LEVITICUS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS -- PART 1

Leviticus 1-7 In the first seven chapters of Leviticus, God tells Moses in detail about each offering and how the animal is to be killed, what parts to burn and what parts to eat. Why was God so specific?

As The Daily Bible notes in another context on page 135, “These detailed instructions indicate how strongly God feels about the purity of his people, the constancy of their worship, the need for sacrifice and offerings, and the value of all that is dedicated to God's service.” This is especially true regarding sacrifices since it was only by shedding a life that one could be cleansed of sin. Therefore, “What the worshiper offered to God had to be the best, the most perfect of its kind.” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, p. 157)

And, I would add, it had to be offered in the exact manner God had outlined. This was partly because of the symbolic meaning behind each detail of the ritual, such as placing one's hands on the animal to identify with it, salt representing a preservative, blood representing the life that belonged to God only, fat as the choicest portions, etc. The other reason for the details was as a test of obedience to God. After all, as Samuel later said, “Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.” (I Samuel 15:22b)

Leviticus 8: 1-4 As God told Moses everything about all the offerings, did Moses write it as God told him?

A number of times in the Bible it specifically states that Moses wrote down the words of God as he was given them, as in the writing of the Ten Commandments. By contrast, Jesus is only said to have written anything down once, and that was written in the dirt. In addition, Moses is said to have transmitted the words of God orally to the people (just as Jesus did). It is also probable that scribes faithfully wrote these instructions down and taught them to subsequent generations.

There is an added complication when we ask the question: “When was the Book of Leviticus actually completed?” Liberal critics have proposed a time during the Exile or shortly afterward (NRSV Study Bible, p. 142). However, the Jewish scholar Jacob Milgrom has demonstrated through careful examination that a time no later than David's reign is more likely (Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible commentary, pp. 3-34), and Allen P. Ross ably defends the traditional view that the whole book was compiled from earlier sources sometime shortly after Moses' death (Holiness to the LORD, pp. 33-42). The details in their arguments are much too many to rehearse in this brief reply.

Leviticus 8:22-29 Aaron waves the offering before the Lord as a wave offering. What does this mean? Do they wave the offering for God to smell it?

No, the “waving” itself was not for God to smell it. The word is better translated as “elevating,” as in the NRSV), and Allen Ross best explains the act: “The wave offering was placed in the offerer's hands, and then the priest placed his hands beneath those of the offerer, moving them upward and downward, forward and backward, thereby symbolizing the consecration of the gift of God in the sight of all. It was, in a sense, transferring the offering to God, showing that it belonged to him first.”

However, we can't entirely avoid the idea that God was meant to smell the offering as it was being burnt (“a pleasing odor before the LORD” – Leviticus 8:28; also Genesis 8:21; Exodus 29:18, etc). This is another anthropomorphic image of God as if he had the sense of smell. In the first place, the word translated as “pleasing” can also be translated as soothing or appeasing. This represents “the satisfaction God experiences in the proper worship of him and the acceptance of a sacrifice as a propitiation for sin.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 801)

It should be pointed out that some Christian denominations still use incense in their worship services for the same symbolic reason. The smoke of incense is associated with prayers of the believers in Psalms 141:2 and Revelation 8:3-4.

Leviticus 12  I'm struggling with Leviticus 12, about women being unclean for 40 days after bearing

 a male child but being unclean for 80 days after bearing a female child. I don't believe God would 

that way about his creation or denigrate females in that way. I don't believe God thinks I'm worth less

 than a man. I don't believe that God saw more value in a male child's birth than a female child's birth.

At the outset it is important to note that the commentators I consulted uniformly admitted the difficulty in interpreting this chapter, especially in regard to the disparity in times for purification. But since it concerns regulations involving ritual cleanliness and purity, some general points need to be made before proceeding:

1. “The purpose of the holiness laws “was one of God's ways of teaching Israel about barriers between the his holy nature and what was too physical and earthy, diseased or defiled – unclean.” (Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the LORD, p. 270)

2. But paradoxically, “...rather than being unclean or impure in the negative sense, the biblical state of ritual impurity is the result of contact with the sacred.” (D. Setel, The Oxford Companion to the Bible) This especially included contact with things relating to the birth and death of human beings such as (menstrual) blood or semen (see Leviticus 15 for regulations regarding the latter). For example, Both J. N. Birdsall (“Canon of the Old Testament” in New Bible Dictionary, p. 190) and F. F. Bruce (The Canon of Scripture, p. 34) describe the deliberations of the rabbis at the Council of Jamnia ca. 90 AD concerning which books to consider as part of the Old Testament. Those that were included were said to “defile the hands” – a technical expression denoting those books which were the product of prophetic inspiration. This is the exact opposite way of our looking at things. Also, a comparison of the purification required after contacting a human corpse (Numbers 19) shows that it is more extended than if a mere animal carcass was touched (Leviticus 11).

3. Several commentators on Leviticus 12 have stated that the idea a female child is somehow more ritually impure or of lesser social worth than a male has been soundly refuted. (Kaiser, p. 287; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp. 744-753) 

Concerning the all-important Item 3 above, Solomon Zucrow is quoted in Kaiser's Ethics as saying, “the opposite can equally well be inferred, for it further enjoins that after the days of purification have passed the woman should be considered in a state of purity...in the case of a female child...twice as long as that in the case of a male child.” Or, one could easily argue on the basis of Item 2 above that the disparity in purification times actually demonstrates that God holds a female child of greater worth than a boy. In any case, those examples prove that “Greater defilement is not necessarily an indication of less social worth.” (Milgrom)

The question remains: “Why the longer time periods if a female is born compared to a male child?” There have been several attempts to make sense of this discrepancy, some more persuasive than others:

1. There appears to be a scholarly consensus that the first time period before declaring the woman clean was only reduced from 14 days to 7 days for birth of a boy so that both mother and child could be ritually clean for the circumcision ceremony on the eighth day (see Milgrom). The other explanations offered below deal with the second, and longer, time periods for complete ritual purification.

2. Milgrom says that “some have conjectured that the postnatal discharge for a female lasts longer.” To this, Wenham adds that “More recently a physician has argued that there is scientific justification for such a belief.”

3. Milgrom additionally says, “A biological distinction is proposed by Rabbi Ishmael; the male embryo is completely formed in forty-one days and the female in 81 days.” A similar belief was held (wrongly, of course) by other cultures in the ancient Near East.

4. There was the possibility of the newborn girl also bleeding vaginally, accounting for the doubling of time, or simply the fact that two women (one a future menstruant) instead of one were involved. (Ross, p. 271; J. E. Hartley in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p. 427)

Leviticus 19:28 (and 21:5) seems to teach that tattoos are forbidden for a believer. Is that true?

The word “qa aqa” appears only here in the Bible and means literally “to cut,” but taken with the surrounding words indicates a cutting that left a mark imprinted in the skin. This could have been a form of branding, scarring, cutting or a process where ink was inlaid into the skin; there is not enough data to fully define exactly what this word meant.

The practice of making deep gashes on the face and arms and legs in time of bereavement was universal among the heathen, and it was deemed a becoming mark of respect for the dead, as well as a sort of propitiatory offering to the deities who presided over death and the grave, [or to provide life blood to the dead themselves. The defacement was also possibly so that spirits of the dead could not recognize the mourners and seek revenge on them.] It it probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden. Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments.

However we translate the word “qa aqa” though, in this passage it is certainly used in the context of cultic religious worship. The prohibition against “qa aqa,” (translated tattoo) was to keep the Israelites from being involved or affiliated with cultic worship practices.

Con Argument: At least two evangelical commentators state that it applies today. Allen Ross and G.J. Wenham both feel that the prohibition goes beyond mourning customs since God created man and pronounced him good, we should not mar the body God has given us. The body of the believer belongs to Christ, therefore “glorify God in your bodies” (1 Corinthians 6:20)

Three Arguments in Favor of Tattoos

Argument 1: The tattoo of today is much different than it was for those who originally received the Pentateuch. Today tattooing is a decorative means of self expression and personal decoration. In our current culture people modify their appearance for beauty in many ways such as clothing choice, makeup, plastic surgery, hair-cutting and coloring, weight loss, body-building, and body piercings. Some of these practices have a history in ancient ritual and false religion, but in our cultural context they do not necessarily denote a connection with evil or false faith. In the same way, tattoos today do not link the wearer to cultic worship practices and are not generally practiced for ancient religious purposes. Tattoos today are for mainly for ornamentation.

Argument 2: A further reason to believe Christians are free to tattoo their bodies is that New Testament believers are not bound by the Old Testament laws in order to gain or regain right relationship with God. If we were to obey all the laws of the Old Testament, we would also be bound by rules that would restrict shellfish and pork eating, various hairstyles, wearing of clothes made from two different fabrics, even eating cheeseburgers. Both specific passages in Leviticus also include prohibition against rounding off edges of the beard or shaving part of the head.

Argument 3: Some also feel that modifying the body somehow defiles God's creation, but if this was true would it be right to pierce ears, correct a club foot, cut hair, clip nails, get a tan or use orthodontia? Each of the previously mentioned practices modifies the way we were originally created, some permanently.

Argument 4: There is nothing inherently wrong with marking the body. It all depends on the purpose.

Genesis 4:15 God puts a mark (sign) of protection on Cain so that no one will harm him.

Ezekiel 9:4-5 God puts a mark (tav) of protection on believers before slaughtering others.

Revelation 3:12 God will write names on believers

(Although in Revelation, the mark (charagma) of the beast designates those who worship Satan.) Many Christians today are tattooing themselves not in tribute to a false idol or anti-Christian deity, but with love for the one true God and Creator. They utilize this permanent marking a way of giving glory to God. Some find that Christian tattoos attract questions about faith and provide opportunities to give God glory by allowing the story-telling of His love to those who aren’t convinced yet.

As a tongue-in-cheek argument, I once cited Galatians 6:17: “From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body.” Paul compares his scars to brand marks of a slave indicating who his owner is.

Leviticus 15:13-15, 28-30  When it talks about a male discharge I would presume it is referring to a

male ejaculation. But in the next paragraph it refers to a woman’s discharge, which makes me question

that. Also, waiting seven days after each “discharge” would seem odd if this were in fact referring to sex.

So what sort of male and female discharge is being referenced here? 

According to two commentaries I consulted, the particular verses listed above only deal with abnormal discharges such as seminal emissions related to sexual disease or chronic menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia). The woman in Mark 5:25-34 is one example of someone afflicted by the latter condition. The intervening verses 16-27 in Leviticus 15 outline less stringent purification procedures needed after normal male discharges or female menstruation. The fact that purification is even needed after these latter bodily functions (and after childbirth) has caused some people to wrongly deduce that sex itself must be regarded as sinful by God. This should not be the interpretation given to these laws.

One reason for these detailed laws was to separate godly worship from pagan practices. “[T]he strictness with which anything which suggests the sexual and sensual is banned from the worship of God is one of the most noteworthy characteristics of the religion of Israel and distinguishes it most sharply from the religions of the neighboring peoples...” (New Bible Commentary, p. 152)

“Blemishes preclude animals from being used in sacrifices or priests from officiating in the sanctuary...Similarly all bodily discharges are defiling and disqualify a person from approaching the temple. Discharges are not just incompatible with holiness, understood as physical normality, they symbolize breaches in the nation's body politic.” (G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p. 222)

And finally, after wading through 107 pages of commentary on Leviticus 15 by Jacob Milgrom, I came up with this pithy comment worthy of passing on: “The bodily impurities [in Leviticus] focus on four phenomena: death, blood, semen, and scale disease. Their common denominator is death. Vaginal blood and semen represent the forces of life; their loss – death.” (Leviticus 1-16, p. 1002)

Leviticus. 11:4-8   Maybe it's just that I’m city folk, but what does “chew the cud” mean? 

I'm another city folk and have never taken a biology class. So I will cheat by quoting from Jacob Milgrom's commentary (Leviticus 1-16, page 647).

The Hebrew verb chew (malalat) “literally means 'brings up' and refers to the constant regurgitation of the fodder from the animal's stomachs to its mouth and back again.” And the word translated “cud” is taken from a Hebrew root word “meaning 'drag,' referring to the cud being dragged back and forth from the stomachs to the mouth.” This is part of the digestive process for some ungulates.

Your question brings up a larger question regarding the reason behind the various dietary laws in this passage. The Bible, as far as I am aware, never gives any justification for them. Some of the suggested reasons given by commentators include:

    Hygenic reasons (diseases that can be transmitted by eating pork, for example)

    Unclean habits of the animals (carrion-eating birds, for example)

    Worship of certain animals by pagan religions (scarab beetles, for example)

    Each animal is to be a “pure” representative of its type with no mixed characteristics (animals in water must have fins and scales, for example)

No one of the above reasons, however, can explain all of the dietary restrictions present. Therefore I tend to agree with those who say that the overriding rationale is the fact that these regulations were required by God (1) as a somewhat arbitrary test of their obedience and (2) in order to set them apart from all the other cultures.