Leviticus and Numbers

11.1. Leviticus

11.1.1. Outline

As noted in the Pentateuch module (7), the book of Leviticus was likely composed from two separate sources: the Priestly Code (Lev 1–16, 27) and the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26). The Priestly Code focuses on priestly responsibilities pertaining to offerings and ritual purity. Holiness is limited to sacred rituals, sacred space (tabernacle), and sacred personnel (priests). In the Holiness Code, holiness extends to sacred time (e.g., festivals) and especially to a sacred people (“You shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy,” Lev 19:2). So it provides regulations for the people regarding the common consumption of beef and lamb (animals acceptable for ritual sacrifice), sexual relations, civic life, calendar observances, and rewards and punishments. It also gives considerable attention to “the land.” At certain points it offers perspectives and regulations that differ from those in the Priestly Code. In the Priestly Code the Israelites’ sins bring “impurity” to the Holy Place and the altar, so that they are in need of annual atonement (Lev 16:16–19; cf. 15:31). But in the Holiness Code the inhabitants’ iniquity makes the land “impure” (Lev 18:25–30, though note Lev 20:3).

1-16 Priestly Source (P)
1-7 Offerings: voluntary sacrifices (Burnt, 1; Grain, 2; Peace, 3),
atoning sacrifices (Sin, 4:1-5:13; Guilt, 5:14-6:7);
priestly instructions (6:8-7:38)
8-10 Consecration of Aaronic priests, death of his sons
11-15 Ritual purity: pure and impure
11 Diet: pure and impure animals
12 Purification after childbirth
13-14 Skin diseases, house mildew and their purification
15 Genital discharges
16 Day of Atonement for the sanctuary
17-26 Holiness Code (H)
17 No profane slaughter of beef and lamb, no consumption of blood
18 Illicit (Canaanite) sexual relations (relatives, menstruation, homosexuality)
that make the land impure
19 A holy people: social justice (Ten Words), love, ritual purity
20 Penalties for child sacrifice, divination, and illicit sexual relations
21-22 Purity laws for priests; acceptable animal offerings
23 Liturgical calendar: holy convocations and their agricultural offerings
24 Tabernacle lamps and bread; blasphemy; lex talionis
25 Sabbatical year and Jubilee (7-year cycles): redemption of property and family
26 Rewards for obedience, punishments for disobedience
27 (Priestly source) Vows: a person's equivalent value and redemption

11.1.2.    Leviticus as a Symbol System

Key Word Pairs. The word that pervades the entire book, and ultimately defines it, is “holy.” Given the uses and abuses of this term in modern culture, we must clarify what the Hebrew term, qadosh, meant in Old Testament times. This word was not unique to the ancient Hebrews. In nearby Ugarit, the gods were often referred to as “the holy ones.” In the first instance, “holy” was a descriptor for divine beings in the ANE. Yahweh declares, “I am holy” (Lev 11:44–45; 19:2). By extension, “holy” could apply to what belongs to the deity in acts of worship. Among the entities “set apart” for the worship of God, there were sacred space and objects (sanctuary, altar), sacred rituals (sacrifice), sacred time (Sabbath and festivals), sacred personnel (priests and Levites), and sacred words (prayers, blessings).

The antonym of “holy” is “common/profane” (ḥol): “to separate between the holy and the common, and between the impure and the pure” (Lev 10:10; cf. 22:15). To be clear, “profane” here should not be confused with profanity. The distinction lies between “holy” use, which is restricted for worship, and “common” use in everyday life. The verb form (ḥll) is often translated, “defile,” but this action does not necessarily mean that something becomes unclean, unhygienic, or evil; it may simply denote that the object has been “made common,” that is, “put into common use” (e.g., the word translated “enjoyed” in Deut 20:6; cf. koinoō in Mark 7:15–23). For an item to be regarded as “holy” it must undergo a preceding ritual.

The associated word pair, pure and impure (ṭhr, ṭm’), likewise concerns ritual purity, and not necessarily what may be dirty or unhygienic. Many English translations render this word pair as “clean and unclean,” which is fine, so long as we keep this qualification in mind. Persons or objects that have become impure may undergo ritual “washing” (kbs, rhṣ) in order to return to a “pure” state.

Another set of opposites in Leviticus is the adjective “intact” (tamim) and the noun “injury/defect” (mum). They apply to the physical descriptions of priests and especially to animal sacrifices. Tamim fundamentally means “whole/complete.” Unfortunately, many English translations render these words respectively as “blameless/perfect/without blemish” and “blemish,” which can wrongly connote perfection (not to mention being troublesome for those of us who grew up with acne!). An example of a misleading translation is the ESV rendering of Leviticus 22:21: a sacrificial animal “must be perfect; there shall be no blemish in it.” Rather, it “must be intact; there must be no defect in it.” In other words, worshipers should not offer the runt of the litter to satisfy their religious obligation to God.

Symbolism of Flesh and Blood. The topics of interest and their arrangement in the book of Leviticus can be puzzling for modern readers. Underlying these topics, however, there is special attention paid to physical features of the body of both humans and animals. The life of humans (often designated by the Hebrew term nephesh or “soul/life”) and of animals (often designated by the Hebrew term ḥayyah or “living creature”) consists of flesh (basar, or “fat”/ḥeleb, or “skin”/‘or) and blood (dam). Leviticus 15 gives special attention to other bodily fluids/discharges, including male semen, female menstrual fluid, and venereal infections.

In ritual sacrifice, as blood itself is necessary for life, so the separation of flesh and blood signifies death. The “blood” of sacrificial victims was sprinkled on the altar or “before Yahweh” (i.e., in front of the curtain, Lev 4:6, 17), and their fat was burned on the altar as a “fire-offering” to Yahweh (Lev 3:16). Hence, human consumption of fat and blood was strictly forbidden (Lev 3:17; 7:23–27), though humans could consume the “flesh” of the peace offering (Lev 7:15–21). We must be clear that there was no significance attached to blood itself. Bloodletting was never part of Israelite ritual (contrast 1 Kgs 18:28), so that one could simply cut oneself or an animal and use that blood for ritual purposes. It became useful in ritual only after the death of the sacrificial animal. Leviticus 17:11 (“the life/soul of the flesh is in the blood”) is an important verse in this regard, but it must be understood in the context of ritual slaughter. The Bible confers no magical properties on blood itself.

The fluid, oil, was an important ingredient in grain offerings (Lev 2). In rituals, oil was used for the consecration of priests (Lev 8) and for the cleansing of those with skin diseases (Lev 14).

In the purity laws, bodily contact with blood or genital discharges made one ritually “impure” and in need of purification (e.g., child birth or nocturnal emission, Lev 15). A “skin disease” (tsara‘at) likewise made one impure (Lev 13–14). Tsara‘at did not actually denote leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease, as it is often translated in English Bibles), but generally a scale disease of the skin, including psoriasis, eczema, vitiligo, or favus. The two chapters concerning illicit sexual relations (Lev 18; 20) forbid exposing the “nakedness” of one’s “relatives” (lit. one’s “flesh,” she’er).

If a bodily “defect” (mum, unfortunately often translated “blemish”) is found on a descendent of Aaron (e.g., he is blind or lame), he cannot serve as priest (Lev 21:17–23). An animal that has a “defect” cannot be offered as a sacrifice (Lev 22:20–25). Readers may be puzzled why the lex talionis (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth” in Lev 24:17–21; cf. Exod 21:23–25; Deut 19:21) appears in its current context, but this version in Leviticus uniquely adds instances of bodily “injury” (the same word, mum).

The bodily fluids of blood, male semen, and female menstrual fluid are necessary for life and procreation. But once outside of the body, the bodily loss of these fluids foreshadows and signifies the loss of life and even death itself.

In ritual sacrifice, the blood and the fat, the separation of which symbolized death, are placed and consumed upon the altar, thus ascending in smoke to God. The death of the animal can symbolize self-dedication (the burnt offering) or atonement (the sin and guilt offerings). In ritual purity laws, the flow of blood or female menstrual fluids or male semen signified loss of life. This loss made one impure and thus in need of ritual cleansing.

The body of the sacrificial victim and the body of the officiating priest must be “whole/intact” and without “defect/injury” to be “acceptable” to Yahweh (Lev 1:3; 22:19–25). Skin diseases likewise made one impure. A whole, intact body embodies what is acceptable to God and likewise the notion of holiness. Wholeness signifies holiness.

Ritual vs. Moral Impurity? When considering OT law codes, modern readers often make a distinction between moral laws and ritual/ceremonial laws. While it has some merit, the priestly writers behind the book of Leviticus do not appear to operate by these categories.

Ritual impurity appears almost exclusively in the Priestly Code of Leviticus 1–16. It occurs as a result of skin disease or contact with menstrual fluids and blood, genital discharges, house mildew (Lev 14:45–46), or with dead animals or humans. Such contact may be unavoidable, as in cases of child birth and family burials, both of which are obligatory for the people of God. So, ritual impurity clearly does not entail sin.

The state of ritual impurity is temporary, ranging from a day, a week, or 33 days in the case of a male child and 66 days in the case of a female (Lev 12:4–5). Ritual washings and sacrifices may also be prescribed.

The laws pertaining to ritual impurity do not correlate with health risks (e.g., nocturnal emission). The only diseases that surface in the book of Leviticus are scale diseases on the skin. Some of the animals listed as impure do not pose a health risk to humans.

The only references to ritual impurity in the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) are brief and likely presuppose the more developed regulations in the Priestly code: (im)pure animals (Lev 20:25) and priests with a skin disease or in contact with a corpse or a nocturnal emission (Lev 21:1, 11; 22:4). In contrast to the Priestly Code (Lev 7:24), the Holiness Code permits laypeople to consume dead or torn animals, so long as they engage in ritual washing (Lev 17:15–16).

Laws that could be classified as moral appear exclusively in the Holiness Code, principally in chapters 18 and 20, which closely parallel and repeat each other. Chapter 18 lists a series of “abominations” (Lev 18:26–30) that had been practiced by the previous inhabitants of “the land of Canaan” (Lev 18:3). As a result Yahweh declares, “the land became impure and I called its iniquity to account and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Lev 18:25). This serves as a warning to the Israelites as the next inhabitants of the land. The actual penalty will be excommunication: “the persons who do them will be cut off from their people” (Lev 18:29). The specific abominations listed are incest, intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, adultery, offering one’s child to Molech, homosexuality, and bestiality. The defilement of lying with a menstruating woman introduces the subsection on “impurity” (Lev 18:19–30) and is mentioned right alongside adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and offering a child to Molech (Lev 18:19–23). (It is worth noting that Leviticus mentions only Molech worship, not idolatry more broadly, as in Deut 17:2–7, where it is a capital crime.)

Chapter 20 curiously repeats much the same list (adding divination and cursing parents), but in most cases its penalty is capital punishment: perpetrators “shall surely be put to death” (Lev 20:2, 9–13, 15–16, 27). Although the list of incestuous relationships in Leviticus 20 is not as extensive as that in Leviticus 18, capital punishment is applied only to cases involving one’s father’s wife or daughter-in-law or mother-in-law (Lev 20:11–12, 14). Excommunication is the penalty for intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (as in Lev 20:18) and uncovering the nakedness of one’s sister (Lev 20:17), but cases involving one’s aunt or sister-in-law brings the threat of lifelong childlessness (Lev 20:17, 19–21). Two other capital crimes surface later in chapter 24: cursing God’s name and murder (Lev 24:10–16, 17, 21).

Our categories of ritual impurity and moral crimes do not match up with the respective outcomes of ritual washing and sacrifice and excommunication and capital punishment. Excommunication is the penalty for some instances of ritual impurity: the improper consumption of ritual sacrifice (Lev 7:20–27 in the Priestly Code; Lev 17:4, 9, 10, 14; 19:8 in the Holiness Code), failure to fast on the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:29), and priests who approach holy things while in a state of impurity (Lev 22:3). But for other cases of ritual impurity ritual washing and sacrifice can return one to a pure state. Excommunication is the penalty applied to all the “abominations” listed in Leviticus 18, including intercourse with a menstruating woman. Leviticus 20 likewise applies excommunication to lying with a menstruating woman and certain cases of incest. But other cases of incest have become capital crimes. In modern societies, however, capital punishment is applied only to murder (mentioned later in Lev 24:17, 21), certainly not to cursing one’s parents (Lev 20:9) or God’s name (Lev 24:10–16).

Much of Leviticus 18 and 20 concerns illicit sexual relations. The inclusion of intercourse with a woman (including one’s wife) during her menstrual period, alongside cases of incest, raises the question of whether these sexual relations are illicit because they are immoral or because they are impure. Are these Levitical laws about morality or ritual purity? There is no mention of personal or social harm. As noted above, (im)purity laws may be determined by the symbolism of the human body and its fluids. While modern readers may be at a loss to explain all these prohibitions on moral grounds, the one principle underlying them is that male semen is meant to go to one’s wife—unless she is bleeding—not to another relative, man, or beast. If scholars are correct that the opening prologue to these purity laws in the book of Leviticus is to be found in the seven-day creation account of Genesis 1, then this principle makes perfect sense in light of the creation mandate for sexual reproduction (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7). The laws of Leviticus 18 and 20 safeguard its fulfillment.

11.1.3.    Key “Sacraments”: Tabernacle, Sacrifice, Priests, Festivals

As we have seen elsewhere, important symbols of Israelite worship have analogues in ANE worship, most notably the sanctuary, sacrifice, and festivals. We should view these tangible symbols as part of the cultural “language” that Yahweh employed to communicate with his people. In each case below, we will observe that Yahweh uses this common language in order to convey a theological turn of meaning.

Sacred Space: Tabernacle/Tent of Meeting. The formula, “And Yahweh spoke to Moses,” recurs throughout the Priestly material (P) in the book of Exodus (Exod 25:1; 31:1; 40:1, etc.), where the location is clearly Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16). These speeches include the virtual blueprints for the tabernacle/tent of meeting. (Although Solomon’s temple is patterned somewhat after the tabernacle, it is not granted the same divine endorsement as the “tent of meeting.”) The verse introducing Leviticus locates the several speeches that Yahweh delivers to Moses throughout the book:

And Yahweh called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting (Lev 1:1).

In the Priestly material (P) “the tent of meeting” was located at the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2:17), though in Exodus 33:7–11 (E) it was found “outside the camp.” Another term for this tent is the “tabernacle,” which likewise denotes a portable dwelling. Other terms highlight its holiness: “the holy place” or simply “the sanctuary.” We may not be too hopeful that archaeologists would unearth physical remains, but they have found remnants of a Midianite tent shrine at Timna (12th century BCE). It is perhaps not coincidental that when Moses had “fled from Pharaoh …he dwelt in the land of Midian” and married a daughter of a “priest of Midian” (Exod 2:15–16).

Sacred Rituals: Sacrifice. Israelite worship was characteristically embodied in ritual. To convey the notion of offering tribute to and communion with deity, the Old Testament uses the Semitic symbol of sacrifice (זבח , zbḥ) at the altar (מִזְבֵַּחַ , mizbeaḥ). The terminology in Leviticus and at ancient Ugarit was very similar (e.g., using the same West Semitic terms for “sacrifice,” “altar,” “peace,” and “wave offerings”), as were the sacrificial animals (bulls, sheep, birds). Although the ritual actions may have been similar, their meaning and theology were very different in ancient Israel.

In Mesopotamia much attention was devoted to the “care and feeding of the gods,” especially in terms of washing their cult statues and feeding them through sacrifice and libations (see, e.g., ANET, 95, 338–39, 343–45). For example, when Utnapishtim, the Noah figure in the Gilgamesh Epic, offers sacrifices after the seven-day flood,

The gods smelled the savor,
The gods smelled the sweet savor,
The gods crowded around the sacrificer like flies (COS 1.132, p. 460).

It would appear they had no one to feed them the entire week!

While the Old Testament priestly texts, such as those found in Exodus and Leviticus, describe the details of sacred space and time, personnel, and rituals, they say comparatively little about their meaning and theology. The Priestly material (P) does actually use suggestive language that the deity savers their smell (e.g., “a fire-offering of soothing aroma” found 17 times in Lev). In Numbers 28:1–8 Yahweh prescribes in detail his daily menu: “my food for my fire-offering of soothing aroma.”

The Psalms and the Prophets are more explicit about the meaning and role of ritual sacrifice—often with the voice of critique and clarification. In a prophetic psalm Yahweh declares,

If I were hungry, I would not tell you,
for the world and its fullness are mine.
Do I eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink the blood of goats?
Sacrifice to God a thanksgiving (sacrifice),
and fulfilled to the Most High your vows,
and call upon me in the day of distress;
and I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.
The one sacrificing a thanksgiving sacrifice honors me;
the one who keeps my way I will show the salvation of God (Ps 50: 12–15, 23).

Because Yahweh has no needs, the Old Testament reverses the dependence: Yahweh is ready to hear His people’s cries and to deliver them. The purpose of Israelite sacrifice is to express honor and thanksgiving to God.

While the canonical libraries of other Mesopotamian cultures had numerous texts related to divination (COS 1.120) and incantation (COS 1.32, 1.96), the texts of the Old Testament make it clear that Yahweh is not susceptible to manipulation or magic. Instead, they show that Yahweh presents Himself as responsive to cries for help and the tenacious persuasion of words (e.g., Exod 32:9–14). Of greatest value to Yahweh are the altitudes of the worshiper, such as authenticity, fear and joy, and obedience (Pss 5:7, 11; 1 Sam 15:22–23; Hos 6:6).

► The expression of gift or tribute is especially symbolized in the burnt and grain offerings (Lev 1–2), fellowship and communion in the peace and thanksgiving offerings (Lev 3), and atonement in the sin and guilt offerings (Lev 4–5).

Leviticus 1–7 categorizes the sacrifices by their types and functions. There are three voluntary offerings: the burnt, grain, and peace offerings. The burnt and grain offerings symbolize the “tribute” offered to the divine King at his palace/temple. The burnt offering (‘olah), literally “that which ascends” in smoke, is a meat sacrifice. The “laying on of hands” implies a measure of identification with the ritual sacrifice, thus symbolizing the worshiper’s self-dedication to God. The Apostle Paul likely picks up this symbolism:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (Rom 12:1, ESV).

The grain offering (minḥah), literally a “gift/tribute,” is vegetarian. It also serves as a “memorial” (Lev 2:2, etc.). The third voluntary offering, the peace offering, could function as an expression of thanksgiving (Lev 7:11), as a fulfillment of a vow, or as a free-will offering (Lev 7:16).

The two atoning sacrifices are similar: “Like the sin offering, like the guilt offering, there is one law for them” (Lev 7:7). The sin offering (Lev 4:2, 22, 27) and the guilt offering (Lev 5:15, 18), however, provide only for “unintentional/inadvertent sin.”

If a person sins unintentionally regarding any of Yahweh’s commandments about things not to be done, and he does one of them … (Lev 4:2).

The nature of “unwitting” sin is spelled out further in the repeated pattern:

“if a person sins unintentionally, and it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it, and he realizes his guilt …”

Numbers 15:22–31 expands on these provisions, and explicitly addresses the issue of intentional sin.

But the person who does it with a high hand, whether a native or sojourner, reviles Yahweh, and that person will be cut off from the midst of his people (Num 15:30).

Info Box 11.1: Is there atonement for intentional sins?

These observations beg the obvious question, what about those of us who have sinned intentionally? The rabbis were troubled by this dilemma as well and proposed a solution: “R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Great is repentance, which converts intentional sins into unintentional ones,” a claim that he bases on Ezekiel 33:19 (b. Yoma 86b). Jacob Milgrom argues that a passage in Leviticus itself leads in the same direction (Leviticus 1–16, Anchor Yale Bible, p. 373). The final passage (Lev 6:1–7, paralleled in Num 5:6–8) in the subsection concerning the sin and guilt offerings (Lev 4:1–6:7) uniquely raises cases that are clearly intentional. They involve “lying,” or “oppression” or “swearing falsely.” But if the sinner “realizes his guilt and restores” the loss to the victim and “adds a fifth to it” (i.e., makes restitution), and “brings to Yahweh a ram,” then “the priest shall make atonement on his behalf before Yahweh and it shall be forgiven him.” (Num 5:7 adds, “he shall confess his sin.”) Psalm 51 also bears witness to the power of repentance in the removal of sin.

This close exegesis reveals how Pentateuchal law addresses some of humanity’s fundamental needs. It does not tackle the universal human dilemma of intentional sin and its atonement by theological principle or proposition, but by case study. Leviticus 6:1–7 is very limited in its listing of intentional sins, but they can serve as a sampling by which interpreters can extrapolate to broader cases of intentional sins. Jews call this halakhic exegesis. Halakah was the practice of legal interpretation regarding how one was to “walk” (halak) in Yahweh’s way.

Rabbi Jesus employs the same mode of exegesis in his citations of Hosea 6:6 in Matthew’s Gospel: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” He first applies this verse to the Pharisees’ question, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (Matt 9:10–13), and later to their accusation when his disciples “do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath” (Matt 12:1–8). One may wonder what ritual sacrifice has to do with table fellowship or Sabbath observance, but they all touch on the broader halakhic concern of the relative place of ritual law within God’s values. In Jesus’ view, God’s priorities place mercy toward human need above ritual observance.

Sacred Personnel: Priests and Levites.

Although the book is called Leviticus, the term “Levite” surfaces only in connection with “the cities of the Levites,” which forms a section appended to the year of Jubilee (Lev 25:32–34). Elsewhere attention is given exclusively to the priests, who are “Aaron’s sons” (Lev 1:5; 21:1), as they are throughout the Priestly and Holiness Codes.

Sacred Time: Sabbath and Festivals.

Similar to other Semitic cultures, the Israelites observed sacred times, wherein the people would commemorate the deity. In the earliest liturgical calendars of the Hebrew Bible (Exod 23:14–17, E; 34:18–23, J), the pilgrimage festivals are noted by their agricultural names:

• Unleavened Bread (during the barley harvest)
• Harvest (wheat harvest)
• Ingathering (fruit and olive harvest)

The pre-exilic calendars of J and E, along with D, followed the Canaanite calendar, where Unleavened Bread/Passover occurred in the month of Abib (Exod 34:18; 23:14; Deut 16:1; Gezer Calendar). The term abib is used elsewhere where it means an “ear” of barley grain (Exod 9:31). Hence, this month commemorates the barley festival. Tabernacles occurs “at the end of the year” in the fall (Exod 34:22; 23:16) at the grape harvest (Deut 16:13). In the pre-exilic period therefore the new year began in the fall.

In the later calendars (Lev 23, H; Num 28–29, P; Deut 16, D) these festivals are resignified to commemorate Yahweh’s saving deeds through which He formed His people:

• Passover (the exodus)
• Weeks/Pentecost (Sinai law)
• Tabernacles (the wilderness journey)

The biblical writers thus incorporated the celebration of Yahweh’s goodness in bountiful harvests (e.g., Psa 65) with the collective memories of his saving power, provision, and instruction (Torah). The later, (post-)exilic calendars of P and H follow the Babylonian calendar, where the new year begins in the spring. Hence, Passover occurs on “the fourteenth day” of “the first month” (Num 28:16; Lev 23:5). While the earlier calendars flexed with the agricultural harvests, the later calendars fix the particular dates of the year. The Babylonian influence likely reflects the Babylonian exile, and thus indicates a later date for these calendars and literary strands.

Rituals, such as those prescribed for Passover, could enact a narrative memory fundamental to the worshipers’ identity as the people of God. Its preferred means of celebration was as a collective during the pilgrimage festival at the Jerusalem temple (Deut 16:2, 5–6), but it could also be adapted as a domestic rite during the Babylonian exile (Exod 12:1–20, 28, 40–51).

Israelite worship divulges an extraordinary theological tension: in spite of the repeated prohibitions of idols and images of God, these calendars stipulate that three times a year, worshipers should “see the face of Yahweh” (the original wording in Exod 23:14–17; 34:20, 23–24; Deut 16:16). At the risk of suggesting that Yahweh could be imaged, the Bible maintains this metaphor of summoning God’s people to have a personal audience with the divine King at His palace.

Unique to the Old Testament is the observance of Sabbath, a ritual of simply “ceasing” ( שׁבת, shbt) from work to commemorate Yahweh as creator (Exod 20:8–11) and social liberator (Deut 5:12–15).

11.1.4.    Rabbi Jesus and OT Law

“You shall love your neighbor.” The book of Leviticus was certainly known to Jesus and some passages were fundamental to his teaching. In the Gospels of Mark (Mark 12:28–34) and Matthew (Matt 22:34–40), a scribe/lawyer asked Jesus, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answers with two: the first is from the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4–5 (“… you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart …”) and the second from Leviticus 19:18 (“you shall love your neighbor as yourself”). (This pairing mirrors the two tablets of the 10 Commandments, also central to the Hebrew Bible.) In Luke’s Gospel (Luke 10:25–28) the lawyer asked, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered his question with a question, “What is written in the Law?,” to which the lawyer responds with the same answer. Clearly, the linking of these “you shall love” verses from separate books in Torah was not unique to Jesus but was known within Judaism. Jewish Second Temple texts attest to this (Testament of Issachar 5:2; 7:6; Testament of Dan 5:3; Philo, Special Laws, II 63).

While this commandment might sound straightforward to most of us, the lawyer thinks he may have found a loophole. He asks, “who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). In this case, the lawyer may actually be on to something. Here’s the literary context of the second great commandment:

You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord. “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord (Lev 19:16–18, ESV).

In this context “your neighbor” is your fellow Hebrew, not explicitly anyone else, certainly not a Samaritan. That is why there is a later addition to this chapter in Leviticus that repeats the commandment but expands the direct object of “you shall love.”

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God (Lev 19:33–34, ESV).

God reminds the people that their personal experiences of being strangers in a strange land were to inform their ethics and behaviors toward the other. Jesus responds to the lawyer’s question with the well-known Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37, which is actually a Jewish midrash on 2 Chr 28:5–15).

Ritual Purity and Kosher Diet. When we return to the second greatest commandment in Leviticus 19:18 in order to read it in context, we might be surprised by the very next verse:

You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material (Lev 19:19, ESV).

Adjacent to the command, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” are four more divine “you shall” commands, three of which pertain to ritual purity. So, how should we as Christians, or how did Jesus himself, distinguish which OT laws apply to Jesus’ disciples? By what criteria can we sift through the OT to discern which parts we are to observe as Christians?

To answer this question we shall consider Jesus’s teaching on pure and impure foods (Mark 7:14–23):

There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him (Mark 7:15, ESV).

When Christians hear teaching such as this, it tends to resonate with them and they see no problem with it. But a Jewish audience would be in shock, which explains why “his disciples asked him about the parable.” It sounds like a direct contradiction of Leviticus 11, which distinguishes “the living creatures that you may eat” from the “unclean” animals that “you may not eat.” These food laws stipulate the “kosher” diet of Judaism. “Each who touches them becomes unclean/impure” (Lev 11:26). These regulations conclude with a stern admonition:

For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 11:44–45, ESV).

Kosher diet was not mere ritual; it is presented as an essential marker for the Israelites as Yahweh’s “holy” people and indeed as an acknowledgement of God as “holy.” So how can Jesus overturn these food laws that symbolize holiness? His stated reason, to our surprise, does not stem from rabbinic exegesis of the OT, but from biology and human experience.

And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person” (Mark 7:18–23, ESV).

What people eat ultimately does not affect them, but the attitudes, words, and actions they display spring from within them. And so the Markan narrator infers, “Thus he declared all foods clean.” For Jesus “purity” does not define a ritual boundary marking religious identity; rather purity defines an inner character that avoids social harm.

Sermon on the Mount. Another telling passage in the Gospels is the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7), which is the principal section in Matthew’s Gospel where Rabbi Jesus unpacks how he interprets the Scriptures for his “disciples/students” (Matt 5:1), “teaching them to observe all” that he “commanded” (Matt 28:19–20). But before we explore how Jesus interprets the Old Testament, we will first consider his key Old Testament verses, namely the 10 Commandments, in their own right (Exod 20:1–17; Deut 5:6—21). As just noted, the first four commandments enjoin respect for God and the remaining six respect for one’s neighbor. Each of them is enforceable, in the sense that they refer to observable behaviors, with the exception of the tenth commandment: “You shall not covet.” This one refers to interior longing or desire. Evidently the Ten Commandments are not a traditional lawcode for state enforcement; they also speak to the aspirations of the people of God. While specific persons and objects of “coveting” are listed in the verse, that is, items of your neighbor’s household, this attitude of longing could also apply to any of the preceding nine commandments. Coveting your neighbor’s wife could lead to adultery or to murder. Coveting your neighbor’s property could lead to theft or to bearing false witness. Coveting money could lead to Sabbath violation. Coveting a business deal could lead to invoking Yahweh’s name in a vain oath. In this respect, the tenth commandment provides a hermeneutical key that helps in interpreting the entire set.

Jesus opens the Sermon on the Mount with a disclaimer: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17, ESV). He asserts this because everything he is about to say sounds like he is abolishing the Law and the Prophets: “You have heard that it was said …, but I say to you …” Key to his sermon is defining or redefining “righteousness”:

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:20, ESV).

The first two instances stem from the 10 Commandments (“You shall not murder” and “You shall not commit adultery”), and in each case Jesus internalizes the commandment from an action to an attitude. One might wonder on what exegetical basis he makes this interpretive move, but his halakhic extension of the prohibition, “You shall not commit adultery,” is telling:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt 5:28, ESV).

The Greek word usually translated “lustful” is the same word found in the Septuagintal version of the tenth commandment, “You shall not covet (ἐπιθυμέω).” It would seem that Jesus uses the interior attitude embedded in this final commandment as a hermeneutical key to interpret the standard of “righteousness” articulated in one of Judaism’s fundamental texts. Much to the surprise of his audience, Jesus actually raises the bar for righteousness by going beyond mere behaviors to one’s words and the attitudes of the heart.