Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Leviticus

  • Leviticus – Two Commentaries Compared

    The first is by David W. Baker, one of three in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), which is based on the NLT text.  The second is Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching).

    Yes, I have been reading both of these commentaries simultaneously, though in different portions of Leviticus. At the moment, I’ve completed David Baker’s commentary and am about to go on into Numbers by Dale A. Brueggemann in the same volume. I’m about half-way through Balentine’s commentary, but I think I have seen enough to make this comparison useful.

    Briefly, most of the comments I will make on the two commentaries are implied in the purpose of each series. There are really no surprises. First, let’s look at the total amount of commentary each provides. The portion of the Cornerstone volume on Leviticus is 208 pages excluding front and back matter. The Interpretation volume has 213 pages, but each page has about 25% less text. The total is changed, however, by the fact that the Interpretation volume does not include the Biblical text, whereas the Cornerstone volume does (NLT).

    It is rare that I read two books together that both exceed my expectations, but these did. Having started with Milgrom’s three volume commentary a few years back, I have been continually looking for commentaries that will help me express some of the things I found in this much neglected book of the Bible. While I still regard that study of Leviticus as a high point in my personal study of the Bible, I found that both of these commentaries helped me with thinking of ways to express what I have both learned and felt.

    It is not surprising, considering the breadth and high quality of Milgrom’s work, that both commentaries cite his views extensively and favorably, frequently choosing Milgrom’s interpretation in controversial cases.

    The critical difference between the two commentaries is one of focus.  I would say that if you want to get pointers toward specific doctrinal issues or ethical positions, Baker’s is more likely to satisfy you. If you’re more interested in theological themes and the broader sweep, then choose Balentine.  Both cover the basics and both are, not surprisingly, well referenced.

    One might even say that Balentine tends to get a bit more poetry out of Leviticus than does Baker, while Baker gets more prose.  If I were preparing a sermon, I think Balentine would get me to material I could use more quickly.  I would also note that you’ll probably be happier with Balentine if you are more concerned with liturgy.  Baker tends to learn non-liturgical things from the liturgy; Balentine tends to learn about liturgy and ritual.  Neither of them completely neglects other topics.  I’m speaking hear of emphasis, not exclusivity.

    That is one of the joys of using these two commentaries.  I can generally recommend them for a range of uses.  The only caveat would be that neither deals extensively with issues of source and redaction criticism that often take up space in a commentary on the Pentateuch.  If you want to study those areas, you’ll have to look elsewhere.  They are mentioned, but not dealt with extensively.

    I’m very glad to have read both of these commentaries.  For me their primary contribution was in application and in communication, but they would provide an excellent grounding for someone who was just beginning a study of the book of Leviticus.

  • Jubilee and Care for the Poor

    I was struck by a comment made by David W. Baker in his commentary on Leviticus (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy [Cornerstone Biblical Commentary]), p. 194-195:

    … Protection of life and dignity through a shared distribution of wealth was also known and practiced in the early church at Jerusalem (Acts 2:44-45), though not in relation to any actual Year of Jubilee.  This might sound radical and unheard of in much of today’s church, but its implementation in Acts seems to have been a catalyst for many becoming members of the church every day.  Could there be a causal link between the two, which the church today should take into consideration?  The church needs to give greater thought to its economic responsibilities in addition to, and as part of, its theological ones.

    Now for those who may think this is from a liberal commentary, it’s not; it’s from a solidly evangelical one.  The redistribution to which he refers is the return of land and the freeing of slaves at the Jubilee. Those who have done poorly during the preceding 49 years are suddenly blessed by a substantial redistribution of wealth in the form of land or even of their personal freedom.

    There are a number of principles that can be illustrated through Leviticus 25.  There is the basic idea of caring for those less fortunate, the particular command against enslaving one’s own people (though the extension to not enslaving anyone had to wait for a later time), and also the idea that such support was not a constant and unconditional thing.

    I suspect most of us have observed how people respond differently to certain sermons or passages of scripture.  When a pastor preaches on giving, for example, often people in the congregation who are already inclined to give feel the need to push themselves to do more, while others who give less on a regular basis are good at finding the loopholes.

    It’s difficult sometimes to find just how a scripture applies to me and not to all the other people I’d like it to apply for.  That underlines the importance of prayerful study of scripture.  Prayerful study does not merely involved praying before you study.  It is also the prayerful attitude, i.e. the attitude of listening to and depending on God throughout.

    Now look at how the early church implemented very similar principles, but in a much different way.  In their smaller community, which was not the equivalent of the nation, unlike that envisioned in Leviticus 25, they managed to keep everyone properly cared for by holding all things in common.  Latter, as discussed in 2 Corinthians 9 & 10 Paul implemented similar principles through taking a special collection.

    Our tendency is to read a passage like the description of the Jubilee, and if we’re inclined to support (or at least talk about supporting) the poor, we’ll emphasize that aspect.  One of my college professors constantly talked about the Jubilee in direct opposition to public welfare, even though wealthy Israelites would have been forced to give up wealth to others in a massive redistribution, because he noted that in the ordinary course of affairs people were expected to work.  That was his inclination, and that was what he heard in the text.

    Another professor whose inclination was toward communism found his warrant in Acts 2:44-45, and never seemed to notice that the early church was not a government, but rather a voluntary association, and indeed an association to which one really had to want to belong, nor did he notice the short duration of this particular practice.  Yet another person could hardly bring himself to fully describe the situation of Acts 2:44-45, because he was so anxious to point out how limited the circumstances were and how short the time!

    I think this passage should give pause for both Christian capitalists and Christian socialists.  I am fairly strongly inclined to the capitalist myself, but as a Christian I believe I should be deeply concerned about and positively active concerning those who are left out.  At the same time, I do have biblical warrant for good and careful stewardship.  Jubilee does not mean that I have to give without consideration or that redistribution is always a great idea.  It also does not give comfort to those who say “Never!”

    The particular way in which I implement God’s commands is left up to me and to the community of which I am a part, with the aid of examples of how God had these principles implemented over time.

    One further thought occurred to me here.  Frequently we read statements about caring for the orphan and the widow that are found frequently in the prophets and we use these in support of whatever program is on the front burner today.  Perhaps we should look a bit at the foundation document here in Leviticus to discover just what caring for the poor might have meant to those prophets.  I don’t mean that there cannot be tension between prophetic and priestly statements, but at the same time, my view of the world is doubtless more unlike that of Hosea or Jeremiah than either of their views was from their priestly contemporaries.

  • Quote of the Day – Balentine on Ritual in Leviticus

    From Samuel E Balentine, commenting on the tamid in Leviticus 6:13 and elsewhere in Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), p 65:

    … All religious rituals are more than practical or even symbolic acts, as important as these may be.  At their core, rituals are a form of liturgical exegesis that engages both mind and body in the drama of theology. [emphasis in original]

    Of course, many of our Christian rituals lack drama, are not based on exegesis of anything in particular, and mostly engage our backsides with the pew.

    I recall communion at one Methodist church I visited.  The pastor was clearly excited about what he was doing and saying.  He’d filled in those places in the Hymnal where it calls for words appropriate to the occasion.  One felt engaged in the ritual of breaking the bread.  Even more importantly, he clearly saw the ritual as leading to action outside of itself, and used it to focus the message.

    I wish more rituals were like that.

    (Before someone thinks I’m criticizing my home church, my pastors at First UMC Pensacola are doing an excellent job of engaging people in the liturgy, especially at the ICON service.  It is a struggle, however, to disengage people from the pews and engage them elsewhere.)

  • Quote of the Day – On Leviticus

    … Byu inculcating worship patterns that emphasize mind over body, word over deed, and rational thought over “merely” reflexive sacramental systems, all legacies of the Protestant Reformation, religious communities learn to be at home in the cognitive, typically abstract world of theological ideas.  Ritual invites something different:  the active participation in “embodied” theological reflection.  Both the knowing and the learning of theology come from performing the ritual act itself. …  (Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), page 5)

    I have only read the introduction and the commentary on the first chapter thus far, but I am extremely impressed by this commentary.  While I would agree that protestants tend to downplay ritual and emphasize belief as mental assent, I would note that the other commentary on Leviticus that’s on my plate right now, David W. Baker in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), also points out the value of learning through ritual.

    I think, however, that our tendency is to look for concrete doctrine in the rituals, and thus to miss the way in which God chose to communicate those particular doctrines.  We may also learn from Leviticus both that there is a spiritual value in ritual, and also something about how that works, and how we can gain from it in our worship today.

    Liturgy is, I think, sadly neglected, and for most of my time teaching and writing, I’ve contributed to that neglect.  I started to see things differently after reading Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible series.  As I study Leviticus and the rest of the Pentateuch further, I am convinced even further that this should change.

  • Interpreting the Bible VIII: Biblical Literalism, Attitude, and Avoidance

    This is a continuation of my series on interpreting the Bible. The first post in the series is Interpreting the Bible I: Obvious Exegesis, while the most recent one was Interpreting the Bible VII: Christians Contribute to Confusion.

    As a reminder, my starting point was a number of comments that suggested that those who take the Bible less literally are thereby less serious Christians. These suggestions were not coming from conservative Christians, but from non-Christians. In some cases, I question the motivation of such suggestions. I believe that Richard Dawkins, for example, prefers to debate hard-line fundamentalists, and so would like to dismiss the rest of us from the Christian faith.

    What I believe I have done so far is to show that interpreting the Bible, broadly called hermeneutics, is a bit more complex than these folks would like, and that just taking the Bible literally, as best as I can understand what they mean by “literally,” is not the way Christians have read the Bible historically. I have further noted that even basic exegesis, which I define as looking for the text as it was intended to be understood by the original audience, is more complex than these folks let on.

    Those who are eagerly waiting for me to solve issues such as the violent passages in the Bible or gay and lesbian marriage will still have to wait. While I will discuss those issues, my primary purpose here is to look at the method. I believe that our discussions of the Bible would be much more profitable if we would simply think and talk more about how we come to our understanding, rather than simply trying to defend that understanding. Two people may mean very different things by saying that a concept is “Biblical.”

    Let me reiterate here, as I believe has been demonstrated previously with the help of commenters, that the issues I’m discussing do not hinge on belief in inerrancy. Belief that the Bible is inerrant does not limit one with reference to determining what type of literature a particular passage is.

    I want to clarify this further by using a couple of examples. Two controversial books amongst conservatives are Jonah and Job. There are quite a number of people, even conservatives, who will claim that these books are fiction. To make that claim doesn’t mean that the books contain error. Rather, it means that they intentionally present whatever it is they present in fictional form. Now there are those who regard fiction itself as evil, but that is a different argument.

    Let’s say you have a historical novel, written with the intent of accurately portraying a certain place and time in history, but doing so using fictional characters in a fictional narrative. What would constitute an error? Well, if one introduced an historical event connecting to the story, and placed this event at the wrong time, it might be an error. Suppose one had an historical building, and it didn’t exist at the time in question. That might be an error as well.

    The key in all of these points would be the author’s intent. Such an author might well introduce a house or a small street that was not historical, but wouldn’t presumably introduce a new city hall. There are things that the historical novel wishes to convey that are facts, and there is a story to be enjoyed along the way. Similarly, C. S. Lewis is not in error in the Screwtape Letters if there is no demon named Screwtape, nor is he in error in the Chronicles of Narnia if there is no Narnia.

    I find this comparison to be of interest in the books of Jonah and Job, because I think we often get to argument about little houses and back streets in the story, while missing the big things.

    In Jonah, I frequently hear discussions of two major issues: First, was Jonah really swallowed by a “great fish” or a “whale”? Second, was Nineveh really so big it would take three days to walk across it. (Those who know some Hebrew may laugh a bit at the particular rendering there–I’m using the form in which I normally hear the question.) But are those really the questions?

    I would suggest several themes in the book of Jonah:

    1. God can call you to uncomfortable places and missions on which you would rather not go.
    2. Even when you’re going the other direction, God is likely to take note.
    3. Intervention may be uncomfortable–note how Jonah ends up on shore.
    4. God offers repentance even to people I may hate.
    5. God is gracious and merciful, even to the worst of sinners.

    … and a few more, none of which are really impacted by whether the story is fictional. All of these points have annoyed someone at some time, and indeed according to the story, they annoyed Jonah, and presumably were controversial amongst the readers of the book. I am not here trying to argue these points. I’m simply saying that finding fiction in the Bible is not the same thing as finding error.

    I consider Job even more interesting. If the book is historical, then we have an individual who suffered because God allowed him to be attacked and tormented. This may, of course, be extended by analogy or in principle to others. On the other hand, if the story is fictional, then one would have to assume that Job is presented as a type of sufferer, and that it is quite possible that God might call on me–or you–to suffer to make a demonstration for him. Are you concerned that bad things seem to happen to good and bad people alike? Here are some bad things that happen specifically to good people.

    Now you can get that second idea while reading Job as historical, though I have heard some folks argue that this is something that happened only once (they forget about Jesus, apparently), but I think that if you read it as a fictional account, you are forced to the conclusion that it applies broadly in principle–God’s servants may be called to suffer in the fight against evil, and they may never know just why. Note that Job never receives an explanation of his suffering.

    So you note here that the issue is not whether the text is in error or not, or whether one takes it literally or not, but rather just what are the literary characteristics, what is meant by them, and just how that might apply. If I could delete one statement from the vocabulary of Christian conservatives it would be: “I take the Bible literally.” If I could delete one statement from the vocabulary of liberal Christians: “I don’t take the Bible that literally.” Both are misleading. (As I note in my review of his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself, Tim LaHaye makes this his first rule of hermeneutics. Needless to say, I disagree; in fact, I regard it as one of the worst rules.)

    If I might pound this point into the ground a bit, some interpreters, including LaHaye, have applied this to the book of Revelation. But just what should one take “literally” in the book of Revelation? Personally, I tend to take the introduction quite literally when it uses a variety of literary indicators to show that John saw a vision. Once we’re in a vision, I take things as a vision, which may have varying degrees of attachment to physical things, and I believe that is the correct way to take them. Even where there are likely literal connections, such as with the churches, or with a number of symbols, the vision context warns us to look for more than meets the eye. Revelation 12 & 13, for example, while containing symbols that may be attached to specifics, also provide a very good general appreciation of the battle between good and evil, and numerous principles for living in the midst of such a battle. The literal/non-literal dichotomy is terribly inadequate to the task of understanding such a passage.

    Some may be wondering how one would take the vision framework non-literally. There are many commentators who would treat the “vision” as a literary device used to present a set of symbols. It is quite possible to understand it in that way, though I disagree. In fact, I think assuming an ecstatic state, in vision, for some of the writing of Revelation will explain some literary and linguistic peculiarities, but that is a completely different topic.

    Now I would maintain that conservatives, liberals, and those between are all susceptible to coming up with ad hoc interpretations that allow one to avoid the impact of a text, or to make a text have an inappropriate impact. Let me start with a controversial one.

    Leviticus 18:22 is commonly presented as a text demonstrating that homosexuality is sin and unacceptable. (Note that “I don’t take it that literally” doesn’t seem to work here. It’s pretty literal.) I like to present people with Leviticus 19:33-34, which says to treat an alien living among you as one of your own citizen. Now I’m not arguing what applies here and what doesn’t. Both are literal commands given in the same general body of law. A valid approach would be to ask just how commands given to Israel in Leviticus apply to others.

    But avoiding all of those issues, it’s very interesting to watch people’s responses to this connection. First, it is almost universally assumed that simply because I present Leviticus 19:33-34 I believe that Leviticus 18:22 is not applicable. Liberal audiences often assume that because they want to; conservative audiences assume that because they can’t imagine why I would present them with such an alternative text if it isn’t to undermine the impact of the first text.

    But the real question here is why and how either text should apply. I would suggest that there are similar tasks of interpretation and application that need to be used in both cases. In actuality, however, with most lay audiences I find that these two texts apply according to cultural inclinations. Those who favor gay and lesbian inclusion exclude 18:22 and very often the same people are delighted to include 19:33-34. Those who oppose homosexuality accept 18:22 as applicable, but will explain that 19:33-34 was for a different time and place.

    I would suggest that the processes of interpretation and application for both are complex, and that in neither case is the best approach simply trying to interpret the individual text. If your question is how should our nation treat aliens residing in the country, I doubt you will find clear direction as to what the law should be. If the question is how you, as an individual Christian, should treat aliens, I think you will find many scriptures that you can group together in finding the proper principles to guide your behavior. Similarly with homosexuality, I think the approach that says, essentially, “How many texts are there that forbid homosexual acts, and how can I (or can I not) explain them,” is precisely the wrong approach. A better approach to any question is to try to discover God’s ideal, and then look at how we might approach that.

    To continue with my examples, however, let me look at another passage:

    32Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. — Acts 4:32-35

    Here again you have a verse that can split interpreters right in the middle! Out of the characteristics of the early church just what are we supposed to apply today. Many of my more liberal brethren are pretty happy with the common ownership thing, and there being nobody in need in the church. They will take various attitudes toward the rest, such as whether this should be done entirely by the church, testimony to the resurrection, and so forth. There are many who would make Christianity a matter of the distribution of wealth, without any regard for the testimony to the resurrection.

    On the other hand, I can cite my own uncle, Don F. Neufeld, an interpreter in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, associate editor of the SDA Bible Commentary and editor of the SDA Bible Dictionary. In a personal conversation he was quick to point out to me that this practice was quickly abandoned by the church and didn’t appear to be the norm in Paul’s congregations, for example. This strikes me as an example of finding trajectories in scripture, something I think is quite appropriate, yet is often criticized as too subjective.

    I have heard many other explanations for common ownership, most aimed at keeping the early church from being too socialist. So here we have otherwise conservative interpreters finding the exit ramp in the middle of this verse. But liberals need not crow, because Christian unity, power, and mutual support is inextricably linked to the testimony of Jesus risen from the dead, and I think it would be difficult to build a case that the author of Luke-Acts would think it possible for it to be any other way.

    (I am aware that liberals do not necessarily deny the resurrection, though many do deny a physical resurrection. I am called liberal, and I personally accept a physcial–or bodily–resurrection. Nonetheless I believe that it is a liberal weakness to attempt to separate good works from the incarnation, and that is a weakness I see as ultimately fatal to Christianity.)

    The issue, I think, is our attitude in approaching scripture. There can be quite a variety of approaches to understanding scripture, and none of them are necessarily related to whether we take scripture seriously. What I would say characterizes a distinctly Christian approach to (Christian) scripture is the attitude of openness to correction. Each approach to interpretation can be used as a means of avoiding things I don’t like, i.e. of making scripture simply the excuse for what I wanted to do anyway.

    Liberal and conservative Christians don’t differ so much on the basic desire to avoid certain passages as on which passages they avoid and how they go about avoiding them.

    (I will continue next time by trying to look faithfully at some of the violent passages in the Old Testament. Don’t get impatient–this series will go on for a long time. Apologies to those who want a quick answer; I don’t believe in quick answers.)

  • Leviticus Study

    I’ve been following through the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary in my study of Leviticus for the last few weeks.  Unfortunately, the way I like to study these passages involves reading the text in Hebrew, reading and annotating the commentary, reading the text in the LXX, hunting down materials in other commentaries and translations, and so forth.  Considering that one of the commentaries on my shelf is Jacob Milgrom’s three volume set (well, it’s usually on my desk, not the shelf!), that involves a great deal of time.

    The kind folks at Tyndale House sent me a complimentary copy of the commentary volume with the idea that I would review it, and they deserve a review sooner than I’m likely to finish the book .  So I’m going to pause the detailed study, read the commentary through, and then return to having fun with the texts.  I may post notes along the way and will definitely post a review of the whole volume.

  • Leviticus 9:1-24: Eternity in Liturgy

    I have had very little time to post on Leviticus over the last few weeks because of my business, in which I’ve been working on three books simultaneously. But Leviticus has not been very far from my mind.

    The more I read Leviticus, the more I like it. I’ve read through it with a variety of commentaries, generally reading it in Hebrew along with whatever commentary I’m currently working through. Each time I get more. In the case of the commentary I’m using presently, the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the particular focus is on the connection to Christian themes.

    While one can argue that there isn’t any forward looking sense in Leviticus, I think it is close to impossible to argue that Christians did not look back to Leviticus and use its themes as the learned how to speak of the experience of Jesus and what his life, death, and resurrection meant to them. I’m going with that theme in looking at the book with specifically Christian eyes.

    I’m rambling a bit, but stay with me. One of the neglected aspects of Christianity today is, I believe, a neglect of liturgy. Now I don’t have some sort of detailed checklist as to how liturgy should be conducted. What I do believe is that liturgy should bring us into the presence of God, i.e. bring us into the presence of eternity in some way. Most of our worship services do not function in this way at all.

    At about the same time I read this chapter and this particular commentary on it I heard a sermon titled “The Eighth Day” in which the speaker suggested that we are to be living in the 8th day, somehow in the kingdom even though it’s not here yet. There’s a bit of a theme based on that in the appearances of Jesus in the book of Luke. I believe that we are to be living in eternity, and both our liturgy and our teaching needs to reflect that.

    The liturgy in this passage reflects that full sense of history as we go from inauguration to glory and then to celebration of the glory in one pass.

    The worship here involves everyone. It is emotional. It is educational. It is enthusiastic. It is also rewarded.

    David W. Baker, author of this section of the commentary notes (p. 66):

    … the people could not keep silent before a God who responded to their worship, so they joined their voices to those of the priests (9:24). God can and should be approached at times in stillness (Ps 46:10), but exuberance can also be appropriate. Everyone, young and old, male and female, was represented by the priests and leaders in the rituals; they each witnessed God’s response, and each responded appropriately in worship.

    Just so!

  • Expectations follow Encounter

    I haven’t been posting on Leviticus for some time because I have been busy preparing books for publication.  All that paying work sure does interfere with one’s hobbies!

    Today I encountered this quotation in my continuing effort to read through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy alongside the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on those books.

    … It is important to remember, both in the case of God’s dealing with his people in the past, as well as with his people today, that God first encounters his people in history, and only after a relationship has been established are the expectations derived from the relationship presented.  Expectations follow encounter.  — p. 57, emphasis mine

    And that is how grace is manifested throughout the Bible–before we call, so to speak.

  • Relating Ritual, Symbol, and Reality – A Question

    I was looking at this week’s lectionary passages, and a relationship with my current study of Leviticus struck me.  How precisely do our actions and rituals symbolize what we’re trying to represent?  Is it possible that all they do is open up the questions for us?  I wrote about some of the oddness of God’s offering of grace, if viewed from the human perspective, in my lectionary notes.

    Now here’s what strikes me in reading Leviticus, or even better in reading from about Exodus 21-Numbers:  The symbols illustrate to a greater or lesser degree a vast array of the elements of the way in which we relate to God.  We can look at this historically, as in a historical separation from God, with Jesus tearing open the veil and allowing all of us access to the throne of grace.

    We can also see it as an illustration of our own lives and progress.  We each start with a certain distance to traverse toward God.  There are those who help lead us to God.  Those who object to the notion of “priest” with reference to the pastoral role neglect this aspect, I think.  Some try to push pastor or priest aside because we all have access, but for each person, and even for the community as a whole, there is still a need for the priestly role until we all actually attain that direct access to God.

    Those who quibble about sacrificial rules when discussing the sacrifice of Jesus miss the point as well.  The animal sacrifices pointed to elements of our relationship to God and the way in which God related to us.  I’m not arguing here for a directly type-antitype, i.e. singular relationship between these sacrifices and Jesus.  The sacrifices themselves continually pointed Israel to God’s grace, the way it was offered, and the duty it placed on the recipients.

    The tabernacle system of worship also included elements of community, of individual responsibility for the group and group responsibility for the individual, of praise, simple worship, and even of the need for certain routines and certainties in our lives.

    As I noted regarding the lectionary texts, the serpent was an equivocal symbol.  We are called to look on a symbol that is equivocal when we look at the cross.  Our human eyes will see death.  The Holy Spirit can enlighten us to see life.  The cross looks distinctively different depending on which side you’re on when you look.  Looking back it’s a symbol of life.  Looking forward, it’s a fearful, dangerous thing looking a great deal like death.

    The rituals of the tabernacle emphasize life and its importance, but they did so with a great deal of death.  They too had that kind of double look.  We live in a world that is filled with such symbols.  Perhaps we should not be too anxious to reconcile them too thoroughly.

    I’m just thinking out loud and rambling.  What do you think?

  • Leviticus 6:8-13

    Baker takes a series of short sections here, and I’m not grouping them into any larger passage, because I’m under some pressure and these short sections are working for me right now.

    Let me note also that while the electronic edition of Rahlf’s LXX that I’m using today (GnomeSword) follows the English verse divisions, the print edition of Rahlf’s follows the Hebrew division.  So the passage there is 6:1-6.

    The idea of having a fire from sacrifice going on 24 hours a day doesn’t sound much like modern worship, but there are really two key elements in this passage that I think can be applied to modern worship:

    1. The fire burns continuously.  Three times in the LXX text we read that it is never to go out.
    2. There is a continuing ritual for keeping it clean.  There is care taken in carrying out this command as with every other one in Leviticus.

    There appears to be an error in the notes of the Orthodox Study Bible, which bases the notes on the English verses, and thus the notes on our passage for today indicate they are about 6:9.  But they are interesting, and connect this daily sacrifice with the continual offering of Christ in heaven.  The continuous worship provides an “open door for uninterrupted worship of God and fellowship with Him” only now this is through the sacrifice of Jesus.

    Milgrom adds an interesting note.  With Baker, I have emphasized the continual worship, and I think this is an important point.  But Milgrom points out:

    … The sacrifices offered up at the inauguration of the public cult were consumed miraculously by a divine fire (9:24), and it is this fire which is not allowed to die out so that all subsequent sacrifices might claim divine acceptance… (p. 389, emphasis in original)

    This raises another point to me for the modern church.  How careful are we with the spiritual fires that God lights?  We have waves of revival and then for various reasons we let them die out or treat them with contempt.  There’s a “fire” that was lit in Christianity back with Jesus and then at Pentecost.  But we often neglect one end or the other, either the connection back to that original flame, or the need to keep it actively burning in our modern world.  Both are necessary to keep up the continuing fire.

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

    Chapter 6 deals with sacrifices for sins that appear to be quite deliberate.