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.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
I am Yahweh
Monday, March 15, 2010
Sweet Rest
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.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Sacrificial Catechism: Yahweh's Unpresentable Parts
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.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
God Chews on Israel
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)
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Good Abominations?
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)?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The High Priest Leper
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.
Posts
