Archives For Bible – Leviticus

Glory Fat

February 29, 2012 — Leave a comment

This last Sunday I got back into my sermon series on the Ten Commandments, picking back up with the Fifth Commandment. As you may note in the outline published a few posts below this one, we traced some of the connotations of the word “honor,” particularly in Exodus.

I need to make one clarification about my assertion that the word “glory/honor” is sometimes translated as “fat,” particularly in connection with the sacrifices. I noted that Eli’s sons steal the fat of the offerings for themselves instead of giving it to the Lord. In 1 Sam. 4:18, when Eli hears the news that his sons are dead and the ark has been captured, he falls backward, breaks his neck and dies. We are told that this is because he was old and “heavy.” In other words, there is a strong “fat” connection running through the Eli narrative. Eli has gotten fat on his sons’ stolen fat.

However, in some of the verses I referenced, the root word for “glory/honor” is not translated “fat” — that’s a different word. The word is actually frequently translated “liver” (Ex. 29:13, 29:22, Lev. 3:4, 3:10, 3:15, 4:9, 7:4, 8:16, 8:25, 9:10, 9:19), all contexts where the fat is being isolated and burned on the altar. So the point still stands: the fatty part of the liver belongs to the Lord, but just in case you’re trying to trace the Hebrew word, you should be aware that the normal word for “fat” is a different word in those verses listed above.

At the beginning of Exodus, the pharaoh was stealing the glory and honor due to the Lord, by heaping burdens upon God’s people, but the Lord intervenes as a faithful Father and delivers His people in order to give them a glory that will give life rather than crush them. By the end of the story, the Israelites are learning to give God the “glory,” pictured in burning the glory-fat on the altar of the Lord.

This is the difference between faithful fathers and tyrannical fathers, pharaohs and shepherds. Pharaohs demand glory and pretend that they are preeminent. But shepherd fathers look to God as the Chief Shepherd Father and seek to call their families to give Him the glory. And when faithful under-shepherds give glory to God and teach their children to do this, they are being given a glory that cannot be taken away and children delight to add to.

Introduction
Previously, we have seen that Sabbath pushes us outside of ourselves, commanding us to remember the people around us, guarding them, giving them life and rest, making a holy people. Last week, we focused primarily on the Sabbath building project. Sabbath is for giving ourselves and our resources to the building of God’s house. This week we look at the kind of culture over generations the Sabbath ought to create.

Holy Convocations
When sin entered the world dislocations and tensions entered the world in three areas: God and man, man and man, man and the world (Gen. 3:13-24). Sin, guilt, and death make this world a threatening place to be, and fear reigns over all of it: fear of betrayal, fear of loss, fear of death. But Jesus came “that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14-15). In the Old Covenant, the Exodus and the building of the tabernacle are types of Jesus to come: God freed His people from bondage to Pharaoh and brought them to Sinai to build His house. All of this testifies of God’s intention to reconcile all things: God and man (Passover/Sinai), people with one another (Sabbath, Manna, convocations), humanity with creation (Red Sea crossing, life in the wilderness). The Ten Words are the pattern of living that would mark this reconciled humanity, and the Sabbath command in particular is a bridge between our love for God and our neighbor. God knows that even a redeemed people will still fight and bicker and have different ideas and values. So He commanded them to have a weekly meeting (Lev. 23:3) and throughout the year have extended retreats full of meetings (e.g. Lev. 23:7, 21, 24, 35). All successful leaders and organizations know that central to accomplishing goals is regular, clear communication. And when the goal is the salvation of the world, this is even more important. Continue Reading…

I am Yahweh

October 28, 2010 — Leave a comment

The declaration of God, “I am the Lord” using the the covenant name Yahweh occurs nearly 200 times in the OT. Nearly three quarters of those are found in the books Exodus, Leviticus, and Ezekiel.

This suggests a few things: First, this invites a close connection between Exodus and Leviticus. The Exodus from Egypt is all about Yahweh, a display of His name, making His name known to the Israelites, their children, and the Egyptians. The plagues, the division between the Israelites and Egyptians, the death of the firstborn, the deliverance from Egypt: all of this is done so that they might “know that I am Yahweh.”

When Leviticus repeats this phrase some forty or fifty times, it is frequently explicitly tied to the Exodus (“I am Yahweh who brought you out of Egypt…”, etc.). But it is always implicitly referring back to that event, back to the revelation of Yahweh’s name in the Exodus. They are to keep Yahweh’s sabbaths because He is Yahweh who brought them out of Egypt. They are to be holy because they serve Yahweh who brought them out of Egypt. They are not to worship other gods because their God is Yahweh who brought them out of Egypt. They are to release their slaves, forgive debts, and care for orphans and widows because “I am Yahweh.”

But when Ezekiel uses this phrase nearly seventy times, he is drawing off of both of these books. Ezekiel is a Moses pleading with Israel to leave Egypt, to leave the Jerusalem that has become an Egypt. But this already implies the Leviticus connection. Not living according to the word of God in Leviticus is to to “return to Egypt” while still living in Israel. To disobey Yahweh, to break covenant is to reject the Exodus, to take Israel back into Egypt. For Ezekiel to bring God’s declaration, “I am Yahweh,” is to remind Israel of Leviticus, to remind Israel of the word of their Redeemer, their Near-Kinsman who came and set them free.

Sweet Rest

March 16, 2010 — 1 Comment

Throughout Leviticus 1-7, after a sacrifice is offered it ascends in smoke into the presence of God where it is a “sweet aroma” to the Lord. The word for “aroma” or “smell” is the word NICHOACH which is not far from the word NOACH which is the word for the name “Noah.” We know the words are related simply by meaning. Noah’s name means “rest” and the word here means “pleasant” or “soothing.” We could say that the smell of the sacrifice brings “rest” to Yahweh. The sacrifice brings Sabbath to the conflict of sin and rebellion between God and man.

What’s neat is that the book of Leviticus ends with several chapters dwelling on the Sabbaths of Israel (Lev. 23, 25-27). The book begins describing the rituals of making peace with Yahweh, the sacrifices that ascend to give rest to the Lord. And the book ends with instructions for how Israel is to live in this rest and peace. They are to be Sabbath keepers and Sabbath givers. As they have been forgiven, they are to be forgivers.

Mary Douglas suggests that the bodies of sacrificial animals correspond symbolically to the tabernacle topography and layout. On her reading, the entrails and genitals correspond to the Most Holy Place, the middle section of the animal with the fat and kidneys comes next corresponding to the sanctuary, followed by the head and meat sections for food which correspond to the outer court.

One obvious question that rises from this reading, which Douglas recognizes, is whether this is not too vulgar. Specifically: why align entrails and genitals with the Most Holy Place, the place of highest esteem and honor?

Douglas has several answers of her own to this question, but off the cuff, one possible parallel to this reading would be found in 1 Corinthians 12.

Could Paul have been working with something like this in mind when he wrote: “And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty…” (1 Cor. 12:23) Maybe so.

First, on the surface, the parallel works as “unpresentable parts” and members of “less honor” seem very likely to be a polite way of referring to the genitalia of the body. And upon these, Paul insists we bestow “greater honor” and “modesty.” Both of which also seem to correspond well to the Most Holy Place where the greatest honor is bestowed, and certainly it is covered by the veil/curtain with great modesty and no one ordinarily goes behind the curtain, behind the veil except for once a year on the day of Atonement.

On this reading, Paul is working with the tabernacle structure in the back of his mind. And there are a couple of clues in 1 Corinthians that confirm this suggestion.

First, early in 1 Corinthians, Paul identifies himself as a “wise master builder” (1 Cor. 3:10). The word “master builder” is the same word used in the Septuagint to describe the work of Bezalel and Aholiab in constructing the tabernacle (Ex. 31:4, 35:32, 35). Paul insinuates that he is Bezalel and Apollos is like Aholiab (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5-6). Paul goes on in 1 Cor. 3 to describe the building project.

Secondly, Paul identifies the Corinthians as in a parallel historical position to the Israelites in the wilderness in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13. The organization of right worship in the building of the tabernacle was the central building project of Moses and the Israelites during the wilderness sojourn. Paul says that the Corinthians are in a similar place in the story.

Finally, a cursory reading of the rest of the epistle reveals a number of other quotations or allusions to the same themes that make Paul’s instructions about worship and the church beginning in 1 Cor. 11 fairly natural. Paul is self-consciously overseeing the construction of a new tabernacle in the wilderness. The Most Holy Place in the Church seems to be those members who are weak, poor, and otherwise unpresentable. Perhaps James has something similar in mind when he exhorts the Church to pure and undefiled religion: visiting orphans and widows (Js. 1:27). Likewise, his condemnation of the Church’s preference for the rich (Js. 2:1-6). Our priestly ministry to the “least of these” is our ministry of bestowing “greater honor” and “greater modesty.”

Could it be that this is “pure and undefiled religion” because it is our “day of atonement?” If the body is the temple/tabernacle and the body without the spirit is dead (Js. 2:26), then the “works” James has in view would specifically be that ministry to the poor, the weak, and the unpresentable.

Mary Douglas points out that there is a “sly ‘inclusio’” in Leviticus 11 where the passage begins with the general description of clean animals which includes the characteristic of “chewing the cud” (Lev. 11:3). The word for “chewing the cud” means to go up or ascend, and while the word is repeated several times throughout the chapter with regard to chewing the cud, the conclusion is in 11:45 where God says: “For I am the Lord your god who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God.” The word for “brings you up” is the same word for chewing the cud. Israel is the “cud” that God is “bringing up” and chewing on. (Leviticus as Literature, 49)

Good Abominations?

February 27, 2010 — Leave a comment

Mary Douglas, in Leviticus as Literature, points out that Leviticus 11 should really stun the careful Bible reader. If we recall that God is the Creator of all things, and that He not only created all things but also declared all things good, how can some of them be “abominations” to the Hebrews? How are so many animals “unclean”? Why can’t God’s people touch or eat so many of His good creatures?

Even after the Fall, Noah saved unclean animals in his ark from the flood. If they were abominations, why would God want Noah to save them? Why not destroy them in the flood? Why not have Israel destroy them in the land of Canaan along with the Canaanites who do abominations?

How is separating from these creatures an act of “holiness” (Lev. 11:44)?

The High Priest Leper

February 18, 2010 — Leave a comment

Another Mark 14 thought:

Upon hearing Jesus’ “confession,” the high priest tears his clothes. Not only is it forbidden in the law for the high priests to tear their clothes (Lev. 10:6, 21:10), but it is required that lepers go about with torn clothes. As the high priest cries out “blasphemy!” he inadvertently dons the uniform of a leper who was to tear his clothes and cry out “unclean!” (Lev. 13:45)

All this on the heels of Jesus’ inspection of the temple for leprosy (compare Mk. 11:11-13:2 with Lev. 14:33-45). And meanwhile Jesus is lodging at the house of Simon the leper (Mk. 14:3), who has presumably been cleansed. The high priest and the old Jewish temple is powerless to cleanse and even worse it is infected with uncleanness and spreads uncleanness. But Jesus is the true temple and whoever He touches is cleansed. Jesus is the true high priest who offers the healing of God.