| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
The third book of the Pentateuch; so called in the Vulgate,
after the LXX., because it treats chiefly of the Levitical service.
In the first section of the book (Leviticus
1 - 17),
which exhibits the worship itself, there is,
A series of laws (Leviticus
1 - 7)
regarding sacrifices, burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and thank-offerings (Leviticus
1 - 3),
sin-offerings and trespass-offerings (Leviticus
4 ; 5),
followed by the law of the priestly duties in connection with the offering of
sacrifices (Leviticus
6 ; 7).
An historical section (Leviticus
8 - 10),
giving an account of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus
8); Aaron's first offering for himself and the people (Leviticus
9); Nadab and Abihu's presumption in offering "strange fire before Jehovah,"
and their punishment (Leviticus
10).
Laws concerning purity, and the sacrifices and ordinances for putting away impurity
(Leviticus
11 - 16).
An interesting fact may be noted here. Canon Tristram, speaking of the remarkable
discoveries regarding the flora and fauna of the Holy Land by the Palestine Exploration
officers, makes the following statement:, "Take these two catalogues of the clean
and unclean animals in the books of Leviticus (Leviticus
11) and Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy
14). There are eleven in Deuteronomy which do not occur in Leviticus, and
these are nearly all animals and birds which are not found in Egypt or the Holy
Land, but which are numerous in the Arabian desert. They are not named in Leviticus
a few weeks after the departure from Egypt; but after the people were thirty-nine
years in the desert they are named, a strong proof that the list in Deuteronomy
was written at the end of the journey, and the list in Leviticus at the beginning.
It fixes the writing of that catalogue to one time and period only, viz., that
when the children of Israel were familiar with the fauna and the flora of the
desert" (Palest. Expl. Quart., Jan. 1887).
Laws marking the separation between Israel and the heathen (Leviticus
17 - 20).
Laws about the personal purity of the priests, and their eating of the holy things
(Leviticus
20 ; 21);
about the offerings of Israel, that they were to be without blemish (Leviticus
17 - 23);
and about the due celebration of the great festivals (Leviticus
23 ; 25).
Then follow promises and warnings to the people regarding obedience to these commandments,
closing with a section on vows.
The various ordinances contained in this book were all delivered in the space
of a month (Compare Exodus
40:17 ; Numbers
1:1), the first month of the second year after the Exodus. It is the third
book of Moses.
No book contains more of the very words of God. He is almost throughout the whole
of it the direct speaker. This book is a prophecy of things to come, a shadow
whereof the substance is Christ and his kingdom. The principles on which it is
to be interpreted are laid down in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It contains in
its complicated ceremonial the gospel of the grace of God.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
(no entry)
Smith's Bible Dictionary
The third book in the Pentateuch is called Leviticus
because it relates principally to the Levites and priests and their services.
The book is generally held to have been written by Moses. Those critics even who
hold a different opinion as to the other books of the Pentateuch assign this book
in the main to him. One of the most notable features of the book is what may be
called its spiritual meaning. That so elaborate a ritual looked beyond itself
we cannot doubt. It was a prophecy of things to come; a shadow whereof the substance
was Christ and his kingdom. We may not always be able to say what the exact relation
is between the type and the antitype; but we cannot read the Epistle to the Hebrews
and not acknowledge that the Levitical priests "served the pattern and type of
heavenly things;" that the sacrifices of the law pointed to and found their interpretation
in the Lamb of God; that the ordinances of outward purification signified the
true inner cleansing of the heart and conscience from dead works to serve the
living God. One idea --HOLINESS-- moreover penetrates the whole of this vast and
burdensome ceremonial, and gives it a real glory even apart from any prophetic
significance.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
le-vit'-i-kus:
I. General Data.
1. Name:
The third book of the Pentateuch is generally named by the Jews according to the
first word, wayyiqra' (Origen Ouikra, by the Septuagint called according to its
contents Leuitikon, or Leueitikon, by the Vulgate, accordingly, "Leviticus" (i.e.
Liber), sometimes "Leviticum"). The Jews have also another name taken from its
contents, namely, torath kohanim, "Law of the Priests."
2. Character of Book:
As a matter of fact ordinances pertaining to the priesthood, to the Levitical
system, and to the cults constitute a most important part of this book; but specifically
religious and ethical commands, as we find them, e.g. in Leviticus 18 ; 19 ; 20
, are not wanting; and there are also some historical sections, which, however,
are again connected with the matter referring to the cults, namely the consecration
of the priests in Leviticus 8 and 9, the sin and the punishment of two sons of
Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1), and the account of the stoning of a blasphemer
(Leviticus 24:10). Of the Levites, on the other hand, the book does not treat
at all. They are mentioned only once and that incidentally in Leviticus 25:32.
The laws are stated to have been given behar Cinay (Leviticus 7:38 ; 25:1 ; 26:46
; 27:34), which expression, on account of Leviticus 11, in which Yahweh is described
as speaking to Moses out of the tent of meeting, is not to be translated "upon"
but "at" Mt. Sinai. The connection of this book with the preceding and following
books, i.e. Exodus and Numbers, which is commonly acknowledged as being the case,
at least in some sense, leaves for the contents of Leviticus exactly the period
of a single month, since the last chronological statement of Exodus 40:17 as the
time of the erection of the tabernacle mentions the 1st day of the 1st month of
the 2nd year of the Exodus, and Numbers 1:1 takes us to the 1st day of the 2nd
month of the same year. Within this time of one month the consecration of the
priests fills out 8 days (Leviticus 8:33; 9:1). A sequence in time is indicated
only by Leviticus 16:1, which directly connects with what is reported in Leviticus
10 concerning Nadab and Abihu. In the same way the ordinances given in Leviticus
10:6 are connected with the events described in Leviticus 8:1 - 10:5. The laws
are described as being revelations of Yahweh, generally given to Moses (compare
Leviticus 1:1 ; 4:1 ; 5:14 ; 6:19 , 24 (Hebrew 12,17); 7:22 , 28, etc.); sometimes
to Moses and Aaron (compare Leviticus 11:1 ; 13:1 ; 14:33 ; 15:1, etc.), and,
rarely, to Aaron alone (Leviticus 10:8). In Leviticus 10:12, Moses gives some
directions to the priests, which are based on a former revelation (compare Leviticus
6:16 (Hebrew 9); 7:37). In Leviticus 10:16, we have a difference of opinion between
Moses and Aaron, or rather his sons, which was decided on the basis of an independent
application of principles given in Leviticus. Most of these commands are to be
announced to Israel (Leviticus 1:2 ; 4:2 ; 7:23 , 19 ; 9:3 ; 11:2 ; 12:2 ; 15:2
; 18:2 , etc.); others to the priests (Leviticus 6:9 , 25 (Hebrew 2,18); 21:2
; 22:2 , etc.); or to the priests and the Israelites (Leviticus 17:2 ; 22:18),
while the directions in reference to the Day of Atonement, with which Aaron was
primarily concerned (Leviticus 16:2), beginning with Leviticus 16:29, without
a special superscription, are undeniably changed into injunctions addressed to
all Israel; compare also Leviticus 21:24 and 21:2. As the Book of Exodus treats
of the communion which God offers on His part to Israel and which culminates at
last in His dwelling in the tent of meeting (Exodus 40:34; compare under EXODUS,
I, 2), the Book of Leviticus contains the ordinances which were to be carried
out by the Israelites in religious, ethical and cultural matters, in order to
restore and maintain this communion with God, notwithstanding the imperfections
and the guilt of the Israelites. And as this book thus with good reason occupies
its well established place in the story of the founding and in the earliest history
of theocracy, so too even a casual survey and intelligent glance at the contents
of the book will show that we have here a well-arranged and organic unity, a conviction
which is only confirmed and strengthened by the presentation of the structure
of the book in detail (see under II, below).
3. Unity of Book:
Law of Holiness:
As a rule, critics are accustomed first of all to regard Leviticus 17:1 - 25:55
or 26 as an independent section, and find in these chapters a legal code that
is considered to have existed at one time as a group by itself, before it was
united with the other parts.
It is indeed true that a series of peculiarities have been found in these chapters
of Leviticus. To these peculiarities belongs the frequent repetition of the formula:
"I am Yahweh your God" (Leviticus 18:2 , 4 ; 19:2 , 4, etc.); or "I am Yahweh"
(Leviticus 18:5 , 6 , 21 ; 19:14 , 16 , etc.), or "I am Yahweh .... who hath separated
you" (Leviticus 20:24), or "who sanctifieth you" (Leviticus 20:8 ; 21:8 , 15 ,
23 , etc.). To these peculiarities belong the references in words, or, in fact,
to the land of Canaan, into which Israel is to be led (Leviticus 18:3 , 14 ; 19:23
, 29 ; 20:22 ; 23 ; 25), and also to Egypt, out of which He has led the people
(Leviticus 18:3 ; 19:34 ; 22:33 ; 26:13 , 15, etc.); as, further, the demand for
sanctification (Leviticus 19:2), or the warning against desecration (Leviticus
19:12 ; 21:23, etc.), both based on the holiness of Yahweh. In addition, a number
of peculiar expressions are repeatedly found in these chapters. Because of their
contents these chapters have, since Klostermann, generally been designated by
the letter H (i.e. Law of Holiness); or, according to the
suggestion of Dillmann, by the letter S (i.e. Sinaitic Law), because, according
to Leviticus 25:1; 26:46, they are said to have been given at Mt. Sinai, and because
in certain critical circles it was at one time claimed that these chapters contain
old laws from the Mosaic period, although these had been changed in form. These
earlier views have apparently now been discarded by the critics entirely.
Examination of Critical Theory.
We, however, do not believe that it is at all justifiable to separate these laws
as a special legal code from the other chapters. In the first place, these peculiarities,
even if such are found here more frequently than elsewhere, are not restricted
to these chapters exclusively. The Decalogue (Exodus 20:2) begins with the words,
"I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house
of bondage." Exodus 22:31 contains the demand, "Ye shall be holy men unto me."
Exodus 29:44 , 45 contains a promise that God will dwell in the midst of the Israelites,
so that they shall learn that He is Yahweh, their God, who has brought them out
of Egypt in order to dwell in their midst as Yahweh, their God (compare, further,
Exodus 6:6 - 8 ; 31:13; Leviticus 10:10 , 11 ; 11:44 ; Numbers 15:37 - 41; 33:52
, 55 ; Deuteronomy 14:2 , 21). It is a more than risky undertaking to find in
these and in other sections scattered remnants of H (see Law of Holiness, section
I , 3), especially if these are seen to be indispensable in the connection in
which they are found, and when no reason can be given why they should be separated
from this collection of laws. Then, too, the differences of opinion on the part
of the critics in assigning these different parts to H, do not make us favorably
inclined to the whole hypothesis. Hoffmann, especially (Die wichtigsten Instanzen
gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, 16), has shown how impossible it is to
separate H from the other ordinances of the Priestly Code in so radical a manner.
In saying this we do not at all wish to deny the peculiar character of these chapters,
only we do not believe that Leviticus 17 can be added or Leviticus 26 can be taken
away from this section; for in Leviticus 17 all the characteristic peculiarities
of the Holiness Law are lacking; and, on the other hand, in Leviticus 26 the expression
"I am Yahweh your God," or a similar one in Leviticus 26:12 , 13 , 14, is found.
The subscription in Leviticus 26:46 connects Leviticus 26 with the preceding;
and, further, the reference to the Sabbatical year as described in Leviticus 25,
found in Leviticus 26:34 , 43, is not to be overlooked. Finally, also, other legal
codes, such as that in the first Book of the Covenant (Exodus 23:20 - 33) and
that of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 27:11 - 28:68) close with the offer of a blessing
or a curse.
The chapters under consideration (Leviticus 18:1 - 26:46) are most closely connected
with each other solely through their contents, which have found expression in
a particular form, without these facts being sufficient to justify the claim of
their being a separate legal code. For since in Leviticus 1 - 17 all those things
which separate the Israelites from their God have been considered and bridged
over (compare Leviticus 1 - 7, the laws concerning sacrifices; Leviticus 8-10,
the mediatorship of the priests; Leviticus 11 - 15, the unclean things; Leviticus
16, the Day of Atonement; Leviticus 17, the use made of blood), we find in Leviticus
18:1 - 26:46 an account of the God-pleasing conduct, which admits of nothing that
desecrates; namely, Leviticus 18 ; 19 ; 20 contain laws dealing with marriage
and chastity and other matters of a religious, ethical or cultural kind, together
with the punishments that follow their transgression; Leviticus 21 f determine
the true character of the priests and of the sacred oblations; Leviticus 23, the
consecration of the seasons, of life and death, etc.; Leviticus 25, the Sabbath
and the Jubilee year; Leviticus 26 contains the offer of a blessing or a curse.
Leviticus 1 - 17 have, as it were, a negative character; Leviticus 18:1 - 26:46
a positive character. In Leviticus 1 - 17 the consciousness of what is unclean,
imperfect and guilty is awakened and the possibility of their removal demonstrated;
while in Leviticus 18:1 - 26:46 the norm of a holy life is set forth. Even if
these two parts at certain places show so great a likeness that the occurrence
of an interchange of ordinances could be regarded as possible, nevertheless the
peculiar character of each part is plainly recognized; and this is also a very
essential argument for the view that both parts have one and the same author,
who intentionally brought the two parts into closer connection and yet separated
the one from the other. On this supposition the peculiarities of Leviticus 18:1
- 26:46 are sufficiently explained, and also the positive contents of these chapters
and the fact that just these chapters are referred to in pre-exilic literature
oftener than is the case with Leviticus 1 - 17, and particularly the close connection
between Ezekiel and H (see Law of Holiness, section I , 3) is to be regarded as
a consequence of the common tendency of both authors and not as the result of
their having used a common source (see EZEKIEL, II, 2). In Leviticus 26:46 we
have what is clearly a conclusion, which corresponds to Leviticus 25:1 ; 7:37
; 1:1, and accordingly regards Leviticus 1:1 - 26:46 as a unity; while Leviticus
27, which treats of vows and of tithes, with its separate subscription in Leviticus
27:34, shows that it is an appendix or a supplement, which is, however, in many
ways connected with the rest of the book, so that this addition cannot, without
further grounds, be regarded as pointing to another author. |
|
II. Structure.
1. Modern Analyses:
Modern criticism ascribes the entire Book of Leviticus, being a special legal
code, to the Priestly Code (P). The questions which arise in connection with this
claim will be discussed under III, below. At this point we must first try to awaken
a consciousness of the fact, that in this special particular, too, the documentary
theory has entered upon the stage of total disintegration; that the reasons assigned
for the separation of the sources are constantly becoming more arbitrary and subjective;
and that the absurd consequences to which they consistently lead from the very
outset arouse distrust as to the correctness of the process. Just as in the historical
parts the critics have for long been no longer content with J (Jahwist) and E
(Elohist), but have added a J1 and Later additions to J, an E1 and Later additions
to E, and as Sievers and Gunkel have gone farther, and in detail have completely
shattered both J and E into entirely separate fragments (see GENESIS),
So the Priestly Code (P), too, is beginning to experience the same fate. It is
high time that, for both the historical and the legal sections, the opposite course
be taken, and that we turn from the dismemberment to the combination of these
documents; that we seek out and emphasize those features which, in form and content,
unite the text into a clear unity. For this reason we lay the greatest stress
on these in this section, which deals with the structure of the book, and which
treats of the matter (1) negatively and (2) positively (see also EXODUS,
II).
(1) Theories of Disintegration.
We have already seen in the article DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, (2)) in connection
with Leviticus 16 an example of these attempts at dissection, and here still add
several examples in order to strengthen the impression on this subject.
(a) General Considerations: If we for the present disregard
the details, then, according to Bertholet (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament),
not only Leviticus 17:1 - 26:46 (see, above, under I) at one time existed as a
separate legal corpus, but also the sacrificial legislation in Leviticus 1-7,
and also the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11 - 15. Concerning
Leviticus 16 see above. Then, too, Leviticus 27 is regarded as a supplement and
is ascribed to a different author. Finally, the so-called "fundamental document"
of P (marked Pg) contained only parts from Leviticus 9 f (also a few matters from
Le 8), as also one of the three threads of Leviticus 16, for Leviticus 8-10, it
is said, described the consecration of the priests demanded in Exodus 25, which
also are regarded as a part of Pg, and Leviticus 16:1 is claimed to connect again
with Leviticus 10 (compare on this point DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2). All these separate
parts of Leviticus (i.e. Leviticus 1:1 - 27:34) are further divided into a number
of more or less independent subparts; thus, e.g., Leviticus 1 - 7, containing
the sacrificial laws, are made to consist of two parts, namely, Leviticus 1 -
5 and Leviticus 6 - 7; or the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Leviticus
11 - 15 are divided into the separate pieces, Leviticus 11 ; 12 ; 13:1 - 46; and
these are regarded as having existed at one time and in a certain manner independently
and separated from each other. But how complicated in detail the composition is
considered to be, we can see from Leviticus 17:1 - 26:46.
(b) Leviticus 17 - 26 Considered in Detail: While Baentsch (Hand-Kommentar zum
Alten Testament) accepts, to begin with, three fundamental strata (H1 = Leviticus
18; 19; 20 and certain portions from Leviticus 23; 24; 25; H2 = Leviticus 21;
H3 = Leviticus 17), Bertholet, too (op. cit., x), regards the development of these
chapters as follows:
"In detail we feel justified in separating the following pieces:
(i) Leviticus 17:3 , 4 (5,7a) , 8 , 9 , 10-14;
(ii) 18:7-10 , 12 - 20 , 22 ; and this united with
(iii) 19:3 , 11 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 35 , 36 , which was probably done by the author
of (iii). The following were inserted by the person who united these parts, namely,
18:6 , 27 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 30;
(iv) 19:9 , 10 , 13-18 , 19 , 29 , 32;
(v) 19:5-8 , 23-26;
(vi) 20:2(3) , 6(27);
(vii) 20:9 , 10-21 ; 19:20;
(viii) 21:1b-5 , 7 , 9-15 , 17b-24 ; 22:3 , 8 , 10-14 , 18b-25 , 27-30;
(ix) 23:10-20 , 39-43;
(x) 24:15-22 , except verses 16a(?)b;
(xi) 25:2-7 (4),18-22 , 35-38 , 39 , 40a , 42 , 47 , 53 , 15;
(xii) 25:8a , 9b , 10a , 13 , 14-16 , 17 , 24 f. |
In uniting these pieces Rh (the Redactor of the Law of Holiness) seems to have
added de suo the following: 17:5 (beginning); 18:2b-5 , 21 , 24 , 26a(?) , 29
; 19:33 , 37 ; 20:4 , 7 , 22-26 ; 21:6 , 8 ; 22:2 , 9 , 15 , 31-33 ; 23:22 ; 25:11
; 26:1 f. At the same time he united with these an older parenetic section, 26:3-45,
which, by inserting 26:10 , 34 , 39-43 , he changed into a concluding address
of this small legal code. All the rest that is found in Leviticus 17:1 - 26:46
seems to be the result of a revision in the spirit of the Priestly Code (P), not,
however, as though originally it all came from the hand of Rp (Redactor P). That
he rather added and worked together older pieces from P (which did not belong
to Pg) is seen from an analysis of Leviticus 23. .... As far as the time when
these parts were worked together is concerned, we have a reliable terminus ad
quem in a comparison of Nehemiah 8:14 - 18 with Leviticus 23:36 (P),39 (H). Only
we must from the outset remember, that still, after the uniting of these different
parts, the marks of the editorial pen are to be noticed in the following Leviticus
17:1 - 26:46, i.e. that after this union a number of additions were yet made to
the text. This is sure as far as Leviticus 23:26 - 32 is concerned, and is probable
as to Leviticus 24:1 - 9, 10 - 14 , 23 ; 25:32 - 34; and that this editorial work
even went so far as to put sections from P in the place of parts of H can possibly
be concluded from Leviticus 24:1-9."
(c) Extravagance of Critical Treatment: This is also true of all the other sections,
as can be seen by a reference to the books of Bertholet and Baentsch. What should
surprise us most, the complicated and external manner in which our Biblical text,
which has such a wonderful history back of it, is declared by the critics to have
originated, or the keenness of the critics, who, with the ease of child's play,
are able to detect and trace out this growth and development of the text, and
can do more than hear the grass grow? But this amazement is thrust into the ackground
when we contemplate what becomes of the Bible text under the manipulations of
the critics. The compass of this article makes it impossible to give even as much
as a general survey of the often totally divergent and contradictory schemes of
Baentsch and Bertholet and others on the distribution of this book among different
sources; and still less possible is it to give a criticism of these in detail.
But this critical method really condemns itself more thoroughly than any examination
of its claims would. All who are not yet entirely hypnotized by the spell of the
documentary hypothesis will feel that by this method all genuine scientific research
is brought to an end. If the way in which this book originated had been so complicated,
it certainly could never have been again reconstructed. |
(2) Reasons for Dismemberment.
We must at this place confine ourselves to mentioning and discussing several typical
reasons which are urged in favor of a distribution among different authors.
(a) Alleged Repetitions:
We find in the parts belonging to P a number of so-called repetitions. In Leviticus
1-7 we find a twofold discussion of the five kinds of sacrifices (1-5; 6:1); in
Leviticus 20 punitive measures are enacted for deeds which had been described
already in Leviticus 18; in 19:3,10; 23:3; 26:2 the Sabbath command is intensified;
in 19:5; 22:29, we find commands which had been touched upon already in 7:15;
19:9 f we find almost verbally repeated in 23:22; 24:2 repeats ordinances concerning
the golden candlestick from Exodus 27:20, etc. The existence of these repetitions
cannot be denied; but is the conclusion drawn from this fact correct? It certainly
is possible that one and the same author could have handled the same materials
at different places and from different viewpoints, as is the case in Leviticus
1-7 in regard to the sacrifices. Leviticus 18 and 20 (misdeeds and punishments)
are even necessarily and mutually supplementary. Specially important laws can
have been repeated, in order to emphasize and impress them all the more; or they
are placed in peculiar relations or in a unique light (compare, e.g., 24:1, the
command in reference to the golden candlestick in the pericope Le 23; 24; see
below). Accordingly, as soon as we can furnish a reason for the repetition, it
becomes unobjectionable; and often, when this is not the case, the objections
are unremoved if we ascribe the repetitions to a new author, who made the repetition
by way of an explanation (see EXODUS, II, 2, (5)).
(b) Separation of Materials:
Other reasons will probably be found in uniting or separating materials that are
related. That Leviticus 16 is connected with Leviticus 8-10, and these connect
with Exodus 25, is said to prove that this had been the original order in these
sections. But why should materials that are clearly connected be without any reason
torn asunder by the insertion of foreign data? Or has the interpolator perhaps
had reasons of his own for doing this? Why are not these breaks ascribed to the
original author? The sacrificial laws in Leviticus 1-7 are properly placed before
Leviticus 8-10, because in these latter chapters the sacrifices are described
as already being made (9:7,15, the sin offering; 9:7,12,16, the burnt offering;
9:17; 10:12, the meal offering; 9:18, the peace offering; 9:3, all kinds). In
the same way Leviticus 11-15, through 15:31, are inwardly connected with Leviticus
16, since these chapters speak of the defiling of the dwelling-place of Yahweh,
from which the Day of Atonement delivers (16:16,33). As a matter of course, the
original writer as well as a later redactor could have at times also connected
parts in a looser or more external manner. In this way, in 7:22, the command not
to eat of the fats or of the blood has been joined to the ordinances with reference
to the use of the peace offerings in 7:19. This again is the case when, in Leviticus
2, verses 11-13 have been inserted in the list of the different kinds of meal
offering; when after the general scheme of sin offerings, according to the hierarchical
order and rank in Leviticus 4, a number of special cases are mentioned in 5:1;
and when in 5:7 commands are given to prevent too great poverty; or when in 6:19
the priestly meal offerings are found connected with other ordinances with references
to the meat offerings in general (6:14); or when the share that belongs to the
priest (7:8) is found connected with his claim to the guilt offering (7:1); or
the touching of the meat offering by something unclean (7:19) is found connected
with the ordinances concerning the peace offerings; or when in Leviticus 11 the
ordinances dealing with the unclean animals gradually pass over into ordinances
concerning the touching of these animals, as is already indicated by the subscription
11:4,6 f (compare with 11:2). Still more would it be natural to unite different
parts in other ways also. In this way the ordinances dealing with the character
of the sacrifices in 22:17-30 could, regarded by themselves, be placed also in
Leviticus 1-7. But in Leviticus 22 they are also well placed. On the other hand,
the character of Leviticus 1-7 would have become too complicated if they were
inserted here. In such matters the author must have freedom of action.
(c) Change of Singular and Plural:
Further, the frequent change between the singular and the plural in the addresses
found in the laws which are given to a body of persons is without further thought
used by the critics as a proof of a diversity of authors in the section under
consideration (compare Leviticus 10:12; 19:9,11,15, etc.). But how easily this
change in numbers can be explained! In case the plural is used, the body of the
people are regarded as having been distributed into individuals; and in the case
of a more stringent application the plural can at once be converted into the singular,
since the author is thinking now only of separate individuals. Naturally, too,
the singular is used as soon as the author thinks again rather of the people as
a whole. Sometimes the change is made suddenly within one and the same verse or
run of thought; and this in itself ought to have banished the thought of a difference
of authors in such cases. In the case of an interpolator or redactor, it is from
the outset all the more probable that he would have paid more attention to the
person used in the addresses than that this would have been done by the original
writer, who was completely absorbed by the subject-matter. Besides, such a change
in number is frequently found in other connections also; compare in the Book of
the Covenant (Exodus 22:20 - 25 , 29 ; 23:9; compare Deuteronomy 12:2,13). In
regard to these passages, also, the modern critics are accustomed to draw the
same conclusion; and in these cases, too, this is hasty. In the same way the change
in the laws from the 3rd to the 2nd person can best be explained as the work of
the lawgiver himself, before whose mind the persons addressed are more vividly
present and who, when speaking in the 2nd person, becomes personal (compare Leviticus
2:4 with 2:1-3, and also 1:2 ; 3:17 ; 6:18 , 21 , 25).
(d) Proofs of Religious Development:
A greater importance seemingly must be attributed to the reasons based on a difference
in the terminology or on contradictions in the laws, as these appear to lead to
a religio-historical development. But the following examples are intended to show
how all important it is to be slow in the acceptance of the materials which the
critics offer in this connection. |
(3) Insufficiency of These Reasons.
(a) In Leviticus 5:1-7, in the section treating of the sin
offering (Leviticus 4:1 - 5:13), we find the word 'asham, which also signifies
"guilt offering" (compare Leviticus 5:14 ; 7:1). Accordingly, it is claimed, the
author of 5:1-7 was not yet acquainted with the difference between the two kinds
of offerings, and that this part is older than that in 4:1; 5:14. However, in
5:1 the word 'asham is evidently used in the sense of "repentance," and does not
signify "sin offering" at all; at any rate, already in 5:6 f we find the characteristic
term chaTTath to designate the latter, and thus this section appears as entirely
in harmony with the connection.
(b) Critics find a contradiction in Leviticus 6:26; 7:33,7, and in 6:29; 7:31,6,
since in the first case the officiating priest and in the other case the entire
college of priests is described as participating in the sacrifice. In reply it
is to be said that the first set of passages treat of the individual concrete
cases, while the second set speak of the general principle. In 7:8, however, where
the individual officiating priest is actually put in express contrast with all
the sons of Aaron, the matter under consideration is a difference in the meal
offerings, which, beginning with Leviticus 2, could be regarded as known. Why
this difference is made in the use of this sacrifice is no longer intelligible
to us, as we no longer retain these sacrifices, nor are we in possession of the
oral instruction which possibly accompanied the written formulation of these laws;
but this is a matter entirely independent of the question as to the author.
(c) According to Exodus 29:7; Leviticus 4:3 , 5 , 16 ; 6:20 , 22 ; 8:12 ; 16:32
; 21:10 , 12, the high priest is the only one who is anointed; while, on the other
hand, in Exodus 28:41; 29:21; 30:30; 40:15; Leviticus 7:36; 10:7, all the priests
are anointed. But the text as it reads does not make it impossible that there
was a double anointing. According to the first set of passages, Aaron is anointed
in such a manner that the anointing oil is poured out upon his head (compare especially
Exodus 29:7 and Leviticus 8:12). Then, too, he and all his sons are anointed in
such a way that a mixture of the oil and of the blood is sprinkled upon them and
on their garments (compare especially Exodus 29:21 and Leviticus 8:30). Were we
here dealing with a difference in reference to theory and the ranks of the priesthood,
as these discussions were current at the time of the exile (see III, below), then
surely the victorious party would have seen to it that their views alone would
have been reproduced in these laws, and the opposing views would have been suppressed.
But now both anointings are found side by side, and even in one and the same chapter!
(d) The different punishments prescribed for carnal intercourse with a woman during
her periods in Leviticus 15:24 and 20:18 are easily explained by the fact that,
in the first passage, the periods are spoken of which only set in during the act,
and in the second passage, those which had already set in before.
(e) As far as the difference in terminology is concerned, it must be remembered
that in their claims the critics either overlook that intentional differences
may decide the preference for certain words or expressions; or else they ignore
the fact that it is possible in almost every section of a writer's work to find
some expressions which are always, or at least often, peculiar to him; or finally,
they in an inexcusable way ignore the freedom of selection which a writer has
between different synonyms or his choice in using these.
All in all, it must be said that however much we acknowledge the keenness and
the industry of the modern critics in clearing up many difficulties, and the fact
that they bring up many questions that demand answers, it nevertheless is the
fact that they take the matter of solving these problems entirely too easily,
by arbitrarily claiming different authors, without taking note of the fact that
by doing this the real difficulty is not removed, but is only transferred to another
place. What could possibly be accepted as satisfactory in one single instance,
namely that through the thoughtlessness of an editor discrepancies in form or
matter had found their way into the text, is at once claimed to be the regular
mode of solving these difficulties--a procedure that is itself thoughtlessness.
On the other hand, the critics overlook the fact that it makes little difference
for the religious and the ethical value of these commands, whether logical, systematic,
linguistic or aesthetic correctness in all their parts has been attained or not;
to which must yet be added, that a failure in the one particular may at the same
time be an advantage in the other. In this respect we need recall only the anacoluths
of the apostle Paul. |
|
2. Structure of the Biblical Text:
(1) Structure in General.
The most effective antidote against the craze to split up the text in the manner
described above will be found in the exposition of all those features which unite
this text into one inseparable whole. What we have tried to demonstrate in the
arts GENESIS; EXODUS, II; DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2 (compare also EZEKIEL, I, 2,
(2)) can be repeated at this point. The Book of Leviticus shows all the marks
of being a well-constructed and organic literary product, which in its fundamental
characteristics has already been outlined under I above. And as this was done
in the several articles just cited, we can here add further, as a corroborative
factor in favor of the acceptance of an inner literary unity of the book, that
the division of the book into its logical parts, even down to minute details,
is here, as is so often the case elsewhere, not only virtually self-evident in
many particulars, but that the use made of typical numbers in many passages in
this adjustment of the parts almost forces itself upon our recognition. In other
places the same is at least suggested, and can be traced throughout the book without
the least violence to the text. The system need not be forced upon the materials.
We often find sections but loosely connected with the preceding parts (compare
under 1 above) and not united in a strictly logical manner, but which are nevertheless
related in thought and association of ideas. In harmony with the division of the
Book of Ge we find at once that the general contents, as mentioned under I above,
easily fall into 10 pericopes, and it is seen that these consist of 2 sets each
of 5 pericopes together with an appendix.
(a) Ten Pericopes in Two Parts:
Part I, the separation from God and the removal of this
separation:
(i) Leviticus 1:1-7:38;
(ii) Leviticus 8:1-10:20;
(iii) Leviticus 11:1-15:33;
(iv) Leviticus 16;
(v) Leviticus 17. |
Part II, the normal conduct of the people of God:
(i) Leviticus 18; 19; 20;
(ii) Leviticus 21; 22;
(iii) Leviticus 23; 24;
(iv) Leviticus 25;
(v) Leviticus 26. |
|
Appendix, Leviticus 27; compare for the number 10 the division of Exodus 1:8-7:7
; 7:8-13:16 ; 13:17-18:27; also the Decalogue, 20:1; 21:1-23:19; 32:1-35:1; and
see EXODUS, II, 2; and in Leviticus probably 18:6-18 ; 19:9-18, and with considerable
certainty 19:1-37 (see below).
(b) Correspondence and Connections:
I leave out of consideration in this case the question whether an intentional
correspondence among the different parts be traced or not, even in their details.
Thus, e.g.; when the 2nd pericope treats particularly of the order of the priests,
or when the 4th pericope of the 2nd set (Leviticus 25) states that the beginning
of the Year of Jubilee fell on the 10th day of the 7th month, i.e. on the Day
of Atonement as described in Leviticus 16, in the 4th pericope of the 1st set
(compare 25:9 with 16:29); or when both sets close with two shorter pericopes,
which evidently express high stages of development (Le 16; 17, respectively, Le
25; 26 treating of the Day of Atonement, of the use made of blood and the purposes
of blood for the altar or the Jubilee Year, of the blessing and the curse).
And, as far as the order in other respects is concerned, it is throughout to be
regarded as founded in the subject-matter itself that Leviticus 1-17 must precede
Leviticus 18:1-26:46. First that which separates the people from God must be removed,
and then only is a God-pleasing conduct possible. Just as easily, and in agreement
with the context, it is possible that the consecration of the priests in Leviticus
8-10 presupposes the sacrificial torah (Leviticus 1-7; compare under 1 above)
and follows the latter, and is immediately introduced by the mention made of the
installation sacrifices for which otherwise there are no reasons assigned in the
concluding formula in 7:37 (compare 8:22-32). The Day of Atonement (Leviticus
16), which in 16:16 f and 33 is spoken of in connection with the purification
of the sanctuary, is in turn introduced by Leviticus 11-15, or more particularly
by the remark in 15:31, where mention is made of the pollution of the dwelling-place
of Yahweh. And on the other hand, the ordinances dealing with the priests (948/A>;
Leviticus 11-15. The sacrifices, with which the first part in Leviticus 1-7 begins,
are taken up again by the conclusion in Leviticus 17, in the commandment concerning
the blood for the altar. The second part, too, already at the beginning (Le 18;
19; 20) in its religiously cultural and ethical ordinances, shows in the clearest
possible manner what matters it proposes to discuss. In this way the systematic
structure of the book is apparent in all particulars.
Close connections:
comparison with Exodus: And, further, the different pericopes are also so closely
Connected among themselves and with the corresponding pericopes in the books of
Ex and Nu, that many have thought it necessary to regard them as a special body
of laws. But the connection is so close and involves all the details so thoroughly,
that all efforts to divide and distribute them after the examples described under
1 above must fail absolutely. We shall now give the proofs for the different pericopes
in Lev, but in such a manner as to take into consideration also Exodus 25:1-31:18;
35, treating of the tabernacle and its utensils and the Aaronitic priesthood,
which are most intimately connected with Lev. All details in this matter will
be left out of consideration.
(i) Tabernacle and priesthood: That Leviticus 8-10 (the
consecration of the priests, etc.), together with Exodus 25, constitutes a single
whole is accepted on all hands. But the tent of meeting and its utensils, and
also the priesthood, both with and without any emphasis on the Aaronitic origin,
are presupposed also in almost each one of the other pericopes of Leviticus; compare
for Leviticus 1-7, e.g., 1:3,1; 3:2,8,13; 4:4,5,7,14,16,18; 6:26 (tent of meeting);
1:5,12; 3:5; 4:7,25,30; 6:12 (altar of burnt sacrifices); 4:7,18 (altar of incense
sacrifices); 4:6,17 (veil); 6:9,19 (court); 1:5,7,8,11; 2:2; 3:2,5,8,13; 6:9,14,16,20,25,
etc. (Aaron and his sons as priests); for Leviticus 11-15 see 12:4,6; 14:11,23;
15:14,29,31 (sanctuary, tent of meeting, dwelling-place); 11:1; 12:6; 13:1; 14:2,33;
15:1 (priesthood); for Leviticus 16 see verses 2,7,16,20,23,13 (sanctuary and
Holy of Holies tent of meeting); 16:2,12 (veil); 16:2,13 (lid of the Ark of the
Covenant); 16:12,18,20,33 (altar); 16:1 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus
17 see verses 4-6,9 (tent of meeting); 17:6,11 (altar); 17:5 (priesthood); for
Le 18; 19; 20 see 19:30,21 (sanctuary of Yahweh, tent of meeting); 19:22 (priesthood);
for Leviticus 21 f see 21:12 (sanctuary); 21:23 (sanctuaries of Yahweh); 21:23
(veil, altar); 21:1,21 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus 23; 24 see 23:2,4,21,24,27,36
f (sanctuary); 24:1 (candlestick, tent of meeting); 24:5 (table of showbread);
23:10,20 (priesthood); 24:3,1 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus 26 see verses
2,11,31 (sanctuary, dwelling-place of Yahweh, sanctuaries); for Leviticus 27 see
verses 10,33 (sanctuary); 27:8 (priesthood).
(ii) In the same way the sacrificial laws of Leviticus 1-7 are mentioned in the
following pericopes as matters that are well known. For Leviticus 8-10 see 9:7,15
(sin offering); 9:7,12,16 (burnt offering); 9:17; 10:12 (meal offering); 9:18
(peace offering); 9:3 f (all together); compare also Exodus 29:14,18,28. In Leviticus
9:21; 10:14 f (wave-breasts and heave-thigh) direct reference is made to 7:30-36.
In the same manner 10:16 presupposes the ordinances dealing with the different
ways of offering the sin offerings in 4:3,13; 6:24-30; for Leviticus 11-15 see
12:6; 14:12 (compare especially 14:13 with 4:24); 14:21; 15:14,29; for Leviticus
16 see verses 3,5,9,11,15,24,27; for Leviticus 17 see verses 5,8,11; for Le 18;
19; 20 see 19:6,21 f (here is therefore the 'asham found in H, which is claimed
to be of a later date); for Leviticus 21 f see 21:6,21; 22:17,29; for Leviticus
23; 24 see 23:12; 18:19,27,37; 24:9; for Leviticus 26 see verses 30; for Leviticus
27 compare verses 15,19,27,31 with 5:16; 6:5.
(iii) Laws on clean and unclean: The laws in reference to the clean and the unclean
in Leviticus 11-15 are also interwoven with the whole book. For Leviticus 1-7
see 5:2; 6:27; 7:19; for Leviticus 8-10 see 10:10; for Leviticus 16 see verses
16,19; for Leviticus 17 see verses 13,15; for Le 18; 19; 20 compare 20:25 with
11:44, and in general with Leviticus 11; for Leviticus 21 f see 21:10; 13:45;
22:3 with Leviticus 13-15; for Leviticus 27 see verses 11 and 27, as also Leviticus
11.
(iv) The laws in reference to the Day of Atonement found in Leviticus 16 are prepared
for by those found in Leviticus 11-15, namely, in 14:4,49 (the ceremony with the
two birds in connection with the purification from leprosy), and in 15:31 (compare
16:16,19; see above). For Leviticus 23; 24 compare 23:26 with 16:29 if, and for
25:9 with 16:29 see above; compare also Exodus 30:10.
(v) Leviticus 17 is re-echoed in Leviticus 1-7 (7:26 f) and in Le 18; 19; 20 (19:26).
(vi) Finally Leviticus 25 (Year of Rest and Year of Jubilee) is presupposed in
Leviticus 26:34,43 and in Leviticus 27:17,23 f.
The above, however, by no means exhausts this list of references and similar thoughts,
and we have here given only some leading illustrations. What literary tricks must
be resorted to when, over against this overwhelming mass of evidence, critics
yet insist that the different parts of the book were originally independent writings,
especially, too, when the entire tabernacle and utensils of the Aaronitic priesthood,
the Day of Atonement, the Year of Jubilee, the whole sacrificial scheme and the
laws dealing with the great festivals, the restriction of the slaying of the sacrificial
animals to the central sanctuary, are regarded as the products of imagination
alone, according to the Wellhausen hypothesis (compare III, below, and see also
EXODUS, III, 5; DAY OF ATONEMENT, III, 1; EZEKIEL, II, 2). And how little is gained
in addition when, as is sometimes done, in a most arbitrary manner, the statements
found in Leviticus 1-3 concerning the tabernacle of revelation ("tent of meeting")
and concerning Aaron's sons, or concerning Aaron and his sons together, are regarded
as later additions. In Le and Exodus 25; 35, everything is so entirely of one
and the same character and has so clearly emanated from one and the same spirit,
that it is impossible to separate from this product any constituent parts and
to unite these into groups that were originally independent, then to split up
these still further and to trace the parts to their sources, and even to construct
a scheme of religious and historical development on this reconstruction of the
sources. |
|
(2) Structure of the Individual Pericopes.
As the windows and the column capitals of a medieval cathedral are arranged according
to different schemes and this divergence is regarded as an enrichment of the structure,
thus, too, we find it to be in the structure of the various pericopes of the Book
of Leviticus. These latter, too, possess a certain symphony of different tones,
but all are rhythmically arranged, and only when united do they produce the entire
symphony.
(a) The Laws Concerning the Sacrifices (Leviticus 1-7):
In the first place, the five different kinds of sacrifices in Israel are mentioned
in succession twice, in Leviticus 1:1-7:21:
Part I, Leviticus 1-5, namely (i) Leviticus 1, burnt offerings; (ii) Leviticus
2, meal offering; (iii) Leviticus 3, peace offerings; (iv) 4:1-5:13, sin offering;
(v) 5:14-26, guilt offering; Part II, 6:1-7:21, namely
(i) 6:8-13, burnt offerings;
(ii) 6:14-23, meal offering;
(iii) 6:24-30, sin offering;
(iv) 7:1-7 with appendix, 7:8-10, dealing with that part of the sacrifices which
belongs to the priest (see under 1, above), guilt offering;
(v) 7:11-21, peace offerings.
With this is found connected in 7:22-27 the prohibition of the use of the fat
or the blood, and in 7:28-36, the laws concerning the wave-breast and the heave-thigh.
We have accordingly at once twelve of these laws (compare on Exodus 25:1-30:10
in article on EXODUS, II, 2, (5) and on EZEKIEL, I, 2, 5)). But even apart from
this we have no right to ascribe Leviticus 1-5 and 6:1-7:21, on the ground that
they are duplicates, to different authors.
That there is a difference between these two accounts is proved, not only by the
fact that the first set of laws from Leviticus 1-5 is addressed to all the Israelites
(compare Leviticus 1:2; 4:2), and the second set Leviticus 6:8 ; 7:21 to Aaron
and his sons (compare Leviticus 6:9 , 25); but the second set has also in content
a number of altogether different viewpoints as compared with the first set, so
that the same author found himself induced or compelled to write both sets. On
the other hand, the fact that both have the same author is evident from the very
close connection between the two sections. In addition to the fact that both make
mention of all five kinds of sacrifices, we can yet compare Leviticus 3:5 with
6:22 (fat pieces of the peace offering over the burnt sacrifices upon the pieces
of wood); and, further, the express reference of 6:17 to Leviticus 4, while 6:30
presupposes the distinct separation of the sin offering, the blood of which is
brought into the tent of meeting, from the other sacrifices, as these are given
in 4:3,13 over against 4:22 , 27. Leviticus 4, with its reference to the peace
offerings (Leviticus 4:10 , 26 , 31 , 35), is again most closely connected with
Leviticus 3. We must accordingly insist that the whole account is most intimately
interwoven. Over against this, the omission within the first set, Leviticus 1-5,
in 5:14-16, of the ritual for the peace offering, is sufficiently explained only
by the fact that this ritual was to be used in the second set (Leviticus 6:8 -
7:21), and here for the first time only in 7:1-15, which fact again speaks for
the same author for both sets and against the supposition that they were merely
mechanically united by a redactor. The fact that the second set 6:8-7:21 has a
different order from that of Leviticus 1-5, by uniting the sin offering immediately
with the meal offering (Leviticus 6:24 with 6:14-23), is probably on account of
the similar ordinances in 7:9 and 7:19 (manner of eating the meal offering and
the sin offering). On the other hand, the position of the peace offering at the
close of the second set (Leviticus 7:11) furnished the possibility of giving to
the piece of the entire pericope embraced in 7:22-27 , 28-36 a suitable conclusion;
since 7:22 (prohibition of the eating of the fat and the blood), connected with
7:19, contained in 7:28 an ordinance that pertained to the peace offering (heave-breast
and wave-thigh). At any rate, these last two pieces are to be regarded separately
from the rest, since they are no longer addressed to the priests, as is Leviticus
6:8-7:21, but to all Israel; compare 7:23,29. On some other data less intimately
connected with the matter, compare above under 1. |
(b) Consecration of priests and related matters (Leviticus 8-10): In this pericope,
as in the following, down to Leviticus 17 inclusive, but especially from Leviticus
11 on, the principle of division on the basis of the number four predominates,
in many cases in the details, too; so that this could scarcely be regarded as
an accidental feature (compare also the history of Abraham in Genesis 12-26; further,
in Exodus 35:4-40:38; and in EXODUS, II, 2, (7); Leviticus 16, under DAY OF ATONEMENT,
I, 2, (1)); Deuteronomy 12-26, too, is probably to be divided on this principle,
even to the minutest details (compare finally Leviticus 21-22:16 ; 22:17-30 ;
Leviticus 23 f and 26).
(i) Leviticus 8, treating of the first seven days of the
consecration of the priests:
The outline is found in 8:2, namely Aaron, the sacred garments, the anointing
oil, the bullock of the sin offering, two rams, unleavened bread (compare 8:6,7,10,14,18,22,26).
(ii) Leviticus 9 the first sacrifices of Aaron and his sons on the 8th day (9:2-4
contain the outline, after the manner of 8:2; compare 9:7,11, the sin offering
and the burnt offering of Aaron, with 9:2; also 9:15-18, treating of what the
people brought for the sacrifices, with 9:3; but it is to be noticed that the
meal offering and the peace offering (9:17,18) are given in inverted order from
that found in 9:3 f). Here too we find the number seven, if we add the burnt offering
for the morning (9:17).
(iii) 10:1-7, the sin of Nadab and Abihu and their punishment by death; (iv) 10:8-20,
ordinances concerning the priests, occasioned by 8:1-10:7 and provided with a
new superscription in 10:8, namely 10:8, dealing with the prohibition of the use
of wine and intoxicants; 10:9, distinction between the holy and the unholy; 10:12-15,
the eating of the sacred oblations; 10:16-20, the treatment of the goat for the
sin offering. |
(c) Laws Concerning the Clean and Unclean (Leviticus 11-15):
(i) Leviticus 11, treating of clean and unclean animals.
The outline of the chief contents is found in 11:46 with a free transposition
of one number. There are accordingly four pieces, namely, 11:2-8, quadrupeds;
11:9-12, water animals; 11:13-23, birds (with an appendix, treating of contact
with the unclean, 11:24-28, which give a summary of the animals mentioned (see
under 1); 11:29-45, the small animals upon the earth (again in four subdivisions,
namely, (i) 11:29-38; (ii) 11:39; (iii) 11:41; (iv) 11:44 f).
(ii) Leviticus 12 treats of women in confinement, also in four pieces (12:2-4,
birth of a male child; 12:5, birth of a female child; 12:6, purification ceremony;
12:8, ordinances in case of extreme poverty). These parts are not joined logically,
but in a rather external manner.
(iii) The passage 13:1-14:53, containing the laws of leprosy, with the subscription
in 14:54. (Because seven points are to be enumerated, 14:55 (garments and houses),
this is not as in its further exposition separated from the other laws and is
placed in their midst.) The exposition contains four pieces, namely, 13:1-44,
leprosy on human beings (with concluding 13:45 f), with seven subdivisions, of
which the first five longer ones are constructed along fairly parallel lines,
and again can be divided into four sub-subdivisions, namely, 13:1-8; 1:9-17; 1:18-23;
1:24-28; 1:29-37; 1:38; 1:40-44. The significance of the number seven for the
structure (see (2), (b), i, above) is akin to that found, e.g., in Exodus 24:18
b through 31:18 (see EXODUS, II, 2, (5)); Leviticus 8; 9 (see above); Leviticus
23; 25; and 27; and possibly 26:3-13,14-39 (see below); finally, the whole Book
of Ex is divided into seven parts (see EXODUS, II, 1). 13:47-59, leprosy in connection
with garments, with four subdivisions, namely 13:47-50; 13:51; 13:53; 13:55. The
last subdivision can again be readily separated into four sub-subdivisions, namely,
13:55; 13:56; 13:57; 13:58; 14:1-32, purifications (14:2 being a special superscription),
with 4 subdivisions, namely,
(i) 14:2b-3a, the leper before the priest;
(ii) 14:3b-9, the purification ceremonies on the first seven days, again divided
into 4 sub-subdivisions: 14:3b; 14:5-7; 14:8; 14:9;
(iii) 14:10-20, the ceremony of the eighth day (4 sacrifices, namely 14:12-18,
guilt offering; 14:19a, sin offering; 14:19b, burnt offering; 14:20, meal offering;
in the 4 sacrifices (5:12-6:7) there are again 4 different actions: 14:14; 14:15;
14:17; 14:18;
(iv) 14:21-32 (in cases of poverty) 14:33-53, leprosy in houses, with four subdivisions:
14:33-35; 14:36-38; 14:39-42; 14:43-53. |
(iv) Leviticus 15, sickness or natural issues, with 4 subdivisions, namely, 15:1-15,
checked or running issues together with their purification (15:3-12 contain 12
laws: 15:3; 15:4a; 15:4b; 15:5; 15:6; 15:7; 15:8; 15:9; 15:10a; 15:10b; 15:11;
15:12); 15:16-18, issue of seed; 15:19-24, periods; 15:25-30, other flows of blood
and their purification. Leviticus 15:1-15 and 15:16-18 refer to men, and 15:19-24
and 15:25-30 to women; and in addition to these implied suggestions, as 15:1-15
and 15:25-30 to dealing with abnormal issues and their purification ceremonies,
15:16-18 and 15:19-24 deal with normal issues. |
(d) The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16): See IV, 1, (2), 2, and under ATONEMENT,
DAY OF.
(e) Uses and significance of the blood of sacrifices (Leviticus 17):
(i) 17:3-7, only one place for killing the Sacrifices and
the rejection of all foreign cultures;
(ii) 17:8,9, only one place for sacrificing;
(iii) 17:10-14, prohibitive of eating the blood;
(iv) 17:15, pertaining to carcasses of animals found dead or which have been torn
by wild beasts. |
Here the form and the contents of the section have been brought into perfect harmony
by the author. Leviticus 17:3,8,10,13 begin with same words, and each contains
a similar formula in reference to the punishment, while logically 17:10 and 13
are evidently only subdivisions of the third part in 17:10-14, which treats of
the prohibition of eating blood. In the fourth division, again, while in substance
connected with the rest, there is lacking the formal agreement with the first
three divisions.
(f) (g) (Leviticus 18; 19; 20; 21): These naturally fall each into 2 parts. Leviticus
18-20 contain
(i) Leviticus 18, religious and ethical laws;
(ii) Leviticus 20, laws dealing with punishments. |
(f) (i) Religious and ethical laws (Leviticus 18):
(a) Leviticus 18: Ordinances with reference to marriage
and chastity. Leviticus 18:1-5, introductory; 18:6-18, prohibition of marriage
between kindred of blood; 18:19-23, prohibition of other sexual sins; 18:24-30,
warnings.
The subdivision can perhaps be divided into 10 subordinate parts, if it is permitted
to combine the different degrees of relationship mentioned in Leviticus 18:12-14
(namely, 18:7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12-14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18). Since it, of itself,
manifestly consists of 5 ordinances (18:19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23), this whole section,
if we are permitted to divide it into 5 commandments (18:2 , 3a , 3b , 4 , 5)
and also into 5 (18:24 , 26-28 , 29 , 30a , 30b), would contain 5 X 5 words; but
this is uncertain.
(b) Leviticus 19: various commands of the deepest significance. In order to discover
the divisions of this chapter we must note the characteristic formula, "I am Yahweh,
your Gods" or a similar expression, which often appears at the beginning and at
the end of certain divisions, e.g. in series (1) (9) and (10), but which in the
middle series appears in each case only once, and which in all the series is found
also at the conclusion.
In this way we can compute 10 tetralogues. Thus after the superscription in 19:2
containing a summary, we have
(i) 19:3,1 (19:3a,3b,4a,4b);
(ii) 19:5-10 (19:5,7,9,10);
(iii) 19:11 f (19:11a,11b(?),11b(?),12);
(iv) 19:13 f (19:13a,13b,14a,14b);
(v) 19:15 f (15a,15b,16a,16b);
(vi) 19:17 f (19:17a,17b,18a,18b);
(vii) 19:19-25 (19:19a,19b,20-22,23-25);
(viii) 19:26-28 (19:26a,26b,27,28),
(ix) 19:29-32 (19:29,30,31,32);
(x) 19:33-36 (19:33,14,35,36); 19:37 constitutes the conclusion of the whole.
Possibly groupings of two can yet form a closer union (compare on Exodus 1:1-18:27;
21:1-23:33, EXODUS, II, 2, (1-4)). At any rate (iii) and (iv) can be summarized
under the general heading of defrauding one's neighbors; (v) and (vi) under that
of observation of the laws; (vii) and (viii) under that of heathen abuses; while
(ix) and (x) perhaps intentionally mingle together the religious and cultural
and ethical elements, in order thereby already to express that all these things
are most intimately connected (but compare also Leviticus 19:12 , 14 , 17, in
the middle sections). In 19:5,20,23, the author develops his subject somewhat
more fully. |
|
(f ii) Laws dealing with punishments (Leviticus 20): The regulations in reference
to punishments stand in such close relation to the contents of Leviticus 18 and
to parts of Leviticus 19, that it is absolutely incomprehensible how the Critics
can assign these three chapters to different authors. Even if certain regulations
of Leviticus 18 are not found here in Leviticus 20:7,10,17 b,18, and even if another
order has been followed, this variation, which doubtless also hangs together with
a new grouping of the materials, is rather an advantage than a disadvantage for
the whole. It is impossible to conceive that a redactor would have altered anything
in two entirely parallel and similar texts, or would himself have written a parallel
text differing from the other. Leviticus 20 can probably be divided into 4 parts,
namely,
(i) 20:1-8, punishments for idolatry and witchcraft with
a concluding formula, 20:7;
(ii) 20:9-18, punishment of death for ten crimes, all of which, with the exception
of the first, are of a sexual nature (20:9-18). It is a question whether the first
in the second group (20:14), i.e. the sixth in the whole series, was intended
to be made prominent by the peculiar character of the punishment (burning to death);
(iii) 20:19-21, other sexual sins, with lighter punishments;
(iv) 20:22-27, with 4 subdivisions (warning, 20:22; promise, 20:24; emphatic repetitions
of two commands already given, 20:25; (compare with 11:44, and in general with
Leviticus 11); and 20:27 with 19:26 , 31 ; 20:6). Perfectly certain in this chapter
is the fact that the different kinds of punishments are likewise decisive for
their order. It is doubtless not to be regarded as accidental that both at the
beginning and at the end death by stoning is mentioned. |
(g) (Leviticus 21:1-22:33):
(i) Laws concerning the quality of the priests (21:1-22,16);
and
(ii) concerning sacred oblations (22:17-30) with the subscription 22:31-33. |
(g i) Qualities of priests: Leviticus 21:1-22:16 in four sections (21:1 , 10 ,
16 ; 22:1; note also in 21:18-20 the 12 blemishes; in 22:4-8 the 7 cases of uncleanness).
(g ii) Sacred oblations: Leviticus 22:17-30 in four sections (22:18-20 , 21-25
, 26-28 , 29 f).
(h) Consecration of seasons, etc. (Leviticus 23; 24):
(i) Leviticus 23, laws for the feasts (7 sections, namely,
23:3 , 4 , 6-14 ,15-22 ,23-25 ,26-32 , 33-36, with the appendix that in every
particular suits the connection, in 23:39, added to the feast of the tabernacles);
(ii) 24:1-4, treating of the sacred candlestick, which represents the moral conduct
of the Israelites, and for this reason suits admirably in the connection; as this
is true also of
(iii) 24:5-9, treating of the showbread, which represents the results of the labor
of Israel;
(iv) 24:10-23, containing the report of the punishment of a blasphemer of God
and of one who cursed.
Probably the example was made of a person who took the name of God in vain at
the time which this chapter describes. But possibly there is a still closer connection
to be found with that which precedes. The showbread and the candlestick were found
in the holy place, which with its utensils pictured the relation of Israel's character
to their God; while the utensils in the Holy of Holies indicated God's relation
to His people (compare Hengstenberg, Beitrage, III, 644). But since the holy place,
in addition to the showbread and the candlestick, contained only the incense altar,
which symbolized the prayers of Israel, and as the blasphemer represents the exact
opposite of prayer, it is probable that in 24:10 prayer is indicated by its counterpart.
This section consists of 4 parts, namely, 24:10-12 ; 24:13-14 ; 24:15-22 (giving
a series of punishments for certain wrongdoings which are more or less closely
connected with that found in the text); 24:23. |
(i) Sabbatic and Jubilee years (Leviticus 25): Sabbatic and Jubilee years in 7
sections, namely, 25:1-7; 25:8-12; 25:13-28; 25:29-34; 25:35-38; 25:39-46; 25:47-55.
(j) Conclusion: Curse and blessing (Leviticus 26): The grand concluding chapter,
offering a curse and a blessing and containing all the prophetic utterances of
later times in a nutshell, namely,
(i) 26:1-2, repetition of four important demands (26:1a,1b,2a,2b);
(ii) 26:3-13, the blessing, possibly to be divided into 7 stages, one more spiritual
than the other;
(iii) 26:4-39, the curse, possibly to be divided into seven stages, one more intense
than the other (compare also the play on words 7 times repeated, in reference
to shabbath, possibly found in 26:34, and certainly found in 26:18,21,24,27 f);
(iv) 26:40-45, the mercy finally shown by Yahweh for His covenant's sake. |
(k) Appendix: Finally, the appendix in Leviticus 27, dealing with vows and tithes,
in 7 parts, namely, Leviticus 27:1-8 ; 27:9-13 ; 27:14-15 ; 27:16-21 ; 27:26 ;
27:28-29 ; 27:30-33. |
|
|
III. Origin.
1. Against the Wellhausen Hypothesis:
As in the article ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. I, 2, (2), we took a stand against the
modern attempts at splitting up the text, and in III, 1 against theory of the
late origin of the whole pericope, we must, after trying under II to prove the
unity of the Book of Leviticus, yet examine the modern claim that the book as
a whole is the product of later times. Since the entire book is ascribed to the
Priestly Code (see II, 1 above), the answer to the question as to the time when
it was written will depend on the attitude which we take toward the Wellhausen
hypothesis, which insists that the Priestly Code was not published until the time
of the exile in 444 BC (Nehemiah 8-10);
(1) The Argument from Silence.
One of the most important proofs for this claim is the "argument from silence"
(argumentum e silentio). How careful one must be in making use of this argument
can be seen from the fact that, e.g., the high priest with his full title is mentioned
but a single time in the entire Book of Leviticus, namely in Leviticus 21:10;
and that the Levites are not mentioned save once (Leviticus 25:32 ff), and then
incidentally. As is well known, it is the adherents of the Wellhausen hypothesis
themselves who now claim that the bulk of the entire literature of the Old Testament
originated in the post-exilic period and long after the year 444 BC. Leaving out
of consideration for the present the Books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, all
of which describe the history of Israel from the standpoint of the Priestly Code
(P), we note that this later literature is not any richer in its references to
P than is the older literature; and that in those cases where such references
are found in this literature assigned to a late period, it is just as difficult
to decide whether these passages refer merely to a custom or to a codified set
of laws.
(2) Attitude of Prophets toward Sacrificial System.
A further proof against the pre-exilic origin of the priestly legislation is found
in what is claimed to be the hostile attitude of the prophets to the sacrificial
system (compare Amos 5:21; 4:4; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 6:20;
7:21; Psalms 40:6; 50:8,9; 51:16 f). But this cannot possibly be an absolute antithesis;
for in this case, it would be directed also against the Books of the Covenant
and, in part, too, against Deuteronomy, which books in Exodus 20:24; 22:19; 23:18;
34:25; Deuteronomy 12:5 , 11 , 13 , 17 , 26 ; 15:19-23 ; 16:2 , 5 ; 17:1 ; 18:1
, 3 also give directions for sacrifices, and which, at least in part, are yet
regarded as older writings. Further, these passages under discussion are also,
in part, assigned to a later and even a very late period (compare even such cases
as Psalms 40:6; 50:8; 51:16; Micah 6:6, and in addition also Malachi 1:10), i.e.
they are assigned to a time in which, according to the views of the critics, the
priestly laws are said to have had their origin or were already regarded as authoritative.
As a rule, the prophets make sacrifices, Sabbaths, sacred places and persons a
part of their pictures of the future; cf, as far as sacrifices are concerned,
e.g. Jeremiah 17:26; 31:14; 33:14. Finally, Leviticus 26:31 shows how, under certain
circumstances, even P can declare sacrifices to be useless.
(3) The People's Disobedience Further, the transgressions of the Levitical laws
in the course of Israel's history cannot be regarded as a proof of the non-existence
of the priestly legislation in pre-exilic times. This is clear from an analogous
case. Idolatry was forbidden by the Books of the Covenant (Exodus 20 through 24;
34), which are recognized as ancient documents; but according to 2 Kings 22 the
pious king Josiah down to the year 622 BC takes no offense at idolatry. Even after
the reformation, which had been inaugurated in consequence of the finding of the
Book of the Law in the temple during the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 22), idolatry
was again practiced in Israel, as is proved by Ezekiel 8 and Jeremiah 44, notwithstanding
that the Books of the Covenant and Deuteronomy already were extant at that time,
even according to the views of the critics.
But let us pass on to P itself, and not forget that the directions given for the
Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25), according to Jewish tradition, were never actually
observed. According to the reasoning of the critics, this law could not be in
existence even in the present day. According to all reports the transgressions
of the Divine ordinances began even as early as the Mosaic period; compare Exodus
32 (J, E, golden calf); Amos 5:25; Ezekiel 20; Deuteronomy 12:8 and also Leviticus
17:7 (sacrifice to the Satyrs in Priestly Code). This condition of affairs can
readily be understood because the religion of Yahweh does not claim to be an emanation
from the spirit of the people, but the result of a revelation from on high. In
the light of these facts can we be surprised, that in the times of the Judges,
when a great prophetic leader was so often not to be found in Israel, the apostasy
was so great and so widespread? But all of these cases of disobedience, that have
been demonstrated as actual facts in Israel's history, are not able to eliminate
the fact that there are many data to prove the existence of a central sanctuary
already in the earliest history of the people, which fact presupposes as a matter
of course that there were also laws for the cults in existence (see EXODUS, III,
5). We must further not forget how the sacrifices of the sons of Samuel (1 Samuel
2:11), notwithstanding all their arbitrary conduct, presupposes such passages
as Leviticus 7:30-32; 10:15; Exodus 29:31; Leviticus 8:31; Numbers 6:19; Leviticus
7:23-32; or that the high priest, as described in Priestly Code, is already before
the year 444 BC as well-known a character as he is after the exile (compare EZEKIEL,
II, 2); or that the question of Haggai 2:11 takes into consideration a code of
cult- laws, and that the answer is given on the basis of Leviticus 6:27; Numbers
19:22.
(4) Indiscriminate Sacrificing.
To this must be added that the transgressions, to which the critics appeal in
proof of their claims, and which they abuse for their own purposes, must in part
be interpreted differently from what they are. In the case of sacrificing indiscriminately
at any place whatever, and by any person whatever, we have in many cases to deal
with extraordinary instances of theophanies (compare Judges 2:1; 6:11; 13:1),
as these had been foreseen in Exodus 20:24. Even the Book of Deuteronomy does
not insist throughout (compare 16:21) that the sacrifices, must be made at one
and the same place (compare also PC: Leviticus 24:31; Joshua 22). After the rejection
of Shiloh, at which the central sanctuary had been deposited, as recorded in 1
Samuel 4, the cultural ordinances of Priestly Code, as we learn from Jeremiah
7:11; 26:6; Psalms 78:59, became more or less a dead letter. Even the Books of
Chronicles, which throughout record history from the standpoint of the Priestly
Code, at this period and down to the dedication of the temple take no offense
at the cultural acts of a Solomon in contrast with their attitude toward the conduct
of Uzziah (see 2 Chronicles 1:6 ; 6:1-4 ; 7:1-7, as compared with 26:16). In the
same way the pious people in the Northern Kingdom, after it had, by Divine consent,
been separated from the Southern, could not do otherwise than erect altars for
themselves, since they could not participate in the worship of the calves in Bethel
and Dan. Further, modern criticism overlooks the fact that what is regular and
normal is much less liable to be reported in historical narrative than that which
is irregular and abnormal.
(5) Deuteronomy and Priestly Code.
It is not possible at this place to enter into further details; we accordingly
refer only to EXODUS, III and IV; DAY OF ATONEMENT, III, and especially EZEKIEL,
II, 2, where the proof has been furnished that this prophet belongs to a later
period than Priestly Code as far as Ezekiel 40:1 - 48:35 (containing his picture
of the future) in general is concerned, and as far as Ezekiel 44:4 (where it is
claimed that the prophet first introduces the distinction between priests and
Levites) in particular is concerned. All the important problems that are connected
with this matter, especially the difficulties which result from the Wellhausen
hypothesis, when the questions as to the purpose, the form, the success and the
origin of the priestly legislation come under consideration, are discussed in
my book, Are the Critics Right? The result of this investigation is all the more
noteworthy, as I was myself formerly an adherent of the Wellhausen school, but
was forced to the conclusion that this hypothesis is untenable.
We have here yet to refer to the one fact that the relation of Deuteronomy (D)
and the Priestly Code (P), as far as Leviticus in particular is concerned, justifies
the scheme of P followed by D as the historical order, while Wellhausen makes
D older than P. Deuteronomy 10:8; 33:8 presuppose more detailed ordinances in
reference to the priests such as those which have been given in P. The book of
Deuteronomy further takes into account different kinds of sacrifices (compare
Deuteronomy 12:5 , 11 , 13 , 17 , 26 ; 15:19-23 ; 17:1 ; 18:1 , 3 , such as are
described in Leviticus 1). The law in Deuteronomy 14 (ordinances with reference
to what is clean) agrees almost word for word with Leviticus 11, and is in such
perfect harmony with the linguistic peculiarities of Priestly Code, that Leviticus
11 must be regarded as the original, and not vice versa. Deuteronomy 24:8 f refers
directly to the injunctions concerning leprosy, as we find these in Leviticus
13, and the Deuteronomic passage is doubtless modeled after that of Lev. Deuteronomy
12:15 , 22 ; 15:22 cannot be understood at all, except in the light of Leviticus
17:13. Deuteronomy 26:14 again expressly takes into account ideas that have been
taken from Leviticus 22:3. As far as the laws dealing with the great feasts in
Deuteronomy 16 are concerned, it is impossible to understand 16:9 without Leviticus
23:15 ,10; and the designation "feast of tabernacles" in Deuteronomy 16:13 cannot
even be understood without a reference to such a law as we find in Leviticus 23:39.
The other passages to be discussed on this subject lead us to the following results.
|
2. Connection with Mosaic Period.
Even if the Book of Deuteronomy were the product of the 7th century BC, the facts
that have been stated above would nevertheless disprove the claim of the Wellhausen
hypothesis as to an exilic or post-exilic date for the Priestly Code. But if Deuteronomy,
even in its essential and fundamental parts, merely, is Mosaic (compare Are the
Critics Right? 1-55), then the Priestly Code which is still older than De must
also belong to the Mosaic period.
(1) Priestly Code and Desert Conditions.
This conclusion is in this point confirmed still further by a series of facts.
As Deuteronomy permits the firstborn to be ransomed (Deuteronomy 14:22), but the
Priestly Code demands their consecration in natura (Leviticus 27:26; compare Numbers
18:15), the latter ordinances could be preferred and enforced only during the
wandering in the desert, where the whole nation was in the neighborhood of the
sanctuary. The fact that the ordinances dealing with the domestic celebration
of the Passover in the private houses on the 14th of Nisan and the holy convocation
on the 15th of Nisan at the sanctuary could be carried out only during the wanderings
in the desert (compare Exodus 12:3,6; Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16; Leviticus
27:6; Numbers 28:17), and that this was changed in Deuteronomy 16:5 f to correspond
to changed conditions, can be seen by reference to EXODUS, III, 3. Still more
important is a third command in Leviticus 17 in comparison with Deuteronomy 12.
The commandment that every animal that is to be slain is to be brought to the
central sanctuary can have a purpose only for the Mosaic period, and could not
even have been invented at a later period. Because of the entrance of Israel into
Canaan, the Book of Deuteronomy changes this ordinance in such a way that from
this time on the killing of the animals is permitted at any place (Deuteronomy
12:13 , 20). The different commands in reference to the carcasses of animals that
have died and of those torn to pieces are all dependent on Leviticus 17. In Deuteronomy
14:21, it was possible to forbid the use of such animals absolutely for Israel,
because from now on, and in contrast to Leviticus 17, the killing of sacrificial
animals was permitted at any place (Leviticus 17:13). In Exodus 22:30 all use
of such meat could be forbidden, because Leviticus 17, with its command to bring
all blood to the sanctuary, had not yet been given. Leviticus, now, on the other
hand, forbids this use only to the priests (Leviticus 22:8), and sees in this
use in the case of the other Israelites only a transitory defilement (compare
Leviticus 17:15; 11:40); and in 7:24 forbids only the use of the fat, but not
of the meat of these animals; for now, according to Leviticus 17:1, all the killing
is a sacrifice which only those who are clean were permitted to eat and which
could not be secured at all times (compare Hoffmann, op. cit., 23 f).
Our exposition of Leviticus 17:1 is, however, in another respect also of the greatest
significance, for in 17:4-6,8 f the tent of meeting is presupposed as existing;
in 17:5,8 also different kinds of sacrifices, and in verse 6 the priesthood; so
that at once further ordinances concerning the tent of meeting, the sacrificial
code, the priesthood, such as we find in 35; Leviticus 1:-7:38 ; Exodus 29; Leviticus
8; 9; 10:21, were possible and necessary, and these very laws must probably originate
in and date from the Mosaic period. This same conclusion is sustained by the following
considerations. For what other source or time could be in harmony with such statements
found very often in other parts of Leviticus also, as "into the camp" in Leviticus
4:11; 6:11; 13:46; 14:3,8 (unconscious contrast to later times); Leviticus 14:33
, 40 , 41 , 45 , 53 ; 16:26 - 28 ; 24:10 - 23; or "into the desert," in Leviticus
16:10 , 21 f. In Leviticus 6:15 , 18 ; 6:6 (compare also 27:2), the words "according
to thy estimation" are addressed personally to Moses. In Leviticus 6:20 a calculation
is based on the day on which Aaron was consecrated to the priesthood, while 6:22
is the first that has general coloring. Such hints, which, as it were, have only
been accidentally scattered in the body of the laws, and which point to the situation
of the lawgiver and of his times, are of especial value for the argument in favor
of the Mosaic origin of these laws. Further, we everywhere find that Aaron and
his sons are as yet the only incumbents of the priestly office (compare Leviticus
1:5 , 7 , 8 , 11 ; 2:3 ; 3:13; 6:9 , 14 , 16, etc.). All the laws claim to have
been given through Moses or Aaron or through both at Mt. Sinai (see I above).
And who, in later times, if it was the purpose to magnify the priesthood of Aaron,
would have thought of inventing the fact that on the Day of Atonement and on other
occasions it was necessary for Aaron to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering
for himself (Leviticus 16; 8-10; 6:19), or that Moses in his view of a certain
cultural act had been mistaken (compare Leviticus 10:16)? The law concerning the
Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25) presupposes that each tribe is confined in its own
district and is not intermingled with the other tribes, a presupposition which
was no longer possible after the occupation of Canaan, and is accordingly thinkable
only in the Mosaic times. And now let us remember that this fact, when we recall
(see II, above) that the unity of the book was proved, is a ground for claiming
that the entire book dates from the Mosaic period. As far as Leviticus at least
is concerned, there is nothing found in the book that calls for a later date.
Leviticus 18:24 can be regarded as post-Mosaic only if we translate these verses
thoughtlessly, as though the inhabitants of the country were here described as
being expelled earlier. On the other hand, in 18:24, just as is the case with
the parallel passage, 20:22, the idea is, without any doubt, that Israel is not
yet in the Holy Land. Accordingly the waw consecutives at this place are to be
regarded not as indicating temporal but logical sequences. In the passage 18:27,
we further find the archaic form ha'-el for ha'-elleh; compare in the Pentateuch
Genesis 19:8 , 25 ; 26:3 , 4 ; Deuteronomy 4:42; 7:22; 19:11. Just as little does
Leviticus 26 take us into the exilic period. Only dogmatical prejudices can take
offense at prediction of the exile. Leviticus 26 cannot be regarded as a "prophecy
after the event," for the reason, too, that the restoration of the people by God's
pardon is here promised (compare 26:40). And, too, the exile is not the only punishment
with which Israel is threatened; and finally as far as Israel is concerned, by
the side of the statements concerning their dwelling in one single country (Leviticus
26:34 , 38 , 41 , 44), it is also said that they are to be scattered among many
nations and countries (compare Leviticus 26:23 , 16 , 39).
(2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin.
If to this we yet add the unity of the thought and of the external construction,
looking at the whole matter, we do not see anything that would lead us to accept
a post-Mosaic period for this book. Then, too, it is from the outset in itself
only probable that Moses gave his people a body of cult-laws and did not leave
this matter to chance. We need only think of the great role which among the oriental
peoples was assigned to their religious cults. It is indeed nowhere said, in so
many words, that Moses wrote even the laws of the Priestly Code. But the references
made by Deuteronomy to the Priestly Code; the fact that Numbers 33, which also
is credited to Moses, is characterized by the style of Priestly Code; further,
that the author of Deuteronomy could write in the style of P (compare Deuteronomy
14 with Leviticus 11); and, per contra, that the author of Leviticus 26 had the
mastery of the style peculiar to Deuteronomy (compare Deuteronomy 28)--all this
makes it probable that Moses even wrote these things himself; at any rate, no
reasons can be cited against this view. Very interesting in connection with the
question of the unity of the Pentateuch are the close connecting links between
Leviticus 18:24; 20:22, and JE. The question whether Moses in the composition
of the book made use of his own notes or of those of others, cannot be decided;
but this is an irrelevant matter. What the facts may be in reference to the development
of other ordinances, which have taken different forms in the Books of the Covenant
and in Priestly Code, or in Deuteronomy and in Priestly Code, and whether the
existence of these differences in the cases of particular laws compels us to accept
later additions, cannot be discussed at this place. Yet from the outset it is
to be emphasized that already in the Mosaic period there could possibly have been
reasons for changing some of these laws; especially was this so in the Book of
Deuteronomy, just before the people entered the promised land (compare e.g. the
laws concerning tithes, Deuteronomy 12:6,17; 14:22; 26:12; Leviticus 27:30; Numbers
18:20, or the laws concerning contributions for sacrifices, Deuteronomy 18:3;
Leviticus 7:29).
Then, too, the decision whether this development took place as early as the time
of Moses or not is not to be made dependent on the possibility of our being able
to explain the reasons for such changes. We lack both the daily practice in these
cultural ordinances, as also the oral instruction which makes these ordinances
intelligible. The manner in which in Leviticus 1 the different kinds of sacrifices
are introduced sounds as though these were already known to the people and were
practiced by them, except in the case of sin and guilt offerings. This is further
in harmony with earlier narratives, which already report concerning sacrifices.
It is possible that in this way we can also explain a certain relationship between
the Jewish sacrificial ritual and that of Babylon (compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur
Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion). The ordinances in reference to the clean
and the unclean may also have emanated from religious and ethical ideas which
are older than Moses' times. In this matter the thought was decisive, that everything
that was impure, everything that suggested death or decay or sin or displeasure
to God, should be kept separated and apart from the religion of Yahweh. In all
such cases it is not the newness of the laws but their adaptability to the character
and spirit of the Yahweh-religion that is to be regarded as the decisive factor.
|
|
IV. THE SIGNIFICANCE
1. Positive
(1) The Law Contains God's Will.
The law contains God's will, although in transitory form. In the article EZEKIEL
under II, 2, (3) we have referred to the fact that Leviticism is an important
and necessary stage in the development of true religion, and that the entire Old
Testament did not advance beyond this stage and was not intended to go beyond
it. The leading prophets (Isaiah 40, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), even in their visions
of the future, cling to the temple, sacrifices, holy oblations, sacred seasons
and persons. Christianity was the first to discard this external shell, after
it had ripened the kernel that was concealed in this shell (compare worship in
the spirit and in the truth, John 4:20-24). Down to this time, kernel and shell
were inseparably united. This must not be forgotten, if we would appreciate the
Book of Leviticus properly. It is true that this book to a large extent deals
with laws and ordinances, to which we Christians should not and need not return
(compare the voice from heaven to Peter, Acts 10:15, "What God hath cleansed,
make not thou common," and Paul's opposition to all work-righteousness that was
based on compliance with these external institutions, e.g. in Romans, Galatians,
Colossians, as also his independent attitude over against the Jewish law in those
cases where it could not be taken into consideration as the way to salvation;
compare Acts 21:17; Romans 14:1; 1 Corinthians 9:19). But these laws and ordinances
were something more than merely external matters, since they contained the highest
religious thoughts. We surely should not forget from the outset that Leviticus
19 contains also the word, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Leviticus
19:18), a command which in 19:33 f is even made to cover the strangers too, and
which by Jesus, next to the absolute love demanded for God, is designated as the
chief commandment of the law (Matthew 22:39); and when in 19:17 f the hatred of
the brother and desire for revenge on him are forbidden, we already seem to breathe
atmosphere of Christianity. The entire Leviticus 19 is, in addition, as it were,
a sermon on almost all of the commandments of the Decalogue, the abiding authority
of which the Christian, after the example and interpretation of Jesus, will at
once recognize. But as the Decalogue itself is found enclosed in the specifically
Jewish national shell (compare Exodus 20:2, exodus out of Egypt; 20:8, Sabbath
commandment; 20:12, promise of the holy land; 20:17, slaves), so, too, this is
the case in Leviticus 19 (compare Leviticus 19:3 , 6 , 20-22 , 23-25 , 29 , 30
, 33 f). But how little the specifically Levitical ordinances, in the narrower
sense of the term, exclude the spiritual factor, and how closely they are interwoven
with the deepest of thoughts, can be seen from Leviticus 26, according to which
all merely external sacrifices, into which formalism naturally the Levitical legal
code could degenerate, do not protect from punishment, if the heart remains uncircumcised
(Leviticus 26:30 , 41).
Above all, there are four leading thoughts which are emphasized forcibly, particularly
by the legal system of Priestly Code. In reality all times, all places, all property,
all persons are sacred to God. But as it is impossible that this ideal should
be realized in view of the imperfections and guilt of man, it was decided that
certain particular seasons and places, gifts and persons should be separated from
others, and that in these this sacredness should be realized as far as possible,
and that these representatives should by their mere existence continually remind
the people of God's more comprehensive claims, and at the same time arouse and
maintain the consciousness that their entire life was to be saturated by the thoughts
of a holy God and His demands. From this point of view, none of the particular
laws are worthless; and when they are once appreciated in this their central significance,
we can understand that each law has its share in the eternal authority of the
law (compare Matthew 5:17 f). Paul, too, who absolutely rejects the law as a way
to salvation expresses no doubt that the law really contains the will of God (Romans
8:3); and he declares that it was the purpose of the sending of Jesus, that the
demands made upon us by the law should be fulfilled; and in Romans 13:10 he tells
us that love is the fulfillment of the law (compare 13:8); and according to Romans
7:12, it is certain that the law is holy and the commandment is holy, righteous
and good.
(2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity.
But the ceremonial law, too, contains not only the demands of God's will. It prepares
also for the understanding of the work, the person and the mission of Jesus. In
Exodus 25:8; 29:45; 40:34 the indwelling of God in the tent of meeting is declared,
which prophesied the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus (John 1:14); and then
the indwelling of God through the Holy Spirit in the Christian congregation (1
Peter 2:5; Ephesians 4:12) and in the individual (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2
Corinthians 6:16; John 14:23). Through the sacrificial system in Leviticus 1-7,
and the ordinances of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), we are enabled to understand
the character of sin, of grace and of the forgiveness of sin (compare ATONEMENT,
DAY OF, sec. II). Let us remember to what extent Jesus and Paul, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and the other New Testament writings operate with Old Testament thoughts,
particularly with those of Le (priest-hood, sacrifices, atonement, Passover, signification
of blood, etc.), and Paul correctly says that the righteousness of God was prophesied,
not only by the prophets, but also by the law (Romans 3:21).
(3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ.
Finally, the ceremonial law too has the purpose to protect Israel from the errors
of the heathen, a thought that is especially emphasized in the Law of Holiness
(compare Leviticus 18:3 ,14 ; 19:26 ; 20:2 , 22 ; 26:1) and which is in harmony
with the elementary stage of Israel's education in the Old Testament, when the
people still stood in need of the "tutor .... unto Christ" (Galatians 3:23; 4:1).
This already leads us over to the negative side, which Paul particularly emphasizes.
|
2. Negative.
The law is in itself holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good
(Romans 7:12), but it has lost its power because the flesh of man is sinful (compare
Romans 8:3); and thus it happens that the law is the occasion for sin and leads
to a knowledge of sin and to an increase of sin (compare Romans 3:20; 4:15; 5:20;
7:13); and this shall be brought about according to the purposes of God in order
that in upright hearts the desire for forgiveness should arise. It is true that
nothing was so well adapted as were the details of the law, to bring to consciousness
in the untutored mind that in which man yet came short of the Divine commands.
And as far as the removal of the guilt was concerned, nothing was needed except
the reference to this in order to make men feel their imperfections (compare Hebrews
7-10). God merely out of grace was for the time being contented with the blood
of goats and of calves as a means for atonement; He was already counting on the
forgiveness in Christ (Romans 3:25). All the sacrifices in Leviticus 1-7, e.g.,
did not make the ritual of the Day of Atonement superfluous (Leviticus 16); and
in this case the very man who brought the sacrifice was also a sinful creature
who must first secure the forgiveness of God for himself. Only Jesus, at once
the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice, has achieved the perfect redemption.
It accordingly remains a fact that the righteousness which avails before God can
be secured only through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the deeds of the
law (Romans and Galatians).
The law with its incomplete atonement and with its arousing of the consciousness
of sin drives man to Jesus; and this is its negative significance. Jesus, however,
who Himself has fulfilled the demands of the law, gives us through His spirit
the power, that the law with its demands (1, (1) above) may no longer stand threateningly
over against us, but is now written in our hearts. In this way the Old Testament
law is fulfilled in its transitory form, and at the same time becomes superfluous,
after its eternal contents have been recognized, maintained and surpassed. |
LITERATURE
Commentaries by Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack, Baentsch, Bertholet; especially for
the Law of Holiness see Horst, Leviticus 17:1-26:46 and Ezk; Wurster, Zeitschrift
fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1884, 112; Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz;
Klostermann, Der Pentateuch, 368; Delitzsch, Zeitschrift fur kirch. Wissenschaft
und Leben, 1880, 617; Intros to the Old Testament by Baudissin, Strack, Kuenen,
Konig, Cornill, Driver, Sellin; Archaeology, by Benzinger, Nowack; History of
Israel, by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen; for
kindred laws in Babylonia, compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babyl. Religion;
against the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, Moller, Are the Critics Right? (ibid.,
"Literature"), and article EZEKIEL in this Encyclopedia; Orr, Orr, The Problem
of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, Wiener,
Origin of the Pentateuch; Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche
Hypothese; Kegel, Wilh. Vatke und die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese.
Wilhelm Moller
Tags:
aaron, bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, book of leviticus, define, God's words (most of any book), history, leuitikon, law, law of the priests, levites and priests, leviticus, moses, old testament, offerings, origen ouikra, pentateuch, prophecy, sabbatic year, torath kohanim, unclean animals, wayyiqra', year of jubilee
Comments:
|
 |
|
