Chapter 24.10-20: Cursing for Cursing

Now the son of an Israelite woman went out  - he was also the son of an Egyptian man - amid the Children of Israel; and they scuffled in the camp, the son of the Israelite-woman and a (fully) Israelite man.  Now the son of the Israelite woman reviled the Name, and insulted (it), so they brought him to Moshe - now the name of his mother (was) Shelomit daughter of Divri, of the tribe of Dan - and they put him under guard, to clarify it for them by order of YHWH.  And YHWH spoke to Moshe, saying ... whoever reviles the name of YHWH is to be put-to-death, yes, death, the entire community is to pelt, yes pelt him; as the sojourner, so the native, when he reviles the Name, he is to be put-to-death!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You are not to take up the name of YHWH your God for emptiness, 

for YHWH will not clear him that takes up his name for emptiness."

- Exodus 20.6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words can be like X-rays if you use them properly - 

they'll go through anything. You read and you're pierced. 

- Aldous Huxley

___________________________________________________________________________________

Yet again, we encounter a story in this book that we call our Scriptures that offends our sense of justice.   Somebody gets in a scuffle, spouts out a few choice words, and - dies?  Really?!?  Who is this God - is it not the One of whom the Psalmist writes, 

Compassionate and gracious, the Lord, slow to anger and abounding in kindness ... not according to our offenses has He done to us, nor according to our crimes requited us.  As a father has compassion for his children, the Lord has compassion for those who fear Him (Psalm 103.8, 10, 13)

or the One who speaks through the prophets, 

Fear not, you shall not be shamed; do not cringe, you shall not be disgraced ... the Holy One of Israel will redeem you - he is called "God of all the Earth." For a little while I forsook you, but with vast love I will bring you back.  In slight anger, for a moment, I hid my face from you; but with kindness everlasting I will take you back in love - said the Lord your Redeemer.  I will not be angry with you or rebuke you.  For the mountains may move and the hills be shaken, but my loyalty shall never move from you, nor my covenant of friendship be shaken - said the Lord, who takes you back in love (Isaiah 54).

I think that often we just "look away" when something seems so at odds with what we understand about God and who we know God to be.  We avoid talking about it (when was the last time you heard this read or preached?!), or we vilify the subjects of the story in a way that makes them safely different from us, or we quietly, in the tiny dark places of our minds where we don't even have to be honest with ourselves, put up some sort of little fence to separate this God from the God we're more comfortable with - the angry God from the merciful God, the Old Testament God from the New Testament God, the Jewish God from the Christian God, the righteous God from the redeemer God, the legalistic God from the gracious God.

How many gods do we have?  

Our text for today forces us back to the question we asked at the beginning of our study - what does it mean to read Leviticus as Scripture?  What does it mean to read it - all of it - as the word of God?  What does it tell us about who God is and how we are to live?  I can't just look away.  I would rather have a God I don't understand than a god I can ignore, or a god I can take apart and piece back together in the shape I want.  And I don't think we have to try to hide these hard things that we don't understand, either from ourselves or from others.

So what has happened here, with this son of an Israelite woman, that is so serious as to end in death?  What does it mean to "revile the name of YHWH"? 

First, let's remember the tone Leviticus has already set for how to deal with sin.  In chapters 1-7 we read about all the kinds of offerings that were to be brought, including the hattat offering which effects purification for sin.  This is what it says: "When one sins in error regarding any of YHWH's commandments that should not be done, by doing any one of them ... he is to bring-near, for the sin that he has sinned ... a hattat offering ... to effect-purgation for him from his sin, and he shall be granted-pardon" (chapter 4).  Granted pardon?  Regarding any of YHWH's commandments.  Okay.  We can live with that.

        But then in chapter 10 we read about Nadav and Avihu, who brought foreign fire to the altar.  Do you remember how they died?  Fire.  Even though this, too, is startling to our feeling that justice is not equal to vengeance, we were able to maybe, just maybe, comprehend that their deaths were less the result of irrational anger than the natural consequence of entering a danger zone without appropriate precautions.  In these two events we start to see something of a general principle of equivalence in Leviticus - if someone becomes impure through inadvertent sin, she brings an offering of purification.  If someone brings the wrong kind of fire, the protective boundaries are breached and YHWH's dangerous fire is no longer safe - "fire for fire."  

        But death for cursing?  Isn't the punishment of death a little out of proportion to insulting God's name?  I'm going to argue that this, too, is a literary comment on the principle of equivalence, and to do so we need to take a closer look at the very careful way that this story is written and the words that are chosen to tell it. 

I.  "Let the punishment fit the crime"?

        1 - The crime? "Reviling the name."  The Hebrew word that is translated "revile" is naqav, which normally means "to pierce, bore through, perforate."  What if this passage were instead translated, "he pierced the Name, perforated the Name with his words"?  Then we ought to ask what harm is done.  Do you remember back in chapters 12-15 when we read about coverings that are compromised by things breaking through the surface of skin, of garments, of tents?  To pierce or perforate God's name is to compromise the integrity of God's reputation. What if the name of God - like skin, like clothes, like houses, like the tabernacle - is also a protective covering over the community of faith, a covering that is maintained and established through reverence and respect by those who are God's image-bearers?  What if that covering is damaged by the very ones who both need protection and are the closest thing to YHWH's representatives in all creation?

        2 - The punishment? "Whoever reviles the name of YHWH is to be put-to-death, yes, death, the entire community is to pelt, yes, pelt him."  The Hebrew word that is translated "pelt" is ragam, meaning "throw, hurl, pelt with stones."  Straightforward enough.  But because this word is always used for the act of stoning, it also came to be used for - cursing.  It seems as though there's a play on words here, inviting our imagination - "The blasphemer has insulted the Name, so let him die by insults."  "He has pierced the Name, so let him be pierced with stones."  "He has hurled insults, so let insults be hurled at him."  Sound like this might be about some kind of equivalence after all? 

II.  A Story about the Name: the Names of the Characters

        There's another interesting feature that I hope you may have noticed if you've been reading the text throughout our study.  Did you notice all of the names that suddenly sprang up?  How many names have we read in Leviticus before now?  Let's see, there was Moses and Aaron... Nadav and Avihu... some others of Aaron's sons... and that's it.  But here in chapter 24, all of a sudden we need to know everyone's name - the mother, the grandfather, the "father's house" (family, tribe), the blasphemer - wait, what was his name?

        Oh.

Well, how about the others - what do their names mean?

• Shelomit - from the root shilem, meaning "repayment, retribution"
• Divri - from the root davar, meaning "to speak" or "quarrel, conduct a lawsuit"
• Dan - the tribe whose people "will mete-out-judgment" (Gen. 49.16)

Are you seeing a theme here? What if we were to rewrite the story with all these encoded suggestions spelled out:

Once there was a man with no name, son of Retribution, grandson of Lawsuit, from the house of Judgment, and he pelted insults at the Name ... and the Lord said, "He shall die, he pelted my Name, he shall be pelted to death."

(Somebody really ought to write a "Leviticus for Dummies")

III.  An Interlude: Equivalence

        Just in case we still haven't gotten the point, our narrative is interrupted with a reiteration of Exodus 21 (especially vv23-25), the familiar passage about making retribution for loss of any kind - 

Now a man - when he strikes-down any human life, he is to be put-to-death, yes, death!  One who strikes the life of an animal is to pay for it, life in place of life.  And a man - when he renders a defect in his fellow: as he has done, thus is to be done to him - break in place of break, eye in place of eye, tooth in place of tooth; as he has rendered a defect in (another) human, thus is to be rendered to him...

Expounding what Scripture means by a "retributive principle" is beyond the scope of our subject for today, but this reminder being included within our narrative soundly affirms that what happens to No-Name is directly related to his actions.

IV.  Conclusion

        While I was in the process of writing this post I received an e-mail with a daily reflection from the Union for Reform Judaism.  It is about God's oneness, and the invitation God extends to the community of faith to participate with God in world-shaping covenant relationship.  Although there are a few things the Christian community might understand differently than this Rabbi's interpretation, suggesting that you read the entire post is the best conclusion I can offer you for how we might try to understand the grave seriousness of diminishing the name of God.  Here is a highlight: 

"Isaiah 49.3 teaches 'You are my servant, Israel.  I will be glorified through you.'  In this way, the Master is dependent on the servant.  God's glory, if we dare say it, depends on how we, human beings of flesh and blood live out our days and our years ... the Rabbis imagine God saying, "When you are My witnesses, I am God.  When you are not My witnesses, it is as if I am not God."

What we do matters.  What we say matters.  And if what we say diminishes God's glory then we ourselves become diminished.          

Chapters 23-24:9: The Shape of the Year

We have two choices: this can either be a short lesson, skimming the surface of Chapter 23 with a few observations related to our study as a whole, or a very - very - long one, explicating the yearly cycle of festivals and holy days and their meaning for the Israelite community.  I vote for Option #1 (my reasons for this are twofold: 1) the theological importance and historical development of this liturgical way of shaping time in the Jewish tradition is vast.  While embarking on this study would doubtless enrich our understanding of Leviticus as a whole, I fear doing so in this context would be more of a de-railing than a detour.  2) I don't know nearly enough about said topic.  It will have to wait for another time).

You are to bring-near a fire-offering to YHWH, for seven days... 

You are to perform-a-sacrifice on the day of your elevating the sheaf, a sheep, wholly-sound, in its (first) year, as an offering-up to YHWH... 

And you are to perform-as-sacrifice: one hairy goat for a hattat, and two sheep, a year old, for a slaughter-offering of shalom...

Does this sound familiar?  Haven't we already heard something like this way back in chapters 1-7, in the outer court?  What are these sacrificial instructions doing here, in the sanctuary?

First, the sacrifices specified in chapters 1-7 were "freewill offerings" of various types; although the offerings were necessary for the maintenance of ritual purification, they were brought at the discretion of the worshipper.  Locating the material describing how to bring these offerings in the "outer court" section of the text makes sense if these are offerings that are brought by anyone, at any time.  Now that we are in the sanctuary, however - that much closer to the presence of YHWH - we find instructions for sacrifices that are initiated by God.  Just as the earlier chapters created a paradigm in which worship, family life, ethics, priestly qualifications and behavior, and sacrificial animals and objects were to be characterized by holiness, so also time is to be defined and ordered by God.  The Israelite calendar was to be shaped not merely by the cycles of the sun and length of days, but by remembering God's redemptive actions on Israel's behalf and responding with the appropriate observances of gratitude, celebration or purification.

Second, chapter 23 constitutes the final block of material before we encounter the 2nd Narrative that is the screen to the Holy of Holies ... which is only entered once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).  It makes perfect sense that the instructions for shaping the entire year in acknowledgement of YHWH's provision, protection, and presence, would serve as preparation for entering the most sacred area of the tabernacle.  Although the instructions for Yom Kippur have already been outlined in chapter 16, this reminder of the ordering of time through liturgical observance prepares the reader for our literary trip into the Holiest Place.

And just to make sure we realize that we are, indeed, taking a tour of the sanctuary, chapter 24 begins with material pertaining to the furniture that is located in the sanctuary - the lampstand and the table of showbread.  The feasts ordained by God expand and complete chapters 1-7, and the instructions for the oil and baking of bread complete the instructions for their installment recorded earlier in Exodus 27.20-21 and 25.23-30.  We are now ready make our way through the 2nd Screen, the narrative of chapter 24.10-22.

In summary, these "proclamations of holiness" shaping the yearly calendar include time as well as space and behavior in the ordering that reflects YHWH's holiness.  Sketch out a quick list for yourself of when these festivals are supposed to occur and other specifications of time surrounding them - the 7th day, the 7th month, the 14th day of the first month, for 7 days, for 7 weeks.  It is not only remembrance and participation, but symbolic perfection that is to be acted out through the shape of the year.  Little by little, the tabernacle and participation in its functions begins to encompass all aspects of ordinary life.  It is the echo, the reflection, of creation: "This constant orientation to the sabbatical cycle throughout the calendar year keeps the community of faith reminded of the cosmic rhythm that sustains the creational order.  Each sabbatical observance recalls the primordial plan, invites the community to reflect on God's design, and enables them to imitate God's intentions through both their rituals and their ordering of communal life."*  And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it...

Next Stop: Chapter 24:10-22 - "Cursing for Cursing"

*Samuel E. Balentine, The Torah's Vision of Worship (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999) 158.

Chapters 21-22: Rules for Priests

So here we are making our way through the sanctuary, which, as you may remember, is the room where only the priests are allowed to go.  It is appropriate, then, that we find here another set of guidelines explaining how the priests are to keep themselves suitable for service in the sanctuary.  What is dealt with here is not a comprehensive job description, but a brief reminder reinforcing some important Levitical themes: "set apartedness" and how to approach the boundaries between life and death.  It is clear that these rules are for priests alone, not for everyone, and are therefore carry greater restrictions and greater consequences.  Chapter 21 describes what maintains the suitability of the priest for sanctuary service, and chapter 22 instructs how to handle the portion of the offerings that belonged to the priest.

I.  Chapter 21: Suitability for Sanctuary Service
        Again, it's easy to see that this chapter isn't supposed to be a complete guidebook - there's a lot that is taken for granted that we already ought to know about the priesthood, and therefore much that is left out.  Chapter 21 deals with only two issues, with various applications: the appropriate contact or avoidance of death, and what kinds of marriage relationships are acceptable.  In verses 1-9 we read how "normal" priests are to form their families and mourn their dead.  Verses 10-15 mirror these guidelines with even more restrictive rules for the High Priest.  And then in verses 16-24 we read that not everyone from priestly families is suitable for service in the sanctuary - those who are born with or develop certain physical defects may not serve, yet they must still be included among those whose livelihood is derived from sanctuary service.

What do we think about that?  Is it offensive to you that physical defects can inhibit a person from certain types of service before the Lord?  I think that before we start jumping to any over-hyped equal rights conclusions we would do well to make note of a few things.  First, notice that the text doesn't say that physical defects mean a person is no longer a priest - Israelite priests were priests by virtue of birth and lineage, not - dare I say - ordination or ambition.  Once a priest, always a priest.  I don't know if there were other types of duties they may have been able to perform, but what is mentioned here is only that they could not approach the altar to offer the burnt offerings.
        Second, remember what happened to Nadav and Avihu in chapter 10?  Remember the danger that is inherent in approaching the altar - that physical, tangible presence of YHWH that is like electricity?  What if these exemptions are more about protection than discrimination - protecting those with afflictions that might make it somehow unsafe for a person to get too close?  What if we thought of "defects" more as "handicaps"?  Perhaps this is too charitable a reading, but it makes me think of how children are sometimes angry when they find one of those outlet covers interfering with their plan to stick their fingers in the outlet.  Maybe, like people in diapers with tiny fingers who don't know about electricity, we don't know enough to argue with God about these things.  And I think there is good support in the text for this idea that exemption equals protection,  since it is clear that these priests are still to be included in eating the portions that were allotted to the priests for their food.  Doesn't sound half bad to me.
        Third, I do think part of why this may be offensive to us is that we still have trouble distinguishing between moral and ritual suitability for approaching God's presence - why should physical and not spiritual things be considered defects?  This, again, is a reminder of the Levitical notion that impurity is almost like a physical substance, underscoring the lack of distinction between physical and spiritual in the ancient world.
        Fourth and finally, remember that the priesthood was supposed to represent God's holiness to the people - and holiness is equated with wholeness or perfection.  The office of the priest was symbolic as much as it was practical, and if the priest is a symbol of God he must be an image of that perfection as we hear in the refrain, "For I am YHWH, the one-who-hallows-you" (vv8, 15, 23).  This interpretation is less convincing to me by virtue of the fact that the rules are only restrictive of service and not state of being (they're still considered priests, even if flawed), but I think it is something we have to consider.

In short, chapter 21 reminds us that as we approach the presence of YHWH the boundary between life and death matters.  The priests are, by nature of their office, in closer proximity to God and must guard this boundary with greater care - how they mourn their dead, how they cultivate life within their families.  Hold that thought.

II.  Chapter 22 - Priests and Animals
        I'll be brief here: this chapter describes who is and is not allowed to eat of the "sacred donations" (the portion of the offerings that were to be given to the priests to provide their livelihood) and how to do so appropriately, and offers a reminder that animals brought for sacrifice must be without defect.  Do you see any parallels with chapter 21 here - who may serve and how/who may eat and how, who may not serve/who may not be sacrificed?  I think it's fairly obvious that both chapters serve as reminders of Leviticus' general scheme of a perfect God requiring perfect worship, but there's also something else going on here.  Why is the body of the sacrificial animal cast in correspondence with the body of the priest?  Is it to say that they are somehow alike - that they are both offered to God in some way, and that what is offered and how it is offered somehow demonstrates God's holiness?  There should be no doubt that this correspondence affirms that both the Israelite and the sacrificial animal are included in what is set apart for covenant with YHWH, similar to the correspondence between chapters 1-7 and 11-15.

III.  Conclusion
        I have two further observations in conclusion:
1) First, we are told three times that these rules are in order that the priests not profane YHWH's holy name (21.6, 22.2, 22.32).  But what does that mean?  We're not dealing here with verbal slander or cursing, we're reading of the way that priests marry and mourn and eat - what do those things have to do with God's name?  Fox's translation of Exodus 20.7, what most of us learned as "you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain," casts this question in a whole different light - You are not to take up the name of YHWH your God for emptiness, for YHWH will not clear him that takes up his name for emptiness.  Vanity.  Emptiness.  "Don't make my name empty," meaningless, ephemeral, forgettable.  All of these things that the priests are to do or not to do, as representatives of YHWH, have the potential to either glorify God in the eyes of the people or diminish him.  What they do - what we do - matters.

2) Second, we've already established that these guidelines apply specifically to priests.  In that sense, they set the priesthood apart as carrying greater responsibility in their approach to YHWH.  Yet we cannot overlook that these guidelines were specifically to enable them to perform their duties in the sanctuary - the priesthood was not accorded any special status or privilege, elevated above the common Israelite.  Priests didn't choose their lot.  They couldn't be "unpriested." They were not different because they were special, they were different because they had a different job in different proximity to the divine - just as Israel was different not because they were special but because they had a responsibility to love God and to be a blessing to others.  Listen:

I will make your seed many, yes, many, like the stars of the heavens and like the sand that is on the shore of the sea; your seed shall inherit the gate of their enemies, all the nations of the earth shall enjoy blessing through your seed, in consequence of your hearkening to my voice (to Abraham, Gen. 22.17)

I will make your seed many, like the stars of the heavens, and to your seed I will give all these lands; all the nations of the earth shall enjoy blessing through your seed (to Isaac, Gen. 26.4)

Not because of your righteous-merit, or because of the uprightness of your heart, are you entering to possess their land ... you are to know that not because of your righteous-merit is YHWH your God giving you this good land to possess, for a people hard of neck are you!  What does YHWH your God ask of you, except to hold YHWH your God in awe, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your being? (Moses to all Israel, Deut. 8, 10)

Israel itself was to be a kingdom of priests, remember? (Ex. 19.3-6)  Priests are born, not made, and with that birth comes certain responsibilities.

So I wonder what we are to make of this.  Preacher or teacher, mother or missionary, pastor or plumber - I think it's safe to say that we're all included in this "priesthood" inasmuch as we understand ourselves to be in covenant with YHWH.  I think it's safe to say that even within this expanded definition of priesthood, some are given different tasks than others and therefore different responsibilities.  And above all else, I think we can be certain that these responsibilities and how we conduct them have a direct effect on how we either help or inhibit what others think of God.  I wonder if we are representatives or distortions.  I wonder if we use our positions of responsibility to exclude and discriminate against others, or to provide for and protect them.  I wonder if we are careful about what we offer to God and the way in which we offer it, or if we just go through the motions so we can feel how we want to feel about ourselves.  I wonder if we respectfully and gratefully receive what God has provided for us in ways that recognize his provision and generosity, or if we act like we deserve it because, after all, "we earned it."

I wonder if it has anything to do with us that people sometimes think of God as an idea, a name that is a hollow, empty shell, instead of electric and alive and overflowing.

I wonder.

Chapters 18-20: Righteousness

"You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy."

We have finally arrived.  We've moseyed around the walls of the outer court, and are well aware of the separation between the holiness of YHWH - who, nonetheless, has taken up residence among us - and the sinfulness of humans.  We've been warned that getting closer to the presence of the Holy Place comes at a price.  And we understand that if we're going to go through that screen into the sanctuary - not all the way into the holiest place but still edging closer to God's electric presence - it's going to mean an entirely new way of life.  It's going to include how we interact with all living things - flying and creeping, swarming and swimming - how we live in our bodies and what we put in them, and how we shape the day to day processes of life.  And we've decided to take the risk.

So as we enter this new room - the sanctuary, or the Holiness Code - the first three chapters act as a unit to help us get our bearings.  Remember those pagan gods of Egypt and Canaan, the ones your friends and neighbors and bosses and - maybe even you - worshipped?  Forget about them.  Remember how you treated one another back there, acting out the ways of the false gods you served in your very bodies?  No more.  And above all, don't forget: you're not in Egypt any more.  "I am the Lord your God WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT of the land of Egypt."  This is a whole new way of life, and it includes all of life.

"You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy."

If there is anything we ought to take away from these chapters it is this:

• Remember who you were, and who you now are.
• Remember who YHWH is.

Oh, and by the way, don't forget that holiness equals wholeness - that which is consistent with God and his character.  Everything we talk about from here on out is about the holiness of God, and so it is also about the holiness of God's people.  

"You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy."

I.  Chapters 18 and 20: "You are not to do... " - Pillars Defining Righteousness
        I think it's time for some pictures.  Are you ready?!  And by pictures I mean a picture:


That's right, take a good long look.  As a matter of fact, if you look at it long enough I don't think there's much else I need to say.  This lovely illustration, the handiwork of yours truly, helps us visualize how chapters 18-20 function as a unit to highlight 1) that YHWH is Israel's god, not the gods of Egypt and Canaan, 2) what the Israelites are not to do, and 3) what the Israelites are to do to embody YHWH's righteousness, liberty, and justice. 

So chapters 18 and 20.  We should already be comfortable with the idea that we don't get a linear progression of ideas - we don't progress through chapters 18 and 19 to reach the glorious definition of righteousness in chapter 20.  Nope.  We read about all the sins of Egypt and Canaan in chapter 18, skip over chapter 19, and hear them again - this time complete with the consequences those sins evoke - in chapter 20.  Three things about chapters 18 and 20:

• First, these are anathemas against evil things done in Egypt & Canaan (cf. 18.2-5), focusing on idolatry and sexual immorality.  Remember the Levitical theme of inappropriate "mixtures"?  It also applies to relationships.  Furthermore, paganism in the ancient world and the world of the bible is synonymous with sexual immorality - anytime we come to material dealing with sexual immorality, we can pretty much put our money on it not being about defining Israelite relationships but specifically defining the Israelite's relationship with YHWH.   These sins, should you choose to engage them, are a clear indication of religious infidelity.
• Second, these are not laws about everyday relational structures - just like the dietary laws are not about health and skin disorders are not about hygiene, these lists exclude some important things we might think would have been important for the Israelite community: what about divorce, inheritance laws, or succession?  How should marriages be organized, and marriage partners chosen?  How should family life and sexuality be structured?  Leviticus has nothing to say - well, except "I am the Lord."  If the list we're looking for is inadequate, then maybe we should look for another one - and sure enough, we find that the context is inescapably religious (or cultic).  Two more things: 1) when scripture mentions the defilement of the land (18.24-28, 20.22) it is always the result of idolatry; behavior that is so disgusting that the land itself is envisioned as having a physical reaction of revulsion, and 2) the mention of Egypt and Canaan usually equals Egyptian and Canaanite cults; this makes sense of the denunciation of the use of mediums, seers, and divination also included in these chapters.
• Third, a conclusion: "The effect of these unedifying sexual deviations framing chapter 19 is to show up the concepts of righteousness, liberty, and justice which it expounds in the middle.  These chapters contrast the pure and noble character of the Hebrew God with ... the very strange false gods" (Leviticus as Literature 238)

II.  Chapter 19: The Meaning of Righteousness

        There are a couple of clues in chapter 19 that point to it as the most important chapter we've yet encountered.  First, we are smack in the middle of our literary representation of the tabernacle - the sanctuary is the middle room, between the outer court and the holiest place.
        Second, we hear a familiar refrain that has been popping up ever since Exodus: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt" (19.36).  Every time we hear this refrain it is a signal that YHWH is defining his holiness and singularity over against some other competitor - in this case, the gods of Egypt and Canaan.  It is a reminder that YHWH is our God because of what he has done for us - we are no longer slaves in Egypt, and their gods we no longer serve.  If there was any doubt after chapter 18 that "idolatry" is the theme of the day, there should be none now.  The first thing we have to understand about holiness and what it means to be the people of YHWH is that YHWH alone is God, and there is room for no other.  Sound familiar (cf. Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 6)??
        Finally, chapter 19 is central because it defines what is central to true religion.  All throughout the Hebrew Bible, the high points of the revelation of YHWH's character converge on these very same themes:

• "What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" - Micah 6.8
• "Shall not the judge of the whole earth do what is right?" - Genesis 18.25
• "I will make justice the line and righteousness the plumb line." - Isaiah 28.17

So how is justice defined?  I suggest that you make a list of everything that is addressed in chapter 19 - point by point, what are the themes that we find?  Highlight the things with common threads and see if you can find a pattern or if certain things are usually mentioned in close proximity to one another.  Above all, slow down and pay attention.  Take in the landscape.  Imagine life in a society like this.  

Here are a couple of key themes that I noticed:

• Appropriate Boundaries: there is to be no "mixing" of gods.  It's YHWH, and YHWH alone, and in case you forget - "I am YHWH your God" is repeated no fewer than twenty-five times in these three chapters alone!  There is also to be no mixing of crops in the field, of materials in clothing, of animals in breeding - just as there is to be no mixing of Israelite with other idolatrous nations (20.24-26)
• Just Dealings: you are to deal justly and fairly not only among your own family but with your neighbors, with the non-Israelite travelers just passing through, with those disadvantaged by blindness or deafness.  You are not to show favoritism to family members or those in power.  You are not to tip the scales in your own favor.  What's more, you are even to give of what is rightfully yours to those who are in need - leave the edges of your fields for the poor to glean.  "I am YHWH" and this is what I am like. 

Finally, note the proximity of Sabbath keeping, idolatry, and covenantal eating in verses 3-8 and then again in 23-30.  Coincidental?  Take a look at Exodus 20 - somehow, welcoming the day of rest and ceasing from our labors - just like YHWH did - is connected to recognizing that YHWH alone is God.  We are not in control.  And it is also connected to what goes into our bodies - it is YHWH who will provide it for us, and we demonstrate our trust and covenant faithfulness even in the way that we eat.  

     

At the conclusion of chapter 20 we are reminded once again that these three chapters are a hinge between the two sections of the book - carefully read verses 22-26 and you will hear echoes of chapter 11 and a preview of chapter 26.  It is all held together here, right in the middle, right in the center of it all.

And not surprisingly, Jesus agrees.  When asked what the greatest of all the commandments is, Jesus answers from Deuteronomy 6 - "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength" - AND from Leviticus 19 - "and you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mk. 12.28-34).  Upon these two commandments stands the whole law.  Upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.  And it has always been here, right in front of us, right in Leviticus - don't serve the gods of Egypt and Canaan, and demonstrate righteousness and justice in all that you do, because you are mine and this is what I am like.

That is all. 

Chapters 16-17: Purification and Atonement

So let's review:

• In chapters 1-7, the process of bringing gifts to the altar is outlined, affirming that sins and defilements require atonement.  The body of the sacrificed animal, to whom the covenant is extended, is cast as a microcosm of the tabernacle and Sinai - "further up and further in" equals closer proximity to the divine. 
• Chapters 8-10 recount the first narrative and the consequences of approaching the presence of YHWH on inappropriate terms.  This warning acts as a "screen," separating the outer court from the holy place by reminding the worshipper what - or who - it is that they are approaching. 
• Chapters 11-15 stand opposite chapters 1-7, contrasting the sacrificial animal with the zoo of animals that are not to be eaten or touched, and then the body of the Israelite.  This second half thus expands and completes the first half. 

Our task for today is to explore how chapters 16-17, toward which everything has been building, complete the "ring" of this first section by describing how the tabernacle - the ultimate, all-inclusive covering - is to be purified from the sins of the priests and the Israelites.

I.  "Yom Kippur" - Jewish and Christian Take-Aways
        The once-yearly process of purification described in chapter 16 carries a bi-focal emphasis, as evidenced in the differences between Jewish and Christian interpretation of this event.  In the Jewish tradition, Yom Kippur is a day of fasting, prayer, conversation and sermons - with a clear theological emphasis on purity.  For Christian theology however, the fundamental presupposition is that blood is effective in atoning for sins.  The reasons for this will be clarified in a moment.  For our purposes, we must keep in mind that favoring one interpretation to the exclusion of the other is somewhat thin - we would do well to hold them both in tension, asking how they deepen and complement one another.
        Similarly, Jacob Milgrom argues that rather than the "purity vs. atonement" question, the great antithesis in Leviticus is that purity/holiness = life, and impurity = death.  Cast in this light, purity and atonement are two sides of the same coin.       

II.  Purification and Atonement - Why Blood?
        Why, though, is blood sacrifice acceptable at all?  If the sacrificial system is meant symbolically to restore life, why does it require the taking of a life?  First, note the direct contradiction that the Israelite sacrificial system posed to the common view of the ancient Near East, that sacrifice was food for the gods:

Ut-napishtim, from the Babylonian flood narrative Then I let out [all the animals] to the four winds, offered a sacrifice, and poured a drink offering on the summit of the mountain.  Seven and seven vessels of incense I set up and filled them with cane, cedarwood and myrtle.  The gods smelled the savor, the gods smelled the sweet savor, like flies the gods crowded round the sacrificer....

Psalm 50 El, the God Lord, He spoke and called to the earth from the sun’s rising-place to its setting; from Zion, the zenith of beauty, God shone forth.  Let our God come and not be silent. Before Him fire consumes, and round about Him – great storming. “Hear, O my people, that I may speak, Israel that I witness to you.  God your God am I … I shall not take from your house a bull, nor goats from your pens.  For Mine are all beasts of the forest, the herds on a thousand mountains.  I know every bird of the mountains, creatures of the field are with Me.  Should I hunger, I would not say to you, for Mine is the world and its fullness. Would I eat the flesh of fat bulls, would I drink the blood of goats?  Sacrifice to God a thanksgiving, and pay to the High One your vows, and call on Me in the day of distress – I will free you and you shall revere me.”

In contrast to these gods sniffing around for food "like flies," the God of Leviticus is utterly sublime; sacrifice is burned or taken outside the camp and not offered to God or the priests as food.  Yet this same God is really present, as we are reminded in 16.2-4 with the mention of Nadav and Avihu; even though chapters 16-17 lead us back towards the literary entrance of the outer court, the process of atonement is described as the steps that direct us back to the screen of chapters 8-10 and make entrance into the Holy Place possible.
        Second, if impurities are conceived of as something like a physical substance adhering to the bodies of the Israelites and the walls of the tabernacle, Yom Kippur is a sort of major "house cleaning" in which blood is the "priestly detergent."  Like (yet unlike) water, blood is the ultimate purifying agent.
        Nonetheless, these two observations are not wholly satisfactory.  The closest we get to an explanation to the "why blood?" question from within Leviticus itself is this: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood.  And I myself have given it to you on the altar, to atone for/effect ransom for/wipe over your lives.  For the blood - for life it atones!" (17.11, 14).  The idea is that blood somehow makes creaturely life compatible with God's holiness; an idea which persists into the Gospel.  More on that in a bit.


III.  Blood and Covenant
        As Protestants reading scripture from back to front as we are prone to do - that is, the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament - we might be tempted to focus on a single highlight of blood atonement from each: the sacrificial system and Christ's death on the cross.  At best, this is very boring.  At worst, I find myself wondering, "Is that really the best God could do?  Why pick blood sacrifice as the way that Christ rewrites the covenant - was there no other way?"  But if we look more carefully, we find that (to use Ellen Davis' elegant summary) "the entire history of the covenant relationship is written in blood - traced through the testaments, from Mt. Ararat to Mt. Sinai, to the tabernacle and temple mount, to Golgotha to the heavenly place where Jesus offers his blood, and to the heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation."  If you find lists of scripture references tedious (as I do), I apologize for what's about to happen.  But this is very important:

• Gen. 9.1-4 - God initiates covenant with Noah; for the first time, permission is given to shed animal blood, but only for eating meat.
• Gen. 17.10-14 - circumcision/blood rite is essential for every male, marking inclusion as God's covenant people and maintaining God's covenant with Abraham. 
• Ex. 4.24-26 - the "bridegroom of blood" passage, involving Moses
• Ex. 12.21-23 - blood on the lintel marks the Israelites as exempt from the death of their firstborns.
• Ex. 24.6-8 - the sealing of the Sinai covenant - "the blood of the covenant which the Lord has cut with you concerning all these matters" - resonates with eucharistic theology: the phrase "blood of the covenant" occurs in the OT only here and in Zechariah 9.11, creating a direct tie between Sinai and the Last Supper (Mt. 26.28)
• Hebrews 12.24 - Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant whose "sprinkled blood" (cf. the sprinkled blood of Lev. 16) speaks a better word than the word of Abel and marks a new and eternal covenant (Heb. 13.20)
• And implicitly ... Rev. 7.9-14 - the multitude sealed in the eternal covenant has washed their robes "in the blood of the Lamb" - sound like priestly detergent to you? 

IV.  Three Observations - how can this understanding of purity and atonement, blood and covenant, deepen our understanding of what it means when Jesus says, "the blood of my covenant"?

        First, blood stands for life, not death - we ought to associate sacrifice not with the taking of a life but the gift of life.  The offering of a life is indissolubly connected with covenant, the tie that binds Israel's life with God's own life. 

        Second, blood is somehow effective in wiping away and covering the effect of human sinfulness.  "Robes washed white in the blood of the Lamb" stands in direct contrast to the story of Cain and Abel, where the shedding of blood is an expression of human violence.  This only makes sense through an understanding of the ways that the sacrificial system acted as a limit to human violence and an affirmation that all life belongs to and is protected by YHWH.  

        Third, a speculation: is it possible that shed blood is a symbol of covenant binding precisely because it is counter-intuitive?  After all, is it logical that Israel be chosen as God's covenant people?  Is it logical that the divine should co-exist with sinful humans?  In the same way, it is counter-logical (but not illogical) that Jesus should make peace between God and humans through the blood of the cross (Col. 1.20), which Paul knew quite well (1 Cor. 1.18).

Finally, chapter 17 acts as the latch on the entrance of chapter 1 by reiterating that sacrificial animals must be brought to the entrance of the tabernacle to be slaughtered.  If there was any doubt that this entire section was a literary tour of the outer court and what goes on within it, there ought to be no question by this point.  Now its time to trace our steps back (through chapter 16) through the screen and into the center of the sanctuary: chapters 18-20, Righteousness in Relationships.     

Chapters 12-15: Purity and Pollution, Part 2

Do you know what a chiasm is?  I didn't either.  So I'm going to guess that since you didn't know, you too had a hard time figuring out what leprosy and clothes and houses have to do with menstruation and childbirth and other bodily emissions.  With the help of some of our favorite scholars, I think we can find some pretty cool stuff going on here beneath the surface - way, way beneath the surface - of these strange and possibly unpleasant chapters.  If you haven't read them yet, stop and do it now.  I'll wait.

I.  Ritual Pollution of the Body: What Comes Out of the Body
        First, however, I echo the premise of our exploration of the dietary regulations of chapter 11: contrary to common assumption, interpreting these chapters as guidelines for health and hygiene is woefully inadequate.  Much is left out, and much is (according to this schema) just silly.  Rest at ease that I'm not going to try to make a case for this kind of interpretation.
        Abandoning the idea of health and hygiene, we find instead an overarching theme of reproduction.  Why are runny noses, skinned knees, and upset stomachs not included in this list of emissions that cause impurity?  Because only menstruation, childbirth, and reproductive or vital fluids are in close enough proximity to the boundary between life and death - these guidelines symbolically affirm life by maintaining and protecting the boundaries between life and death.  There is a deep concern that what is supposed to be inside the body should not be outside the body, and vice versa.  However, remember that these are all natural processes of life - although these types of emissions and discharges result in ritual impurity, they do not imply moral trespass.  No one is to blame, and nothing is wrong - it is simply a part of life that must be handled in certain careful, respectful ways before one can approach holy things, and it is for everyone's protection.  It is because we are human, not divine.
        But... what can skin diseases possibly have to do with this?  They are not exactly bodily emissions.  They aren't related to the reproductive cycle.  Good thing we already know better than to read Leviticus in a straight, discursively logical, line.

A chiasm is a literary device used to highlight particular details of importance, with a "ring" or parallel structure such as A, B, C ... C, B, A.  The meaning that a chiasm is used to highlight is found at the pivot of a series of parallels - in this case, whatever came after C would help explain A, B, and C.  Chapters 12-15 happen to form a chiasm in which the overarching theme is reproduction and in which skin diseases - another kind of boundary violation - are the pivot that explains it.

Pillar: Ch 12 – Reproduction: discharge of blood related to lifecycles                                        Ch 13 – Leprosy: person/garment                     Ch 14 – Leprosy: person/house Pillar: Ch 15 – Reproduction: discharge of vital fluids, men and women

This is all interesting, but we still haven't explained what moldy garments and houses with leaks have to do with the body.  The key lies in this use of chiastic structure - explaining something through something else - and points us to two questions: 1) "How are skin-garments-houses alike?" and 2) "How does this explain the surrounding life-cycle regulations?"  I know we're dangerously close to overusing these two words, but what we have here is a microcosm in which concentric boundaries point to the purpose of the regulations:

• All of these things are coverings - the house that is upon the garment that is upon the skin that is upon the body which contains life-generating substances - and coverings provide protection.  These sequences indicate that what is covered, layer over layer, is what most needs to be valued and protected. 
• All of these, whether disorders or normal functions, pose equivalent threats to the integrity of what they contain or cover because boundaries are being crossed.  A leaky roof threatens the integrity of a home, and so on and so forth. 
• All of these afflictions - discharges, skin diseases, mold - make the body vulnerable, and symbolically or actually endanger life.   

Finally, the three analogies related to skin diseases (skin-garment-house) point us directly to a fourth, which is the analogy of the tabernacle: the ultimate protective "covering" for the people.  Chapter 16 addresses the purification of the tabernacle and the High Priest precisely so that this function of protection may be maintained, and is the point at which everything that has been said in chapters 1-15 converges.

For next time, read chapters 16-17: Purification and Atonement through Blood

Chapter 11: Purity and Pollution, Part 1

Chapter 10 concludes the first roughly-divided section of Leviticus, The Sacrificial Cult.  Moving on into chapters 11-17 we come to the topics of Ritual Pollution and Purification - forbidden and permitted foods, pollution from bodily fluids and skin disease, instructions for purifying the sanctuary and High Priest, and a word on the shedding of animal blood (which, as you might remember from our last lesson, links chapter 17 back to chapter 1).  Today we'll address two concepts that underly the entire discussion of purity and pollution: Morality & Ritual and Boundary Keeping, and then move through the dietary regulations of chapter 11 - or, "what goes in to the body."

I.  The Purity Regulations of Leviticus: Key Concepts


Morality & Ritual - there is a difference between morality and ritual in the thinking of Leviticus.  But they're not wholly separate categories.  Confused?  Let's try to sort this out.
        To begin with, the words "pure" and "impure" carry moral connotations for most of us when we use them to refer to anything other than food.  Think about what we mean when we say, "a pure heart," "her motives are pure," "impure thoughts," - there are definite moral implications.  To understand how these terms are used in Leviticus however, it might be helpful to think about what we mean when we refer to water as pure or impure - if water is "impure," we don't mean to say that it is morally objectionable, but that the material circumstances of the water make it something we probably ought not drink.  In the same way, the priestly tradition categorizes purity according to the material circumstances of an act to determine whether something is ritually pure or impure.  The question is not a moral judgment, but simply what your standing is in the physical realm in relation to the holy - quite simply, "Are you safe to be in the presence of God?"  For example,

• Things classified as pollutants do not carry punishment, unlike actions which violate the moral order.
• They do not pose a danger to the person (unless he/she comes into contact with holy objects, people, or space).
• They are considered contagious, which cannot be said of immorality or sin, and therefore require separation (from either the sanctuary or camp) for a defined length of time, and/or washing (water is understood as a purifying agent)  

The distinction here is not between sin and holiness then, but between what is common and what is holy.  There is a difference.

        Yet even those things which are not morally objectionable or sinful require ritual purification.  Leviticus sometimes distinguishes and sometimes blurs morality and ritual, such as in chapters 7.3-7 and 19.17-19 - is it a moral issue or a ritual issue to fail to slay a sacrificial animal in the appropriate place?  How are acting lovingly toward your neighbor and sowing your fields with only one kind of seed related?  Apparently Leviticus sees no distinction between these things - the outcome is the same, regardless of intent or associations of "morality."  An example of this blurring of ritual and morality from our own context might be found in the way that some traditions handle and dispose of the consecrated Eucharist, either ingesting it or returning it to the earth.  Is it sinful to pour the wine down the drain?  Probably not.  Does it indicate appropriate respect for the particular material circumstances of what would otherwise be common substances of bread and wine?  Probably not.  These are the kinds of issues Leviticus addresses here. 

Boundary Keeping - we've frequently alluded to the importance of boundary keeping in the Levitical symbol system, keeping distinct the categories of creation.  In chapters 11-17 it becomes clear that this distinctiveness also somehow exemplifies holiness - Douglas points out that "Holiness requires that individuals shall conform (fully, or completely) to the class to which they belong.  And holiness requires that different classes of things should not be confused" (Douglas, Purity and Danger).  11.46-47 concludes by reminding us that all of these instructions are so that there may-be-separation between the tamei and the pure (read, "the holy and the common"), distinguishing between the ritually clean and the ritually unclean in three areas of separations:

• What goes into the body - dietary regulations.
• Life and death - what comes out of the body, what may be eaten, what may be offered.
• Outer surfaces - skin diseases, clothing, houses.

So these two concepts - Morality & Ritual and Boundary Keeping - underly and inform the concepts of Purity and Pollution that we will be exploring in this section.

II.  Chapter 11: Permitted and Forbidden Foods
        Did you know that chapter 11, detailing what the Israelites could and could not eat, is at the dead center of Torah? (I realize that the fact that it's not the middle chapter of the book is a bit dissatisfying, but stay with me.)  I'm not going to fill in all the possible significance of that fact for you, but keep it in mind as we move on.  We've talked about how Leviticus is at the center of Torah, apart from which the Old Testament is unintelligible, etc., etc.  We've mentioned the "concentric" structure of much of Leviticus - working from the most clearly defined and limited out through several expanding rings of boundaries and meaning.  And we've also observed that the central concern of Leviticus is maintaining and embodying holiness in every part of life, so that the holiness of YHWH can be both welcomed and respected.  All of these things lead me to suspect that placing the dietary regulations right here, right in the middle, is no coincidence - what is more central to life than eating and all that the production and preparation of food entails?  What consumes most of our time, energy, and resources?  What is the centerpiece of community formation in all cultures, at all times in history?
        Because it is such a common assumption, we need to begin with the admission that associating the Levitical dietary laws with simple health concerns is a deeply inadequate way of understanding them - we all know it's possible to eat shrimp and bacon and live long, healthy lives, and that there are plenty of other "unhealthy" things Leviticus simply ignores.  Ancient limitations on food preparation and storage aren't going to cut it either - I think the Israelites probably could have figured out that meat only lasts so long before it shouldn't be eaten.  If health and history is all we're looking for in these regulations, I'm afraid we're going to be sorely disappointed and have a lot of defending to do of what we've cast as an embarrassingly primitive health code.  In keeping with what we've learned about the complexity and associational structure of Leviticus however, Mary Douglas instead finds here "a sermon on God's pattern of the universe.  In this reading, covenant and fertility are two contrasted principles" (Leviticus as Literature, 174).  These two contrasts point to an emphasis on boundaries and order between humans and other living beings in the following ways:

Covenant
        The laws given to Israel through Moses at Sinai outline what is required for Israel's covenant relationship with YHWH, thereby expressing God's ownership and his justice.  These laws, as we have heard over and over again, are for life, for protection, for keeping covenant relationship.  In the same manner, the purity rules of Leviticus hedge Israel's covenant relationship with YHWH to express his ownership and justice in the relationship between humans and other living beings.  Consider which land animals are classed as "clean" - acceptable for sacrifice and consumption: only the flocks and herds which belong to the Israelites.  All other land animals are "unclean."  This makes perfect sense when we remember that for a covenant to mean anything, some territorial principle is necessary, or at least ownership.   Israel's flocks and herds are the only animals that are on loan to them; all other living things belong to God already and therefore cannot be sacrificed to him, as the Psalmist reminds us - "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.  I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine" (Psalm 50.11).
        And just as surely as God is the owner of all other living things, he is the creator that has pronounced them "good."  Why should YHWH now declare "detestable" what he pronounced "good" at creation?  Perhaps it is that the words translated variously as "abominable" and "unclean" call for a little more exploration:

• "Abominable" or "detestable" distinguishes swarming air and water creatures, and is a Hebrew word that is very rare outside of Leviticus, seemingly chosen specifically for this context to avoid pejorative association.  Because of what "abominable" now means to our modern ears, a better translation might be to "shun" or "stay away from" - God is telling his people to avoid certain things, to keep out of their way, not to harm - much less eat - them.  And read carefully - according to 11.43, what is "abominable" is not the thing itself, but the action of eating them or profiting by their deaths; "It is an abomination to you."  The Israelites are in danger of making themselves detestable through their actions.
• "Unclean" delineates only those living things that do not conform fully to their class - pigs which have cloven hooves but do not chew the cud, rabbits which chew cud but do not have cloven hooves.  Only what is safely within its category may be considered ritually clean, and only what is ritually clean may be sacrificed or eaten. 

Fertility

        The second primary feature of delineating what may or may not be eaten, further demonstrating God's compassion and justice, is kindness toward "teeming" or "swarming" things.  What if we were to read these laws from the other direction - what if rather than protecting the Israelites, these laws are designed to protect the other living beings from the Israelites?   Compare these two passages:

Genesis 1.24-25 God said: Let the earth bring forth living beings after their kind, herd-animals, crawling things, and the wildlife of the earth after their kind! It was so. God made the wildlife of the earth after their kind, and the heard-animals after their kind, and all crawling things of the soil after their kind.  God saw that it was good.

Leviticus 11.46-47 This is the Instruction for animals, fowl and all living beings that stir in the water, all beings that swarm upon the earth, that there may-be-separation between the tamei and the pure, between the living-creatures that may be eaten and the living-creatures that you are not to eat.

"Swarming," "crawling," "teeming" - it's all the same word, and Leviticus uses it in the same way as Genesis (1.20-21, 9.7): a positive sense of abundance, not a threatening, encroaching sense.  If teeming is fulfilling God's command to multiply, exemplifying abundant life, and the holy of holies represents life and God's blessings of life through fertility, then teeming things do not need to be offered because they already exemplify life.  Why can't you put honey on your grain offerings?  Because it is something  that works in the natural mode of generation.  Why unleavened bread?  Because leaven - the process of fermentation - is a living bacteria, generating on its own.  Offering these things on the altar is antithetical.  Besides that, they belong to God already, remember?  Exclusion from the covenant is not a derogatory exclusion from God's protection, but rather indicates a different mode of God's ownership than that of Israel's covenant.
        The protective laws that tell humans to avoid teeming creatures therefore demonstrate God's compassion through protecting life, and the reward of covenanted obedience and loyalty, which is life - "In order that YHWH may turn from the flaming of his anger and show compassion to you, having-compassion on you and making you many, as he swore to your fathers ... you are to hearken to the voice of YHWH your God, by keeping all his commandments ... doing what is right in the eyes of YHWH your God" (Deut. 13.18-19).  

So delineating what Israel may and may not eat is yet another way of demonstrating God's covenant justice and compassionate blessing and protection of life.  As Douglas summarizes, "In this elegant helical twist, covenanted justice is balanced by divine compassion."  What we eat speaks to who our God is, and he is a covenant God of justice and compassion, provision and protection - of all living things.  What goes into our bodies matters.

For next time, read Chapters 12-15: what comes out of the body.  

Time Out: Where are We?

The next section we'll be exploring is chapters 11-17, dealing with ritual pollution and purification.  First however, let's pause to take a look around in order to get a better sense of direction as we move forward.

We know that Leviticus consists almost entirely of divine laws pertaining to the sacrificial system, dietary regulations, purity and pollution, and holiness in various applications.  These laws are interrupted only twice by brief narratives, found in chapter 10 regarding Nadab and Avihu, and 24.10-22 which, as we will see, is also about an inappropriate encounter with the divine.  The placement of these two narratives points to one way of conceptualizing the organization of the book: that of a literary projection of the Tabernacle (cf. Douglas, Leviticus as Literature).

Here's why: the Tabernacle consisted of three successive compartments - the Outer Court, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies.  Moving from largest and most accessible to smallest and most enclosed, there were two screens or curtains that separated the Outer Court from the Holy Place, and then the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, keeping the rooms separated in access and function.  Remember how Leviticus likes threes?  There are three compartments in the Tabernacle and three sections of the book, and Douglas suggests that the "structure of the written text is an analogy of the structure of the desert Tabernacle."  Three rooms in the Tabernacle, three sections in the book; two screens separating rooms, two narratives separating sections.  As readers or listeners moved through the text they experienced a projection from language to space - of no small significance in a period in Israel's history when they were in exile from their land, their laws, and their Tabernacle.  The book itself worked as a reminder and rehearsal of the Tabernacle and its purpose in Israelite life.  This type of literary spatial projection was a common memory technique in the ancient world, but in the book of Leviticus it takes on the additional role of being itself a microcosm (yes, that word again) - through this spatial arrangement it holds together the meanings of many levels of existence: the tabernacle is like Sinai, is like creation, is like the body of the Israelite and the sacrificial animal, is how Israel defines itself as being the people of YHWH unlike their neighbors.  But we'll get to that later.

We've discussed chapters 1-7: sacrificial offerings, 8-10: installation of priests and the first narrative, and we're headed into chapters 11-17.  Envisioned as a "ring," we enter the outer court through chapter 1, move along the wall through chapters 2-7, encounter the screen to the holy place that is chapters 8-10 but keep walking by, and move down the opposite wall through chapters 12-16 back to 17 that forms the latch to the entrance at chapter 1.

	11	10    9     8	7
12 13 14 15 16		Screen		6 5 4 3 2
	17	Entrance	1

The Outer Court

Now that you've gotten the grand tour, you can see that we might conceive of chapters 11-16 as expanding and completing chapters 1-7.  First we read about the bodies of sacrificial animals and how to eat or not eat them (1-7), and now we'll read about the bodies of the Israelites (12-15), how to purify them (16), and what ought to go into and out of them (11, then 12-15).  Chapter 17 echoes chapter 1 to reinforce the lesson that all animal sacrifice must be brought to the tabernacle and sacralized - listen to this:  

17.3-4 Any-man, any-man of the House of Israel who slays an ox or a sheep or a goat in the camp or who slays (it) outside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Appointment does not bring it, to bring-it-near as a near-offering to YHWH before the Dwelling of YHWH: bloodguilt is to be reckoned to that man.

1.2-3 Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: Anyone – when (one) among you brings-near a near-offering for YHWH, from domestic animals: from the heard or from the flock you may bring-near your near-offering.  If an offering-up is his near-offering, from the herd, (then) male, wholly-sound, let him bring-it-near, to the entrance of the Tent of Appointment let him bring-it-near, as acceptance for him, before the presence of YHWH.

And last but not least, the narrative block of chs. 8-10 makes perfect sense right where it is, acting as a warning before you decide to toe that line from the outer court closer into the presence of YHWH.  Just as the walls of the tent separated holy space from everything else, the text of Leviticus delineates the boundaries and separations that order the processes of life.  

How cool is that?!?

Can you see how we might get confused if we tried to read Leviticus in a straight, progressive line from point A to point B?  Instead, we need to read 1-7 with 11-17, 8-10 as summarizing and pointing the way forward, 1 and 17 as the double-doors that form the entrance.  We need to read across and in parallel.  We need to read as slow and careful observers of our surroundings, in a space that is both memory and projection, a precisely appointed holy space in which nothing is random or out of place.

Next time we'll continue our exploration down the opposite wall, discussing concepts of morality and ritual, boundary keeping, and permitted and forbidden foods.