Tag: jesus

Promises and Redemption (Lev. 26-27)

Chapter twenty-six begins by invoking three of the first five of the Ten Commandments. One might say that Moses is going back to basics. By verse three onward, Moses highlights the blessings and curses for Israel if they keep or violate the Law. This closely resembles Deuteronomy 28. The “engraved stone” of verse two would have been a paving stone with a mosaic design set in the floor of a sanctuary. The threat of beasts of prey in the land, such as lions and bears, would pose no threat to the population (26:6). This reminds the reader of how young David had to learn to combat lions to protect the flock. God promising to multiply them (26:9) harkens back to creation and the royal commission given to humanity (Gen. 1:28). The crux of all of Leviticus is spelled out in 26:11–12. While Israel was previously under a yoke of burdensome labor, God has broken it so that they can now stand upright (26:13). 

Moses shifts from the blessings to curses at 26:14–15. In the following verses, we see the antithesis of verse nine (26:15–17). The simile in 26:19 is a common feature of Assyrian curses and appears also in Deuteronomy 28:23. All of the curses that God sends to Israel if they fail to keep the covenant are meant to be curative of that attitude (26:23–24), but if they persist, God’s judgment will grow more severe. God will once more pause to see if Israel repents, then He will move towards wrath (29:27–28). Even if He goes to the most extreme measure, He will still save them as He has from Egypt (29:44–45). A covenant is both a promise and a threat, and Moses reminds us at the end of this section that each party to the covenant has obligations to the other. 

The final chapter has been studied and attempted to be interpreted within the whole of the book. Many commentators treat it as an appendix to the book. It focuses on voluntary offerings and on the tabernacle’s taxed obligations. However, the book’s final line wraps it up. It’s seen as a formal conclusion that encompasses the whole book while preparing us for Numbers. Leviticus began at the Tent of Meeting and migrated to Sinai. Numbers begin in the wilderness. 

Priestly Regulations and the Levitical Calendar (Lev. 21-25)

Since God intended for Israel not to live as the Egyptians or Canaanites, beginning chapter eighteen with such a plea and ending chapter twenty with it once more, the next things that come are a reflection of that point. Canaanite religion had a cult devoted to the dead. Again, anything linked with death is seen as unclean, so a corpse might have been thought of as intrinsically contaminating. Baldness was associated with pagan mourning rites, so it was to be avoided. Nearing this was a prohibition against cutting the flesh. Disfigurements of any kind were off limits. The High Priest is prohibited from contact with corpses altogether, while priests have exceptions. As we go on, it seems unfair that certain people would be prohibited from the Lord, but we must assume that as an animal without blemish is offered, so is the offerer to be without blemish. However, they may partake of the sacrifice. 

Should a priest be in a state of uncleanness and come in contact with sacred things offered, the priest risks profaning God’s name. It can cost him his priestly privileges. The final verse (v. 15) closes the section as the chapter began: “they shall not profane the holy offerings.” The remainder of the chapter emphasizes acceptable and unacceptable offerings. A parallel can be to our worship. Do we offer what’s acceptable to God or not? Could it be said that in our worship, we, like Nadab and Abihu, offer “strange fire?” Rather than a free-for-all, we have commandments and examples as to how the early church worshiped the Lord. If there were anything unacceptable to Him, we would see it pointed out in some way (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27–30; Matt. 22:11). 

The calendar begins with the Sabbath, leading us to believe that failing to observe these holidays is equivalent to breaking the Sabbath. These are called “holy convocations” (23:4) because there was a call to worship, if you will. Passover is highlighted as a sacred day, and this was to remind them that they were once slaves in Egypt and God delivered them. Of their produce, the firstfruit was to be given to the priests. One meaning behind this was the law of the firstfruits in that what they had was because God provided for them (cf. Exod. 23:19). The Feast of Weeks is Pentecost because it comes fifty days after Passover. This celebrated the harvest God gave. The Feast of Trumpets has been understood as having God take note of Israel through the horn blasts. The Day of Atonement, we have already noted. The Feast of Tabernacles remembers the wandering in the wilderness. Only after this last feast are they told to rejoice before the Lord for a week. This would have occurred after the final harvest of the agricultural year. 

Chapter twenty-four begins with tabernacle matters, including the light and the bread. In many cults, food was placed out for the deity to avoid being treated similarly; to avoid this, it was placed outside the holy of holies, and the priests were to consume it the following Sabbath. Frankincense is a resin and might be transparent in appearance, but it’s to be burned as a token for the bread offering. Next, we switch to a narrative where two men are in a dispute, and one uses the Lord’s name in vain. Apparently, the one who did so has an Egyptian father and an Israelite mother. If you notice in verse eleven, “Of the Lord” is italicized, which means it’s implied and not actually in the text. The scribal community that preserved the text might have found it difficult to actually place YHVH in the text since the usage is one of vilification. The names that follow read, “His mother’s name was Retribution, the daughter of Law-suit, of the tribe of Judgment.” Perhaps because God orders capital punishment, He doesn’t wish for this to be seen as giving license to just take life on every whim (cf. Exod. 21:23–25). 

Chapter twenty-five begins by reminding us that all of this is occurring at Mount Sinai, which is situated from Exodus 19 onward. The end of this chapter coincides with God seemingly announcing himself as their king, and in the ancient world, when a king began his reign, he often freed slaves. At this point, Israel is officially a free people, but a vassal to God. By verse ten, they were to proclaim “liberty” throughout the land. The actual term means “release,” which refers to a moratorium on debts and indeture. God promises to give Israel such a harvest that they can Sabbath on the year of Jubilee (25:21). Land that was used as collateral is obliged to be sold back to the original owner or the nearest kinsman. An idiom is used in verse thirty-five: “falls into poverty” is literally “his hand buckle under you.” Hand is another way of referring to a person’s power, so economic collapse may be in mind. God reminds them that they aren’t to treat one another as slaves, because they are all “slaves” of God (25:42) and are not to be treated as they were in Egypt. While there was a Sabbath year every seven years, a Jubilee was every fifty years. A person would celebrate at least one Jubilee in their lifetime. 

Moral Purity (Lev. 18-20)

This section (Lev. 18–20) begins with the declaration at the beginning of a set of legal injunctions. It’s as if God is saying, “By the authority vested in me as your sovereign, you shall or shall not.” What sets this apart is the comparison between Egypt and Canaan. How they live, you are not to live, so we can suppose that what follows is an indictment of those nations. We know that sibling marriages occurred in the royal houses of Egypt. As to the rest, it may hinge on the polytheistic nature of the areas that led to such license. God emphasizes that these are their “ordinances,” and at the end of the chapter, he enjoins them to follow his instead. The term translated “ordinances” is the same word translated as “statutes” in verse five. Statutes may be a better translation of the Hebrew term because its primary sense is “things inscribed.” Beginning in verse six, “None of you” should be translated as “no man” because that’s the verbiage, and it can be inferred that the man takes the initiative in such acts. The only exception here is in verse twenty-three, where the woman engages in bestiality.  

Noted among the various prohibited relations is the fact that many patriarchs did what the law says not to do. Jacob married two sisters; Abraham says Sarah is a sister (albeit half), and David’s daughter Tamar thinks her father can arrange a marriage with her brother, Amnon. Of course, the patriarchs can’t be held to the standard since it didn’t exist when they were alive; David lived afterwards. The Law, however, now rectifies that. 

Sandwiched between chapters eighteen and twenty, chapter nineteen seems out of place. However, the understanding is that what God asks of them is juxtaposed with the nations of Egypt and Canaan. Whereas the other two chapters appear to revolve around perverse negatives, chapter nineteen presents positives for a person to do to remain pleasing to God. Verse three begins a paraphrase of the Ten Commandments. Since they would have been an agricultural economy, the edges of their fields and what they dropped would have been like a tax for the poor. We see this vividly exercised in the book of Ruth. The same verbiage is used in verse twenty-seven. The likely prohibition there concerns pagan funerary customs. 

There are a few key words throughout these chapters worth noting. One is “abomination,” and it’s attributed to male homosexual relations (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). This term appears several times throughout Lev. 18:26–30. This causes Israel to be impure and the land nauseous. By not doing this, Israel will distinguish itself from the inhabitants of the land. This term is elsewhere attributed to idolatry (Deut. 12:31; 13:15), false weights (Deut. 25:13–16), transvestism (Deut. 22:5), and remarrying a divorced wife (Deut. 24:4). 

Another term we see is “wickedness.” It’s used in relations with a woman and her daughter or granddaughter (Lev. 18:17; 20:14). It’s also employed in one prostituting her own daughter (Lev. 19:29). What’s somewhat surprising is that a word meaning “kindness” is used as a homonym. It’s translated as “wicked thing” in Lev. 20:17, but it carries the meaning of “disgrace” or “shame” (cf. Prov. 25:9–10). A final term is “perversion” (Lev. 18:23). Its root means “to mix,” so here it’s the act of interspecies mating (Lev. 20:12). Closing the section is another reference, as it began: don’t do as the nations do (Lev. 20:23–25). This uses language similar to that in chapter 11 regarding pure and impure animals. 

Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement; Lev. 16-17)

The telling of the Day of Atonement begins with the reminder of Aaron’s sons’ deaths. Aaron is alert to the mortal danger that he and those who succeed him could face when they enter the Holy of Holies on this day. “When they come forward” (16:1) is a verb regularly used regarding appearing before the divine presence. Whenever unsanctioned, you’ll usually see a different verb that’s translated as “to encroach.” The cover of the ark in Hebrew is kaporet, and the term for atonement is closely related: kipur. There on the cover, blood is sprinkled and atonement made. In the Greek Old Testament, the word is “propitiation” in English. 

When we arrive at 16:8, there’s a term translated as “scapegoat.” In Hebrew, it’s a proper name: Azazel. The name could mean something like, “The rage of God,” or “God is fierce/strong.” In Mesopotamian and Phoenician sources, there’s a god named Azuz/Aziz. Since the gods are demons, this may refer to a demoted demon. The goat that goes to the Lord is sacrificed, while the scapegoat that goes to Azazel is sent to the wilderness, carrying the sins of Israel away from the Lord (16:21–22). The goat sent to Azazel isn’t sacrificed and is sent to the desert, a place connected with chaos and death. Therefore, Azazel receives the impurity as an elimination ritual. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the terms used for Azazel were rendered as “the one who eliminates” or “the one who wards off evil.” In Greek religion, these were divine agents responsible for warding off evil. Why is it translated as “scapegoat?” In Hebrew, ‘ez is how you translate “goat.” 

It’s not only the people that receive atonement, but secondarily, it’s the temple and altar (16:16, 18–20, 33). Considering the sacrifices throughout the year to atone for accumulated sins, pollution threatens the holiness of the tabernacle. This purgation scrubs the holy precinct clean, making it viable for another year’s worth of sacrifices. The people are told to afflict themselves (16:29–31). A rabbinical writing states, “On Yom Kippur one is prohibited from eating, drinking, bathing, anointing, wearing sandals, and engaging in sexual intercourse” (M. Yoma 8.1). Self-neglect is an expression of grief over sins and of repentance. 

While chapter 16 is addressed to Aaron, chapter 17 begins with an address to him, his sons, and Israel. From chapter 17 through chapter 26, a code of holiness appears for all of the people. This is seen in verse three when God instructs “every man of the house of Israel.” If a priest doesn’t sprinkle some of the blood on the altar, the man is regarded as guilty of murder (17:4). The offering of the blood to God is a manner of atonement, but not offering is murder. There’s another allusion to Azazel in 17:7. Our English versions read, “demons,” but it’s literally “goat-demons.” Some suggest that Azazel was half-man and half-goat based on this description. These may have been archaic gods of the wild that people believed in, but that God uses in his own way, because just as monogamy is a metaphor for monotheism, so playing the harlot is an act of promiscuity.

Ritual Purity (Lev. 11-15)

Moses explains ways that make one unclean and how to remedy that. He begins with land animals. Though the term is translated “earth” in verse two, what follows makes it clear that he is referring to land animals. Much of what we read about dietary practices appears in Deuteronomy 14. These two sections differ beginning in verse thirty-one. Before we get ahead of ourselves, we’ll note that after land animals, he turns to those in the water, followed by those of the air, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. The prohibition of pork among the Israelites is somewhat unique to them. Archaeological evidence shows a smaller number of pork bones dating to the second millennium BC in the Eastern part of Canaan. This proves that the taboo was observed at least that early. In other parts of Canaan, pork bones are plentiful. Later, Isaiah would associate the consumption of pork with idolatry (Is. 66:17). These dietary laws make a statement about Israel within the created order. They separate themselves from everyone else by this. Connected to impurity is death (11:24). Since this isn’t the state in which God envisioned humanity, to contact such renders a person unclean. Concluding chapter eleven is a call to holiness. The term translated “to distinguish” in 11:47 is the term used in the creation account (Gen. 1:6–7). Also, the phrase, “according to its kind in this chapter is also used in the creation account. In the hierarchy of creation, Israelites were to divide themselves between the unclean and the clean. 

The notion that the blood of childbirth was impure was widespread in antiquity. The Hittites and Greeks held the same belief. The loss of blood was associated with death. All in all, she is prohibited from sacred things and places for forty days. This number is doubled if she bears a daughter. There’s no rationale as to why that is. A better rendering of the offering she should bring should be “offense” and not “sin” (12:6). Moving on, leprosy is addressed in chapter thirteen in broad terms and not very specifically. The phrase “leprous sore” in 13:3 is, in more modern translations, rendered as a “skin blanch.” That’s to say a loss of pigmentation. Once more, there’s an association with death. The quarantining of a leprous person, or anyone unclean, was for medicinal purposes in the case of transmission. It also set apart death from life; uncleanness from cleanness. 

Notice at the beginning of chapter fourteen that the leper has been put out of the camp (14:3). The life of a leper once declared as such was isolating in many ways. On the one hand, in the previous chapter, the leper was to cover their mouth and shout that they were unclean if another person came near them. Additionally, they were ostracized from society. This is another theme of exile: exile from Eden, the scapegoat sent into the desert, exile from the Promised Land, etc. Anytime you read about living water, it refers to running water, such as a river or stream. This water carried the blood, and, hence, impurity, away from the camp. The living bird sent to the open country mirrors the scapegoat in taking away the transgressions from the camp. The reason leprosy is associated with guilt is likely because it was thought of as a punishment for some transgression (cf. Num. 12:10–15; 2 Chron. 26:16–21). Once again, we see blood and oil used together in cleansing (14:17). 

Chapter fifteen is primarily concerned with bodily discharges of various types. This can also be conveyed through secondary contact, as noted in verses four and nine. Once more in verse fifteen, an offense offering should be thought of rather than a sin offering. The contaminated person isn’t sinning by having this, but he is unclean because of it. While these instructions are primarily for Levites and priests, the whole point is to ensure they don’t enter the sacred space of the tabernacle in a way that would invite God’s wrath against them. This also extends to the average Israelite, who brings various sacrifices at the prescribed times. 

Priestly Requirements (Lev. 8-10)

For the first time in the book, Leviticus is written in narrative form. Chapter eight begins and ends with the phrase, “So Moses did as the LORD commanded him” (vv. 4, 36). The installation ceremony of the priests picks up in Exodus 29. Reading that chapter in Exodus reminded me of the coronation of King Charles. An elaborate set of procedures follows, during which the priests are formally purified and sanctified for the ministry. Midway through the seventh verse, the Hebrew transitions from the plural “him,” referring to Aaron’s sons, to the singular, focusing on Aaron. What are the Urim and Thummim? Many possibilities have been considered, but the traditional interpretation associates the terms with “light” and “perfection.” Interestingly, Urim begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and Thummim starts with the last letter. They appeared to have been used as a binary response to a question posed: yes/no, guilty/innocent. 

Since the men had bathed, anointing oil was a way of entering a festive state, as when, after mourning, David rose, bathed, and anointed himself (2 Sam. 12:20). The specific spices and oil used are detailed in Exodus 30:22–25. Other ancient Near Eastern parallels suggest anointing with oil was a way to ward off bad spirits or evil forces. In this case, the anointing elevates the men and instruments of the tabernacle from the common to the divine. Following the anointing oil is the blood of sacrifice. It may be best to think of the former as consecrational and the latter as a “detergent” that rids it of impurities. It’s been suggested that the ear corresponds to obedience, while the hand and toe are emblems of human agency. 

After their period of consecration, the priests are now ready to prepare the tabernacle for God’s presence. Thus far, His glory has filled the tabernacle, but it’s being prepared to be regarded as akin to Mount Sinai. Each has three levels: 

Sinai Tabernacle

Summit (only Moses) Holy of Holies

Partyway up (elders) Sanctuary

Bottom (people) Court

Towards the end, Aaron raises his hand and blesses the people, likely invoking the tripartite blessing recorded in Numbers 6:24–26. God, then, reveals himself through fire, consuming the sacrifice and showing divine acceptance. This same fire, we will see, will be used lethally. 

Though we’ve already read about Nadab (Generous) and Abihu (He is my father), there’s more to consider in this story. Typically, they would have filled fire pans with glowing coals and not an actual fire. They introduce an alien fire, so the fire of God consumes them. The word translated as “strange” fire can also be translated as “alien” and “unfit.” Whatever this fire is and where it came from, it wasn’t consecrated for entrance into the precinct. In verse two, the exact phrase we read in 9:24 appears. God forbade ordinary mourning over what occurred, but it seems that an allowance is made at the end of the chapter. Aaron is allowed not to partake in the offering of the offense, fasting being a common practice during mourning. 

The Various Sacrifices and Their Administration (Lev. 1-7)

Leviticus chapters 1–7 are about the various sacrifices that are offered to cover one’s sins. It’s a constant reminder of both God’s grace and justice. He wants to forgive, but punishment must be meted out. The animals that die take the place of the sinner, and this has been the case since the fall. When Adam and Eve sinned, they made garments for themselves from fig leaves (Gen. 3:7). The term there, translated as “coverings,” literally means “loincloths.” Later in that chapter, God made coats of skin (Gen. 3:21). A sacrifice was necessary to “cover” humanity’s sins. Hence, this practice in the tabernacle is a continuation of the first covering of sin. 

Exodus concludes with Moses’ inability to enter the tabernacle because of God’s glory. Leviticus begins with God calling Moses from the tabernacle. The first chapter details the burnt offering, which was the offering of a whole animal. If a person were affluent enough, they would offer a bull. If not, a goat; the most humble offering was turtledoves and pigeons. After Jesus was circumcised, Mary and Joseph presented the most humble offering they could (Luke 2:24), indicating her lowly station in life. In chapter two, grain offerings are detailed. Even if a person did not have livestock, they were still allowed to present a sacrifice. The term translated as “grain offering” has the primary meaning of “a tributary payment,” suggesting that the offerer was a vassal of God. They were to be presented with salt (Lev. 2:13). On the one hand, salt made food palatable (Job 6:6). Still, it was also a sign of the perpetuity of a covenant (Num. 18:19). This may have been what Jesus had in mind when he called his disciples “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13). 

The peace offering (Lev. 3) is a way to surrender to God since sin puts a person in a state of hostility to God (Rom. 5:10–11). By the fourth chapter, a new category of sacrifices begins, with the first being the sin offering. This was offered to expunge the effects of an inadvertent sin, also called the sin of omission.  This sacrifice is communal and also individual (Lev. 4:13, 22, 27). The trespass offerings of chapter five move beyond unintentional to intentional. Confession accompanies this offering (Lev. 5:5). After this, we return to unintentional (Lev. 5:14, 17) sins towards holy relics. This is a restitutional offering. It also extends to other people and returns to intentions (Lev. 6). Next, the Lord gives the various laws regarding the respective sacrifices and how they are to be carried out by the priests. One stipulation is that no blood or fat is to be consumed (Lev. 7:22–27; cf. Acts 15:20). 

How to Read Leviticus Without Getting Discouraged

Many Christians plan to read their Bibles through in a year. Typically, they begin at the beginning, and by the time they arrive at the latter part of Exodus, it becomes cumbersome. Then, once you get to Leviticus, you might find yourself a tad discouraged. Here’s another way to look at Leviticus.

A mother had instructed her son not to play in a particular part of the woods behind their house because it was occupied by a family of skunks. One day, however, the son decided to inspect this area to learn more about skunks, since his curiosity was too intense to resist. At first glance, they seemed like cats, but with specific coloring. He moved in to see if he could hold one, but the younger ones moved away as the father stood his ground. As skunks often will do to warn, the father walked on his two front feet, putting the rest of his body in the air, as if he were walking on his hands. The little boy thought the skunk was doing a trick, so he moved closer, and then the father lifted his tail, took aim, and sprayed the boy with the noxious odor to repel him. 

The boy ran frantically home, coughing and choking over the stench. As he cried out for his mother, she came to the front porch, and as her beloved son approached, she caught a whiff of the skunk and knew what had happened. She commanded the boy to stop because she couldn’t tolerate the odor. She didn’t stop loving her son, but he wouldn’t come into the house smelling like that. So what did the mother do? She didn’t hate her son. She didn’t reject her son. She wanted to help him. She prepared one of their troughs with a solution made of laundry detergent, peroxide, and baking soda. She placed her son in the trough and scrubbed him till the smell was gone. Then, he was able to come into the house, sit in his mother’s lap, and be comforted. When we think about sin and its effect, it’s similar to this story. We have become tainted by sin and its odorous effect, so we can’t come into God’s presence. However, God doesn’t look at us with hatred and malice, but with compassion and grace. He prepares a solution for us so that our sins may be removed and we can come into His presence once more.

When God chose His special people, Israel, He wished to dwell among them. However, for Israel to live in God’s presence, God provided remedies by which He could dwell in their midst, and they could approach Him. This is what we read about in the book of Leviticus. What’s important to remember is the ending of Exodus, however, because it gives sense to the first verse of Leviticus. 

Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of meeting, because the cloud rested above it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. Whenever the cloud was taken up from above the tabernacle, the children of Israel would go onward in all their journeys. But if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not journey till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the LORD was above the tabernacle by day, and fire was over it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys. (Exod. 40:34–38)

The glory—kavod literally means “weightiness”—of God is best thought of as a mantle of light enveloping God, and the cloud gave off the luminosity by day and appeared as fire by night.¹ When Moses first saw the Lord’s presence in the burning bush, he hid his face because he was afraid to look upon God (Exod. 3:6). Later, however, Moses’ faith in God had grown exponentially to the point that he wanted to see the glory of God. Still, he couldn’t see anything but the “goodness,” because seeing God’s face would have killed Moses (Exod. 33:18–23). Even then, God protected Moses from seeing Him. 

After Moses communed with Yahweh, he came from Mt. Sinai with his face shining (Exod. 34:29–35). There’s a great lesson from this passage: The fear of Israel upon seeing Moses’ face parallels that of their fear of drawing near to God. Similarly, because Moses would cover his face with a veil when among Israel, this demonstrates that the holy of holies had to be partitioned off and enveloped in layers, yet accessible to the people.² Now, when we arrive at Leviticus, the question arises: “How can a people stained with sin live among the holiness of which they are afraid?” For the priests of Israel and the rituals prescribed in Leviticus, God provides in His mercy and grace the ways that He can be among a sinful people, and they dwell in His holy presence. It’s best to think of God’s holiness as the sun, which in its unadulterated form is powerful, and anything mortal that gets near it will burn up. The sun doesn’t hate such things but consumes them. 

To outline Leviticus, we must identify its three major components: Sacrifices (Lev. 1–7, 23–37), Priests (Lev. 8–10, 21–22), and Purity (Lev. 11–15, 18–20). The sacrifices are ways to say “thank you” (i.e., grain and fellowship offerings) or “I’m sorry” (burnt, sin, and guilt offerings). Some of these occur on holy days when festivals were held. These were times of celebration to retell Israel’s history and explain why God chose them. Mediating these sacrifices were individual representatives who advocated for the people, called “priests.” These servants worked so closely to God’s presence that they were chosen to represent God to the people and the people to God. Such people were ordained and had to live by higher standards, similar to those of our pastors. Finally, the purity laws concerned cleanliness and uncleanliness. Cleanliness or purity is a state in which one can be in God’s presence, whereas the opposite is that of uncleanliness. Some of these concerned sexual relationships, social justice, and interpersonal relationships. These categories summarize the second-greatest command: to love your neighbor as yourself. Summing up the greatest commandment to love God with our whole being, we find that it includes dietary laws, skin diseases, dead bodies, and bodily fluids. Many of the latter three concerned life and death: one was sacred, and the others resulted from sin. Going before God in an impure state was inappropriate. 

Tucked in the middle of the book is the Day of Atonement. On this day, the entire nation had sinned, perhaps unnoticed and unknown. The high priest would atone for the whole country by taking two goats and slaying one whose blood was brought to God’s presence to atone for the sins. God has said that the blood of a creature was life, so the life of the goat was to take the place of Israel and the penalty of their sin. The other goat was presented to the priest, who would lay his hand upon its head, confess the sins of the nation, and send the goat out into the wilderness, carrying the sins of the country away from them into the barren land. By this goat, God graciously removed Israel’s sins. 

Christ became not only our high priest but did so while being tempted yet remaining pure (Heb. 4:14–16). As the high priest, not only offered the perfect offering but was Himself the offering so that He could go into the true holy of holies to minister for us (Heb. 9:11–14). What we learn from Leviticus only prepares us for the cross. Jesus Christ is now how we may live in the presence of the holy God. 

¹ Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with a Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004), 535.

² Ibid., 513. 

Intro to 1 Peter

Writing from Rome (which he calls “Babylon” in 5:13), along with John, Mark, Peter addresses a network of churches that comprises modern-day Turkey. Early church writers made explicit citations of 1 Peter as early as the 90s AD, through to the latter part of the second century, which attests to the authority of the letter as well as its apostolicity. How the gospel came to be in this area isn’t altogether clear, but we know that Jewish believers from some of these areas were present on Pentecost (Acts 2:8–11). Additionally, Emperor Claudius (AD 41–54) established Roman colonies in these regions.

One central question is who the audience was: Jewish, Gentile, or both. The descriptor of “pilgrims of the Dispersion” was typically how Jewish exiles from Judea were addressed (cf. James 1:1). There are also further descriptors such as “Sarah’s children” (1 Peter 3:6), “God’s elect” (1 Peter 1:1, 2, 4, 9) and those called to holiness (1 Peter 1:15–16). They are also contrasted with Gentiles (1 Peter 2:12; 4:3), but by this time, all Christians might have been considered as one with Jewish believers, and the Gentiles were non-Christians. However, we also know that Peter was an apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:9), and readers from Eusebius in the fourth century to John Calvin agree that the primary audience is Jewish Christians. Still, some descriptors indicate pagans were among the audience (1 Peter 1:14, 18; 2:9–10, 25; 4:3), but prophetic language sometimes regarded apostate Israelites as pagans. We can assume there’s a mixture and that this letter would not have been sectarian or racially distinguishing between believers in Jesus (cf. Rom. 8:29–30).

The entirety of the letter addresses their suffering, which was likely caused by social scorn, shaming, slander, and stigma. They were likely viewed as social deviants and may have faced verbal and physical pressure to return to the norm. Given that Christianity grew out of Judaism, we can look to history to see how Jews were viewed to get a picture of how these Christians were regarded. Rome banished Jews on some occasions. There was a time when Tiberius was emperor, and again during Claudius’ reign. Claudius viewed them with animosity from the beginning of his reign. When Christianity was young, Jews were expelled from Rome. In Christianity’s earliest decades, it bore no outward distinction from Judaism as perceived by the Romans. The Jews were expelled at the instigation of “Chrestus,” according to Suetonius. 

When Diodorus wrote about Antiochus Epiphanes subduing the Jews, he referred to their customs as “wicked.” Cicero also viewed the Jews as enemies because of their behavior when they assembled. They showed no regard for the interests or laws of the Republic, and that won them no favor with Rome. Because they wanted to keep Judea pure from Roman occupation and rule, they resisted Rome. Their actions were rebellious and drew attention to the Jewish religion as the source of their unruliness and eventual disdain by the Romans. Horace believed that they were manipulative and coercive. He viewed them as always proselytizing and forcing others to join their religion. Because they proselytized, many were Jews by conversion rather than birth.  Furthermore, they believed in silly superstitions and were weaker because of their Sabbath keeping. Juvenal viewed their Sabbath keeping as idleness. Their customs were “base and abominable,” and they were the worst villains among all other peoples. As a race, they were believed to have been a curse to others, and Moses, their lawmaker, was detested. While many Jews upheld practices that distinguished them from other people, those who observed them wrote about the Jews’ hypocrisy in doing some of the very things that they seemed opposed to otherwise. If early Christians were treated anything like Jews, we get but a glimpse of it in this letter. Peter urges them to identify with Christ’s suffering (1 Peter 4:12–16) and await eternal glory (1 Peter 1:7; 2:11; 4:13; 5:4, 10–11). 

Works Referenced

 Acts 18:2; Suet. Claud. 25.4.

 Diodorus, Bibl. Hist. 34.1.3.

 Cicero, Flacc. 28.66–69.

 Horace, Sat. 1.4.142–3; cf. Matt. 23:15.

 Acts 2:10; 13:43. Cf. Juvenal, Sat. 14.102–03. A Gentile could become Jewish by circumcision, immersion, and a sacrifice (Keritot 9a; cf. Pesahim 8.8; Exod. 24:8).However, Gentile conversion was not always welcomed and in some cases was even rejected.

Juvenal, Sat. 1.5.100. To the Roman mind, anything other than what had been appointed at the founding of Rome was “vile and alien” (Livy 39.15.3). See also Juvenal, Sat. 15.1–13.

 Juvenal, Sat. 14.96, 105–06.

 Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.

 Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.21.

Not Far Enough for John Smyth

Many didn’t believe the church went far enough when England became Protestant. Those who read Scripture and applied it rather stringently were called Puritans. While some Puritans argued against episcopacy, others saw it as applicable but not divinely ordered. They argued for elders in each congregation; among those who argued for this, some believed congregations should be independent, and they were called Presbyterians. Baptists arose among the independents at the behest of an Anglican priest, John Smyth. Because of their views, they were persecuted by Mary Tudor, which led to their exile in Amsterdam. 

While in Amsterdam, Smyth studied Scripture and determined that infant baptism was invalid, so he took a bucket and ladle and poured water over his head and that of his followers. The early custom of the Baptists wasn’t immersion but pouring over a believer’s head. Returning to England, they established the first Baptist Church in 1612. Two schools of thought arose between Baptists—many agreed with John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. Others followed the belief of Jacobus Arminius, who rejected predestination and advocated that God had limited control concerning man’s freedom and response. These were called Arminians and were known as General Baptists. The other group was referred to as “Particular Baptists.” 

Today, there are a variety of Baptist Churches. 

  1. Independent Baptists are autonomous as opposed to Southern Baptists, who are primarily governed by the decisions of the Southern Baptist Convention. Those that aren’t independent send a percentage of their funds to a general fund overseen by the convention or association to which it belongs. The convention determines the financial and spiritual priorities of the congregations under their umbrella. 
  2. Primitive Baptists are largely Calvinist and can somewhat resemble Pentecostals. They trust the Spirit to move in their worship, which can take a person anywhere. There is a Pentecostal Free Will Baptist church that believes in free will. Then again, there are Free Will Baptist Churches, too. 
  3. Seven-Day Baptists hold the Sabbath as sacred and binding. This type of Baptist Church was first established in America in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1671. 
  4. Missionary Baptist Churches focus on evangelism and helping the local community. 
  5. Baptist Churches that are called “First Baptist Church” are to suggest that they were the first in the town or community. 
  6. There are more than 65 Baptist denominations, but the majority belong to just five. 

Many churches have eliminated denominational titles because they indicate division and the bad press associated with things that have occurred. One of the hallmarks of many evangelical groups, with which Baptists are often associated, is the sinner’s prayer. In 2012, David Platt, a Baptist minister, criticized the sinner’s prayer as unbiblical and superstitious. 

Thomas Kidd informs that Anglo-American Puritans and evangelicals used the phrase “receive Christ into your heart” in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phrase became more formalized during the nineteenth-century missionary movement and was a helpful way to explain that a person needed to make the personal decision to follow Jesus. This phrase’s commonality rose in the 1970s. Kidd also notes that George Whitefield published a hymn called “A Sinner’s Prayer.” 

God of my salvation, hear, and help me believe:

Simply would I now draw near, thy blessings to receive.

Full of guilt, alas I am, but to thy wounds for refuge flee; 

Friend of sinners, spotless lamb, they blood was shed for me.

One thing they believe that’s a significant divergence from us is that you can be saved before baptism. Also, they don’t partake in the Lord’s Supper weekly and use instruments. On this last point, this development is only 200 years old. Even some of their number opposed instruments.

“I would just as soon pray with machinery as to sing with machinery.” —Charles Spurgeon (Baptist) on Psalm 42

“Staunch old Baptists in former times would have as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries. And yet the instrument has gradually found its way among them and their successors in church management, with nothing like the jars and difficulties which arose of old concerning the bass viol and smaller instrument of music.” —David Benedict (Baptist Historian) “Fifty Years among the Baptists”

Preceding Baptists, Mennonites, and Quakers was a group referred to as Anabaptists. As far back as the fifth century, when infant baptism was made the standard, as seen in the fifth Council of Carthage (ca. AD 401), dissidents who would be baptized as adults after being so as infants were called such. Their congregations grew and did well during the Roman Empire despite Catholicism persecuting them. Many were called Novatianists (third-century), Donatists (fourth-century), Albigenses, and Waldenses. Baptists often consider themselves inheritors of this history.

What is “Sound Doctrine?” 

The term “doctrine” derives from Latin and is related to the word “doctor,” which means “teacher.” When we think of doctors today, we think of medical practitioners, but in the Roman Empire, doctors were instructors in a specific field. Therefore, “doctrine” means “teaching.” The Greek term is also fitting for this translation. Christian doctrine derives from commandments focused on “love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and from sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5). Paul uses “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10) to describe how the law ought to be used, and it’s connected to one’s behavior. In Titus 2:1, Paul wrote, “But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine.” The term “sound” also refers to those who are physically well instead of sick (Luke 5:31; 7:10; 3 John 2). When the prodigal son returned, he was received safe and “sound” (Luke 15:27). All other usages refer to doctrine, not physical health. Still, there’s a lesson herein: those who are physically healthy are sound, or well, so it may reasonably follow that those who are spiritually healthy are sound too.

Many people denounce doctrine as too divisive. It can be, but it ought not to be. Some people exclaim, “I just want Jesus, don’t give me doctrine.” The fault in that statement is that we cannot separate the truths of Jesus from the Person of Jesus, so without sound doctrine, we have no Jesus. John contended with this in his day, “By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world” (1 John 4:2–3). The way some are today might have said, “Just give me Jesus. I don’t want doctrine,” but for John, it mattered whether or not Jesus appeared in the flesh as a matter of orthodoxy. We tend to dismiss such issues because they seem so minor. There are times when matters are minor, but there are also times when they aren’t. Paul was concerned with sound doctrine, too, and this was what Timothy was to teach and uphold. 

Those who lead sinful lives did not order their lives according to “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8–11; 6:1–5; 2 Tim. 4:3–5; Titus 2:1–10). When one reads all of these passages, we’re struck by how when sound doctrine is mentioned, behavior should follow. We can see here that those behaviors do not accord with sound doctrine, and anyone claiming to represent God is to call things what God calls them and exhort others to order their lives around sound doctrine. Sadly, many fear calling specific actions, lifestyles, or choices sinful, so we dilute orthodoxy to avoid hurting feelings. We can and should be able to call sin what it is and simultaneously be compassionate and loving towards sinners, among whom we are also counted. Sound doctrine, therefore, is spiritual health. When one is healthy, one manifests that in one’s actions. The spiritually healthy person formed by sound doctrine does the things that please God.

How do we get doctrine? Commandments, prohibitions, and examples are a few ways. When God commands something through one of his chosen prophets or mediums, we must do what is commanded. If he prohibits something the same way, we should not do what’s forbidden. If we note patterns of behavior that are commendable, we can mimic the action and know we are not doing wrong. The problem comes when we bind something that God has not bound.

Though Scripture is inspired, interpretation is not. We conclude when we take a topic and study it as a whole. Some conclusions are rather logical and can be taken at face value, but if an interpretation is questioned, there ought to be answers to justify it, or adjustments should be made. For example, “Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). In churches of Christ, I have observed some who have employed this passage to prohibit dancing. A reading of 1 Thessalonians would not have that in mind, but there is a way to use it. When Herodias danced before Herod, we might conclude that it was rather provocative (Mark 6:22). After all, he wanted to offer her anything. In this case, dancing can be viewed as sinful. We can’t say that all dancing is terrible. The older son in the parable of the prodigal son came near the house and “heard music and dancing” (Luke 15:25). This story is about rejoicing over a lost son returning to salvation, and they were dancing as a matter of celebration. 

No human is the arbiter of determining what is doctrine and shouldn’t be. One interpretation among some in churches of Christ is that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer by proxy–through the Word of God. Since some of us know more Scripture than others, do we have more of the Spirit? When you look at interpretations from the first few centuries, this conclusion hasn’t been reached as far as I have read. It’s hard for me to believe that doctrine because the earliest Christians had a different take. That doesn’t mean they’re always right, but it also doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

I believe it’s best for us to give grace to one another and assume the best. Just because I arrive at a different conclusion than you doesn’t mean I’m malicious. Some Christians read the creation account literally. I happen to take parts of it literally while considering how I understand that an ancient Near Eastern audience would have understood it. Still, I hold no ill will if someone reads it literally. We both love Jesus and want to serve God.

  

That Ugly Word: “Tradition”

In churches of Christ, the term “tradition” is a no-no. We associate tradition with creeds and confessions of faith created by denominational bodies. Many Americans were governed by the Philadelphia Confession of Faith a couple of centuries ago. The Westminster Confession of Faith led others. Then you have the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, and more. While there are positives to having such definitive statements (“Don’t shoot me!”), our history has seen them result in division. For example, among Presbyterians were the Anti-Burghers, Auld Licht, Old-Light Anti-Burgher Seceders, and others. Among Methodists were the Episcopal Methodists and Republican Methodists. The Restoration Movement advocated doing away with these creeds and confessions of faith and going by the New Testament as our guide for being Christians and, therefore, the church. There are still splits among us: Disciples of Christ, Christian Church, Churches of Christ. Just among the churches of Christ are non-instrumental, non-institutional, one-cuppers, and others. We had noble intentions, but humanity is flawed no matter how hard we try to help ourselves. 

Matthew (15) and Mark (7) tell the story of Jesus rebuking tradition. Matthew wrote that the scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus’ disciples of “transgressing” the tradition of the elders (15:2). Mark explains washing hands for his audience. At the same time, Matthew assumes his audience understands this, hence some of the differences in the accounts. Jesus’ gripe with them was that their traditions nullified the word of God in how they circumvented the command to honor their father and mother. They used a loophole they created by saying that any funds that might be used to care for their elderly parents have been devoted to God. The Mishnah discusses how if something is consecrated to God, no one could benefit from it, similar to what Jesus says in Matthew 15:5 (cf. m. Ned. 5.6). These “traditions” circumvent God’s clearly stated will and when bound on others, cast them as transgressors. Here’s the deal: Scripture is inspired; interpretation is not inspired. Their interpretations of how to be pious and faithful to God contradicted the will of God. In this case, tradition is bad. 

What we sometimes do is view all traditions as “bad.” Yet, we have our own. The most obvious one in churches of Christ is the invitation at the end of a sermon, and the invitation song is meant to conclude with a public response. You will not read about this in the New Testament; it grew out of the altar call in early American evangelicalism. If we used our logic against ourselves, we’d be violating the interpretation we have bound on another. Sunday school and Wednesday night services are also traditions. God hasn’t decided that we meet twice on a Sunday or once midweek. Sometimes, what we see as a tradition should fall under Christian liberty (cf. Rom. 14). If something doesn’t violate a commandment of God’s or apostolic tradition (“don’t shoot me”), we might find a method of doing something. We notice that the early church sang, but how isn’t specified. They chanted, but we sing in four-part harmony. We’re told to go into the world with the good news, but we aren’t told how to do it. We do this by radio, live stream, airplane, and other methods.  

Another bad kind of tradition is human tradition (Col. 2:8). Paul links this to philosophy, but philosophy itself wasn’t bad. He likely meant it so broadly in his context to include the occult, as we might understand. When he refers to “the basic principles of the world,” he uses a word that seems to be a designation for spiritual beings (cf. Col. 2:10, 20–23). This was, after all, how the term was often used in literature across the board. Simply put, he is thinking of the demonic, which was why I used the term occult. You might also include superstitions in this. For example, believing it to be bad luck to open an umbrella inside or to walk under a ladder is nonsense. Another may be when you spill salt, how you’re supposed to throw a handful of salt over your right shoulder. I don’t know where these originated, but we don’t hang our hopes on luck; we live by faith. 

Paul also uses tradition to convey the practices pleasing to God (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). For Paul, it can be given first-hand or in writing. With many centuries between us and the apostles, we rely on what’s written. Some groups contend that what they practice was preserved throughout the centuries as tradition. I believe that’s a way of stopping further inquiry into their practices. Is it to say they’re wrong? Not necessarily, but it’s like a get-out-of-jail-free card to reply with, “It’s holy tradition.” It could be, or that could be a way not to justify what one does. Plus, with the great schism, whose traditions are we to rely on? There are separate traditions in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, though there are similarities. This is where Christian liberty may be most helpful and why I tend to side with the forebearers of the Restoration Movement. As best as we can, let’s live by Scripture. Even with that, someone can become a legalist, so room for grace and liberty is necessary. At the end of it, we’re all trying to do our best to live for God. No one gets it perfectly.