Leviticus 17...

[stevend]

Recently I've thought a bit about Leviticus 17 and it's relationship to the New Covenant.  The following are a few meandering thoughts.  I welcome any feedback.

As with any book, I presume that chapter 17 is partially informed by the context that precedes it within the book of Leviticus.  The following is a brief summary of the contents of those chapters (the chapter overview is mainly gleaned from commentators, though I think it makes sense):

- 1-7: Sacrifices (functions as background to the dedication of the priesthood)

- 8-9: Ordination of priests (Exodus did not follow through with a description of this process [cf. Ex. 29 offers description of ordination, but no ordination of the priests in Exodus] presumably due to the golden calf incident).

    o Glory of the LORD appears—after the ordination of the priests.

    o Aaron’s sons offer strange fire (perhaps similar to golden calf—immediately after the ordination, they sin—immediately when Moses received the laws, Israel fashioned the golden calf.)

- 10: Strange Fire—Nadab and Abihu

- 11-15: Impurity laws (each chapter in this segment describes some form of impurity)

    o Recurring formula—every chapter from 11-15 ends with זאת תורת “this is the law of”)

    o After 10:10 (death of Nadab and Abihu) frequent usage of the word “impure” (Heb., “tamei”)

        * 11: Animals that should not be eaten—defilement by contact with animal carcasses—NOTE: Distinct from other chapters (12-15)

        * 12: Impurity of woman after childbirth (distinction between male/female—similar to chapter 15).

        * 13: Skin diseases (tzara’at)

        * 14: Skin diseases (tzara’at) and house mold

        * 15: Unclean emissions (distinction between male/female—similar to chapter 12)

- 16: Day of Atonement (appears to close the segment re: impurity).

    o NOTE: Chapter 16 appears linked to chap. 10 (purification to rectify the problem with the priesthood)

        * The laws of impurity interrupt the two chapters.

        * Verse 1 calls attention to the death of the two sons of Aaron.

- 17-20: Holiness laws

        * 17: sacrifices to devils/goat idols (v. 7; cf. vv. 1-14—blood is important).

Eerie as the subject may seem, throughout chapter 17 some stern warnings are posted with respect to the handling of blood.  Disregard for instructions and prohibitions about blood are met with censure of the strictest sort; i.e., severing and exclusion from the community.  

For example, the one who fails to properly handle a sacrifice by bringing it to "the door of the tabernacle" is reckoned with a form of blood guilt and expelled from the congregation (vv. 3-4).  The severity of this penalty becomes an incentive to establish and maintain an orderly management of sacrificial offerings for the people.  That is, in keeping with the prior instructions (cf. chaps. 1-7) the people were to bring the sacrifices to the priests who were to proceed with their attendant responsibilities as members of the priesthood (Lev. 17:5-6).  

Verse 7 suggests that the reason for the process as such is so the people will no longer sacrifice to devils (the Hebrew uses the word "sa'arim" [i.e. satyrs], sometimes translated as goats or goat idols.  Interestingly, Paul makes reference to this verse in 1 Cor. 10:20 within a context of eating and drinking just prior to the chapter that focuses on the communion meal.  (Note: Perhaps the corrective of Lev. 17:7 also bears some allusion to the golden calf.)  Verse 7 posts a reminder that this practice regarding the sacrificial order is to be maintained in perpetuity (the Hebrew term/phrase is often interpreted "forever", but even circumstances bear out that the meaning of the word must imply something other than forever as temple Judaism and its provisional ritual system is now defunct).  Verses 8-9 close the segment by briefly rephrasing the ordinance and restating the penalty of complete exclusion from the community for its disregard.

Additional warnings within the next five verses boldly and repetitively stress the absolute prohibition to consume blood (vv. 10-14).  Verse 10 notes that the Almighty himself will oppose anyone who consumes any kind of blood and sever the offender from the community.  Verse 11 discloses that blood is an organic agent somehow functional for the purpose of personal atonement.  Thus, verses 12-14 continue to underscore the prohibition and the dreadful consequence of being "cut off" for its violation.

Against such a backdrop of strongly pronounced injunctions against the consumption of blood as recorded in the book of Leviticus, Jesus prompted his followers to drink the cup of the new covenant (Luke 22:15-20).  He associated the cup and its contents with the blood of the new covenant (v. 20).  The occasion being a Passover meal (v. 15) significantly enhances the context as the exodus from Egypt (the first Passover) served as a sort of independence day for the Israelite nation of old (Ex. 12:51).  Even the Israelite calendar was marked by the event of God's supernatural work of redemption in delivering the nation from bondage to Egypt (Ex. 12:2).  

Lambs' blood signified the preservation of the covenant-partakers of old from the results of the curse; meanwhile, celebrating the annual festal meal served as a programmatic memorial of the ultimate goal of partaking in redemption through Christ's blood.  

In a manner similar to the the dire prohibition from eating blood, the language of Leviticus reminds that observance of Passover was to function as an ongoing practice (Lev. 23:5-8; cf. also Ex. 12:14, 17, 24; Num. 9:9-14).  The book of Numbers reveals that the same penalty of banishment from the covenant community for consumption of blood (or making an offering contrary to the prescribed order of submission to the priesthood before the tabernacle) also applied to those who disregarded their responsibility to keep the Passover (Num. 9:13).    

Recounting the event of Jesus' transfiguration, Luke 9:28-36 describes a conversation that Jesus had with Moses and Elijah (representatives of the Law and Prophets?).  Verse 31 notes that they "spoke of his [i.e. Jesus'] decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem."  The Greek behind the translation of this verse features two peculiar terms.  The first of the terms is ἔξοδον (acc. noun "exodov" from "exodos", translated exodus) which the above English readings translates as "decease".  The other word of note is πληρουν (a verb from plaro-ow meaning "fulfill"; cf. also Matt. 5:17; Lk. 21:22; 22:16; 24:44).  An alternate translation of this portion of v. 31 could reasonably read, "spoke of his exodus which he should fulfill at Jerusalem".  

(As I'm past my bedtime, I'll have to finish this another day--to be continued, God willing...)

[Josh]

Do you mind a few questions mid-stream?

[stevend]

Any questions that I might have a shot at answering would be welcome.  Though, it occurs to me as I just read over what I posted amid my morning delirium that one might think that I'm suggesting that there's a binding responsibility upon Christians to observe the feast of Passover within the modern day.  Despite any awkwardness that might accompany my seemingly random pasting of a sort of personal commentary up on the forum, hopefully I didn't paint myself as a heretic of this species (pushing festival observances on people).

I think that the verses that I'm looking at actually lead one to the contrary conclusion and add confirming weight to the fact that the ritual/ceremonial observances of the law have served their purpose.  So if I guessed right on what at least one of the questions might be, I hope that I'm being clear in pointing out that I don't understand the feasts or any of the ritual/ceremonial laws of the Mosaic administration to have any binding claim on Christians today (be they of Jewish or Gentile stock).

Meanwhile, if none of that crossed your mind, I'll apologize for answering a matter before I've heard it.  (Maybe somebody could help me out and design an emoticon with egg on the face)...Again, of course I'd be interested in discussing anything connected to the subject.

Thanks,
Steven

[Josh]

No, I didn't think you were suggesting mandatory continued festival observance but rather that the festivals find there fulfillment in the kingdom of God/ the church.

Rather, I was wondering if you are of the persuasion that all the parts of the law specifically said to be binding forever can be linked to some kind of clear fulfillment in the new covenant. I mean, by faith and the authority of the New Testament I do believe that the entire law is fulfilled in Christ, but some details seem obscure so it's like a treasure hunt to me to find new ways in which details of the law find fulfillment in the new covenant. What am I trying to say? Hmmm, well, do you think whenever the law says "this shall be a lasting ordinance" it doesn't simply mean as long as the temple or nation remains, but actually a lasting ordinance reinterpreted in the light of Jesus' kingdom?

By the way, I love the point about the word exodus in the transfiguration account ?

[stevend]

Guess I better find a new set of emoticons...

Rather, I was wondering if you are of the persuasion that all the parts of the law specifically said to be binding forever can be linked to some kind of clear fulfillment in the new covenant. I mean, by faith and the authority of the New Testament I do believe that the entire law is fulfilled in Christ, but some details seem obscure so it's like a treasure hunt to me to find new ways in which details of the law find fulfillment in the new covenant. What am I trying to say? Hmmm, well, do you think whenever the law says "this shall be a lasting ordinance" it doesn't simply mean as long as the temple or nation remains, but actually a lasting ordinance reinterpreted in the light of Jesus' kingdom?

If I understand you correctly, it appears that we're both aiming to find the same "master key" to sort of unlock the Pentateuch and make better sense of it, particularly in view of the kingdom of God.  How nice it would be to make a pithy statement and settle the matter and move on.  

I expect that we would also both agree that with regards to timing, Paul's description of the purpose of the law reveals that the law had achieved its intended purpose with the advent of Christ (Gal. 3:19 "It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made").  If the question were one of timing, I might have something more certain to contribute as a response.  I tend to think that the phrase "end of days" (often translated "last/latter days"; Heb. "aharit hayammim") as referenced within the Old Testament anticipates the end of the Israelite religious commonwealth (cf. Gen. 49:1; Num. 24:14; Deut. 4:30, 31:29; Hos. 3:5; Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1; Jer. 30:24; Dan. 2:28 [Aram.]; etc.).  Though I have confidence in this idea, I think the concept is still largely coming into phase in my mind as I consider the overall context of the statements (trying not to force anything; Ezek. 38:16 definitely keeps my head low).  

If I didn't already steer completely off topic, let me note that I suspect that the time marker of these statements has something to do with the duration for which the ritual ordinances were designed.  Maybe this is a less optimistic view of "carnal ordinances" (Heb. 9:10) than a Christian should have, but it's difficult to ignore that there's biblical warrant for it (again, Gal. 3:19 and segments throughout the book of Hebrews--especially 7:12, 18; 8:13).  On the other hand, there is a curious side of me that wonders if a spiritual counterpart to each "lasting ordinance" is to be found by the discerning eye.  If I understood you correctly, your inquiry is related to this..?  

Unfortunately, I doubt that I'll offer you much satisfying insight about the subject (for what it's worth, I think circumcision appears to prefigure the putting away of the fleshly identity of a man; maybe the feasts bear some profound connection to the believers outlook in different ways?--I think Passover definitely does).  I tend to see the statements about lasting ordinances (or perpetual ordinances throughout your generations) as instructions that are intended with an implicit sense of planned obsolescence.  That is, I see those ordinances as provisional.  I believe this is what Paul is getting at in Gal. 3:19; namely, the additional laws/ordinances were given to the people on account of their rebellion/infidelity--perhaps as a preservative to maintain some semblance of communal identity until the promised seed (Christ) was revealed.

While my ideas about this might seem anticlimactic to some, I am certainly interested in any sensible insights that one might contribute to demonstrate relationships between specific Mosaic ordinances and their spiritual or ultimate counterparts as revealed in the fullness of time..? If nothing else, you've got me thinking...

Peace in Christ,
Steven 

[stevend]

(The following text should relay more thoughts along the lines of the relationship between Lev. 17, Luke 9:31 and 22:15-20.  Hopefully I'll be able to summarize these thoughts within a few days...sometimes it can seem difficult to bring something to a close.  Any input, feedback, or criticisms is welcome.  Thanks for bearing with me...)



In chapter 22, Luke again makes use of the verb πληρόω (i.e. “fulfill”; he uses the term frequently) with the Passover on his mind. Chapter 22:15-16 (AV) reads:

v. 15: And he said unto them, ‘With desire I have desired to eat this Passover [Gr. πάσχα] with you before I suffer [Gr. παθεῖν from πάσχω]:

v. 16: For I say unto you, I will not eat any more thereof, until it be fulfilled [Gr. πληρωθῇ from πληρόω] in the kingdom of God.



These verses exhibit an interesting parallel with the verse previously examined in Luke 9:31. In 9:31, Jesus is described as speaking with Moses and Elijah about “his exodus which he should fulfill at Jerusalem”. In a manner resembling the structure of this statement, Luke offers a quote from Jesus speaking with the apostles, “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not eat any more thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:15b-16).



Obviously, the corresponding terms between the two verses are “exodus” (9:31) and “Passover” (22:15) in addition to the verb πληρόω (i.e. “fulfill”) which is featured in different forms within both segments of Luke’s text. Such a rhyming of ideas implies that Luke strategically composed his gospel with intentions of directing his readership to the significance of a kind of second exodus event linked to the person of Christ (9:31). This exodus event conveniently overlaps with the Passover meal that Jesus shared with his apostles (22:15-20).



Further, as both Luke 9:31 and 22:15-16 both anticipate a fulfillment of Jesus’ exodus/Passover-suffering at Jerusalem, the exegetical dynamics beg for input regarding the sense of fulfillment that Luke and Jesus intended. Promptly, one observes that Luke portrays Jesus as having mounted a challenge to the deepest loyalties of those counted among his closest earthly companions. Within the context of their final Passover meal, Jesus confronts his apostles with an appeal for allegiance that necessarily introduced a conflict in loyalties to any patron of Moses’ legal code.



With the prohibitions inscribed in Leviticus 17 ringing in their ears, the apostles would have conceivably experienced inner turmoil as they contemplated Jesus’ invitation to partake in the cup of the new covenant. His claim was that the new covenant would be ratified by the shedding of his own blood (Luke 22:20). His radical call to allegiance would appear as an act of religious insubordination to Mosaic authority had Jesus not been the embodiment of the great prophet, priest, and king who would eclipse the Mosaic administration (cf. Gen. 14:17-20; 49:1, 8-12; Num. 24:7-9, 14, 17-19; Deut. 18:15-19) and inaugurate the kingdom of God on earth as the long awaited Abrahamic/Davidic seed promised to the patriarchs (Abraham: Gen. 12:3; 18:18; *22:18*; 26:4; 28:14; Jer. 4:2; Ps. 72:17; David: 2 Sam. 7:12-16; Ps. 89:3-4, 35-37; 110:4; 132:11-18; cf. also Mt. 1:1).



This pledge of allegiance to God’s kingdom was clearly not a trivial matter. If Jesus wasn’t who he showed himself to be, his claim to the Davidic throne was a treasonous threat to the divine order prescribed by God’s word. His emblematic gesture of drinking his blood in allegiance to his throne would constitute an act of defiance against God that required severance and expulsion from God’s people (cf. Lev. 17:1-14). To the contrary, to reject the instruction of the one Moses anticipated would also demand a reckoning (Deut. 18:19). The weight of Jesus’ testimony stands to anchor his authority as the only legitimate human claimant to the kingdom throne.



Moreover, the same authority that confirms Christ’s claim as king also affords him the privilege to point out that the sacrificial system had once and for all finally been eclipsed though the sacrifice of his own flesh and blood. His call for allegiance as king on Passover during which he established the new covenant (by means of his own death) occasioned the embrace of a new constitution both distinguished from and unrivaled by Mosaic legislation (cf. 2 Cor. 3:3-18; Heb. 3:3-6; 7:11-12; 13:10).



Perhaps a parallel of history is to stand as a landmark within the collective memory of those who believe. Moses led the Israelites to make an exodus from bondage to the dead gods of Egypt on the first Passover and wandered for forty years before entering the land of promise. Prior to his death and resurrection Jesus launched a criticism of the religious establishment of his day which culminated in an accurate prediction about the siege and demolition of the second temple within a generation (i.e. roughly 37-40 years; cf. Luke 21:6-7, 20-22, 32; esp. cf. v. 22 “these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled” [Gr. πληρόω]). Luke’s narrative selection is conveniently arranged with the final Passover segment immediately following this text about the razing of the temple (chap. 22:1ff).



The writer of Hebrews may have also alluded the dismantling of the second temple as confirmation that the old covenant order had become obsolete in view of the new (cf. Heb. 8:13 “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is about to vanish away”).


(Thanks for reading Josh! I have my doubts that anyone else would sift through all of this...)

[Josh]

Steven,

I am always so struck by such parallels in Scripture, especially as the parallels in the New Testament always add extra layers of meaning. 

I think this point about the challenge the Last Supper presented the disciples is important to stress.  I think most Christians ignore the shock of Jesus words as they would have been received by the disciples at Passover.  This reminds me though that this wasn't the first time the disciples would have wrestled with this challenge.  Earlier in his ministry, of course, we have this vignette from Jesus' ministry:

John 6

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

This passage backs up the offense/challegne of Jesus' claim and gives us some of the reasoning as to how the disciples may have overcome the hurdle. 

[stevend]

That's a really good point for me to muse on, muchos gracias...

It's curious to me how some folks reach conclusions that the elements become the literal body and blood of Christ on the basis of these texts.  Despite the fact that Christ had not yet been crucified.

Thanks again...