans could come past those pillars.  The seventy and Moses ate in God’s presence on the mountainside.  Only Moses goes to the top of the mountain.

The tent of meeting replicates the mountain.  Animals come only as far as the altar.  The priests eat in the holy precincts, and only the high priest ever goes into the holy of holies.  So, every meal at the tent of meeting is a covenant renewal ceremony.  The blood of the animal (its life) is the only substance that can cross all the boundaries, and relate the humans who are not priests to God.  The blood establishes the priesthood, and therefore the relationship.  The altar of incense just outside the holy of holies provides the covering of smoke that covers Moses when he was on the mountain top.

We also noticed that the body of the animal also replicates the holy mountain.  The central organs (kidneys and the lobe of the liver, which would be at the top of the animal when it is supine and opened up) are holy to God, along with the membrane of fat that covers them (just like the curtain which covers the holy of holies).  Other parts belong always to the priesthood, and then some parts could be eaten by the people at large, marking off the same three-fold distinction.  Even grain offering function this way.  The middle of the heap with the incense goes to smoke, the priests eat the rest, unless it is part of the peace offering, and then the people get some.

Only male animals can go directly to God (=> male is holy).  Peace offerings can be female.  Cereal offerings can never include yeast (=> yeast is female:  Jesus compares the kingdom to a woman who hid yeast in the lump of dough). 

All the distinctions important to this society are being drawn in sacrifice:

Mountaintop  –>  mountainside –> plain.

Moses             –>  seventy  –>  people.

Highpriest –> priesthood –> people.

The lineage of the priesthood makes up for the confusion of the lineage of the people.  This is Leviticus’ solution to the confusion of the ethnic identity of the people who returned from Babylon.  The blood of sacrifice establishes the lineage of the priesthood.  Unlike procreation, the blood of sacrifice is under male control.  But Leviticus’ solution stops short of Ezra’s solution of sending all the foreign women home.

More Leviticus

October 5th, 2009

Most of us had read the whole book of Leviticus, and we discussed our first impressions.  Someone pointed out almost immediately that the priests sure ate well, and also got a lot of money in fines for things.  An astute observation — a large part of the book concerns the constitution of the priesthood.  Also, lots of rules about who can marry whom.

The book was probably written after the return from exile, and is a fiction trying to re-establish the Temple cult in the absence of the Temple, or awaiting its rebuilding.  This timing would account for the almost obsessive concern about the rules of exogamy and endogamy.  Compare to Ezra 9 and 10.  Ezra’s solution to the intermarriage of the holy “seed” with foreign polluting women is to have the men divorce their wives.  Leviticus proposes no such radical solution, but proposes an alternate solution for maitaining the identity and purity of the nation:  sacrifice and a continuing priesthood.

The marriage rules also go hand in hand with the rules about land and Jubilee.  Every 49th year, any land sold reverts to the family of the orignal owner.  Any family sold into slavery is freed and returns to their own land.  It is important to keep lines of descent clear, not mixing patriliny and matriliny (hence all the rules about not uncovering the nakedness of kin, which confuses lines of descent).  If these rules are not followed, the land will vomit you out.  The land, where God is located, needs this purity of descent.  If descent is confused (impure) how do you purify it?  Sacrifice.  The blood of sacrifice is clean, while menstrual blood and the blood of child birth are unlcean (chaotic).  Sacrifice establishes lines of descent, especially for the priesthood (if the daughter of priest marries outside the priestly caste, she can no longer eat the sacred offerings), and all are related to the priesthood through the institution of  sacrifice.  The “sins” of the people, if you can call them that (inadvertent, etc.) render the altar (and hence the land, since the altar is an undressed stone on the ground) unclean.  The Day of Atonement purifies the altar, and by extension, the people.  The rite of purification involved blood sprinkled both on the mercy seat and on the people, rendering them all kin.

Paul, we observed, solved the problem of gathering different kin into one church, by substituting baptism for sacrifice (the blood of Jesus comes to mind), making all the baptized children of Abraham directly with no intermediating generations.

Next week, we start our sequential reading.  We begin with all the chapters on sacrifice at the beginning.

Leviticus

September 29th, 2009

The adult forum is starting up again for the fall of 2009.  We are reading the book of Leviticus.  Someone on Sunday said the first word that came to mind was “tedious.”  For this Sunday, the assignment is to read the entire book, cover to cover.  Tedium, indeed.  But, what the book actually sets out to accomplish is revolutionary, as we will discover.  As you read the book, have in mind the questions, “What does all this add up to?” and “What’s missing?”

4:18-25

October 11th, 2008

Abraham’s body was as good as dead, yet he trusted in the God who gives life to the dead.  If Abraham is the archetype of faith, we now see what faith (trust) looks like.  He had no child, and God promises him that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars of the heaven.  Likewise, according to Paul, Jesus has inaugurated the fulfilment of God’s promised restoration of the covenant (even while the Temple is still under foreign control).  Looking around, it was easy to see that the fulfilment is not yet complete, but like Abraham, we trust God’s promise.  This is the faith that was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness, and will be to us.  This is the faith that make us members of the covenant people.

If we trust that the God who raised Jesus from the dead has intended this mixed family as the fulfilment of the promise, that faith will be reckoned to us as righteousness, as membership in that family.  It was this Jesus who was handed over to death for our trespasses, and raised to make us members of the covenant people.

4:9-17

October 11th, 2008

Because Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteouness (which in Paul’s thought means membership in the covenant) before the circumcision, then circumcision can not be a requirement for covenant membership.   So Abraham is the father of the uncircumcised, who, like him, trust God, and the circumcised who follow his example of trust.  Also, the promise comes to Abraham before the giving of the law, so the law can not be a requirement for covenant membership (righteousness).  Indeed, the law makes clear how those who are supposed to be the light to the Gentiles have failed to keep the covenant.  This is how Abraham is found to be the father of all the faithful.

In fulfilling the promise to Abraham that he should be the father of many nations, God has made the promise rest on faith (on God’s faithfulness and on human trust in that faithfulness), rather than on the law, so that all the descendants of Abraham should share in the covenant.  Now, he can boast in the presence of God, whom he trusted.  This is the God who gives life to the dead (Abraham and Sarah were “as good as dead, and of course to Jesus), and calls into existence what was not, namely the new family of God made of both Jews and Gentiles.

4:1-8

October 4th, 2008

Paul now gets to the meat of his argument.  He will here lay out the specifics of what he summarized in 3:21-31.  Here it becomes clear that the covenant he has in mind is the Covenant with Abraham.  The first sentence is hard to translate.  It might go something like this:  “What then shall we say?  Has Abraham been found to be our forefather according to the flesh?”  This would be a nice way of stating the argument — if Abraham is found to be the forefather of the Gentile Christians as well, then the point is settled.

If Abraham was justified on the basis of the law, then he would have reason to boast, just as the sense of Jewish vocation led to boasting.  Even if Abraham was justified because of the law, he would not have reason to boast before God, because God reckoned Abraham’s trust as righteousness, that is, God included Abraham in the covenant people because Abraham trusted God that God would fulfill the promise to make him the father of many nations, even when he had no children, when as yet there was no covenant people.  Paul then calls in David as a testimony that it is by God’s verdict that the sin which prevents the fulfilment of the covenant is overcome.  David, rather than serving as the archetypal pious Jew here is adduced as the archetypal failure, whose shortcomings God has forgiven, covered over.  God must forgive the sins of Jews and Gentiles both to establish the covenant family.

3:27-31

October 4th, 2008

Therefore, this passage begins, refering back to what just came before.  Therefore, boasting is locked out.  Boasting on the basis of a “chosen” status.  Paul, of course, is refering to the Jewish sense (in his time) of special vocation for the restoration of the glory meant for humanity.  It would do us well to apply that to Christians in the present — we have no special status.  God’s justice, God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant with humanity alone has any effect in restoring humanity to its intended glory.  If there remains a favored status for Jews in Paul’s audience, then there must be a distinction between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, which he cannot allow.  God is the God of all humanity.  Monotheism was and is a central tenet of Judaism and Christianity.  God will justify the circumcised on the basis of God’s faithfulness to the covenant, and the uncircumcised on the basis of that same faithfulness.  Wright points out that Paul has in mind the covenant with Abraham, by which God would call together a family of both Jew and Gentile (Abraham would be the father of many nations), so that God justifies both Jew and Gentile on the basis of God’s own faithfulness to the covenant with Abraham.  In this way, the law is fulfilled or established.

3:21-26

October 4th, 2008

Here, we reach the statement of Paul’s overall argument.  The first part of the letter, up to this point, has been to show that our understanding of God’s righteousness has been mistaken.  If Paul’s Jewish Christian hearers thought that being Jewish somehow was to their advantage, he has argued otherwise.  Gentile Christians likewise can claim no special favor from God.  3:19-20 summed up the verdict to this point:  every mouth has been silenced and the whole world is held accountable to God.  All flesh will not be justified in his sight by works of the law. 

But now, outside the law, God’s righteousness has been revealed, though attested by the law and the prophets.  God’s covenant with Abraham and Israel was meant to deal with the sin of Adam and restore humankind (or at least a family of them) to God’s glory, but because of Israel’s sinfulness, that covenant has failed.  Now, apart from that covenant, God has revealed God’s own faithfulness to that covenant.  And God has revealed it in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.  Where Israel failed to remain faithful to God’s covenant, Jesus has remained faithful (as in Philippians, even to the point of death).  All who believe are justified by God’s free gift, by God’s graciousness through the ransom which is in Christ Jesus.

Here, Paul uses sacrificial language for the first time, and in a dense way.  God put Jesus forward (language of offering, as in the show bread) as a hilasterion.  In the LXX, that word denotes the “mercy seat” over the ark of the covenant, where the high priest sprinkled the blood on the Day of Atonement, so the meeting place between God and humankind.  In other contexts, it is the gift that propitiates a deity.  Most puzzling here is what the phrase “through faith in his blood” means.  A literal reading of the Greek means something like, “by means of the faithfulness which is in his blood.”  N. T. Wright suggests that Paul has in view here something like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 40-55, and the story of the Maccabean martyrs.  It certainly fits with what follows:  God in God’s forebearance, overlooked sins previously committed.  According to II Maccabees, God forebears the sins of other nations putting off punishment until the future, while because of its chosen status, the sins of Israel must be dealt with immediately.  Israel’s punishment is brought into the present in the suffering of the martyrs.  Paul here could tie an essential Greek idea (martyrdom) with a Jewish one (the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat), and both halves of his audience would have a point of reference.

God has done this (passed over the sins of the nations, but put Jesus forward as a hilasterion by means of the faithfulness which is in his blood) to point out his own righteousness at the present time (not at some point in the future), and to justify one from the faithfulness in Jesus.  God has restored the covenant people now, and God’s own covenant righteousness, in the existence of a people justified in Jesus, namely the Jewish/Gentile Christian audience to whom Paul is writing.

3:9-20

September 25th, 2008

Paul doesn’t really answer the questions he raised in 3:1-8, except with the expression, “By no means.”  The problems remain.  So, if the Jews’ unfaithfulness causes God’s name to be blasphemed in all the world, and by that fact, the Gentiles have come to be included in God’s covenant, which was God’s intention from the beginning, how can God judge the Jews?  So, some accuse Paul of saying, “Let’s do evil so that good may come of it.”  He just says, “No way!” at this point, and leaves the real answer till later.

In 3:9-20, he starts that answer.  The law, the covenant, speaks only to those under the convenant, and quoting Psalm 14:1-3, Psalm 53:1-3, (possibly Ecclesiastes 7:2), Psalm 5:10, Psalm 140:4, Psalm 10:7, Proverbs 1:16, Isaiah 59:7-8 and Psalm 36:2 Paul lays out God’s charge against Israel.  The Gentiles have been indicted in Chapter 1, and now, after steering his Jewish Christian hearer into recognizing the problem with God’s chosen people, who have failed to be the light to the nations  God called them to be, he makes sure they understand that the law, on which they rest their confidence, in fact, indicts them, and not just in one place, but essentially from cover to cover.  The whole world then is accountable to God, or liable for punishment, because all flesh will not be justified in his sight by works of the law, because knowledge of sin comes through the law.  His phrasing is important here.  We tend to think of the Jews as “legalistic”, trying to claim God’s grace by observing the Law.  Observance of Torah was rather, in Paul’s time, a response of gratitude to God for giving the covenant in the first place.  Despite the usual translation, Paul does not say, “No one will be justified by works of the law,” but rather, “All flesh will not be justified by works of the law.”  Claiming membership in the covenant people on the basis of flesh, circumcision, and observance of halakah will not be enough.  The covenant is now extended beyond any limitation that flesh can impose:  eating only what is allowed, circumcision, etc., — claiming these fleshly indicators of membership in the covenant will not suffice, because the Law (trying to observe it) only brings knowledge of failure to be faithful to the covenant.  Anything one can do in the flesh is only an indictment — claiming status on the basis of gender, for example, or color or class; all of these bring knowledge of failure of justice.  The Law makes it clear that God’s justice won’t be brought about by any such claim of membership in the covenant people.  The covenant people extends beyond fleshly identification.