Inter-Varsity Press

CONTENTS

Editor’s preface
Author’s preface

Introduction
1. The name of the book
2. The setting of Leviticus
3. The modern study of Leviticus and its authorship

4. The structure of Leviticus
4.1. Chapters 1 – 7
4.2. Chapters 8 – 16
4.3. Chapters 17 – 22
4.4. Chapters 23 – 26 (27)
4.5. Commandments and related terms

5. Some distinctive features of Leviticus
5.1. Style
5.2. Content

6. Ritual as symbolic

7. Some key themes in Leviticus
7.1. Fundamental aspects of the human being
7.2. ‘Sin’
7.3. ‘Cleanness’/‘Uncleanness’
7.4. Holiness
7.5. The wrath of God

8. Leviticus and Christians
9. A fresh approach to Leviticus
Text and commentary
Bibliography

EDITORS’ PREFACE

The Apollos Old Testament Commentary takes its name from the Alexandrian Jewish Christian who was able to impart his great learning fervently and powerfully through his teaching (Acts 18:24–25). He ably applied his understanding of past events to his contemporary society. This series seeks to do the same, keeping one foot firmly planted in the universe of the original text and the other in that of the target audience, which is preachers, teachers and students of the Bible. The series editors have selected scholars who are adept in both areas, exhibiting scholarly excellence along with practical insight for application.

Translators need to be at home with the linguistic practices and semantic nuances of both the original and target languages in order to be able to transfer the full impact of the one into the other. Commentators, however, serve as interpreters of the text rather than simply its translators. They also need to adopt a dual stance, though theirs needs to be even more solid and diversely anchored than that of translators. While they also must have the linguistic competence to produce their own excellent translations, they must moreover be fully conversant with the literary conventions, sociological and cultural practices, historical background and understanding, and theological perspectives of those who produced the text as well as those whom it concerned. On the other side, they must also understand their own times and culture, able to see where relevance for the original audience is transferable to that of current readers. For this to be accomplished, it is not only necessary to interpret the text; one must also interpret the audience.

Traditionally, commentators have been content to highlight and expound the ancient text. More recently, the need for an anchor in the present day has also become more evident, and this series self-consciously adopts this approach, combining both. Each author analyses the original text through a new translation, textual notes, a discussion of the literary form, structure and background of the passage, as well as commenting on elements of its exegesis. A study of the passage’s interpretational development in Scripture and the church concludes each section, serving to bring the passage home to the modern reader. What we intend, therefore, is to provide not only tools of excellence for the academy, but also tools of function for the pulpit.

David W. Baker
Gordon J. Wenham

Extracts from ... Introduction

2. THE SETTING OF LEVITICUS

Leviticus follows the book of Exodus, which gives an account of the historical exodus, the giving of the Sinai covenant, the building of the tabernacle, and instructions concerning basic ceremonies that would soon be conducted there by the priests. There are unmistakable signs that the two books are continuous (cf. Rendtorff 1996: 22–35). The following literary and thematic relationships between Exodus and Leviticus are noteworthy in this regard.

(1) The prescription for the priestly ordination in Exod. 28 – 29 is carried out in Lev. 8.

(2) A gradual lengthening of the time the Lord appears visibly to his people occurs across both books. On the first occasion the Lord appears only briefly to Moses within a burning thorn bush (Exod. 3). After this, there is a seven-day manifestation of his glory on Mount Sinai (Exod. 24). Then, finally, the Lord’s visible presence arrives permanently after the first day service recorded in Lev. 9.

On the other hand, the beginning of Leviticus clearly presents a new stage in the development of the Lord’s will. It begins with prescriptions for offerings that concern the activities of the priests and lay people in the sanctuary, which are not mentioned in Exodus except for Exod. 28 – 29. Also the connection between Exod. 40:34–35 and Lev. 1 indicates that deeper matters are revealed in Leviticus (cf. Auld 2003: 43). The material of chs. 9 – 27 is new, though some of it is, in principle, already anticipated within Exodus. The coherency and unity of Leviticus as opposed to that of Exodus will become clearer, when the structure of Leviticus is discussed below.

Thus Leviticus can be viewed as a further and deeper unfolding of the divine–human relationship that took place at Mount Sinai.

3. THE MODERN STUDY OF LEVITICUS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP

Since the nineteenth century Leviticus has been a crucial object of Pentateuchal studies. According to the hypothesis propounded by J. Wellhausen the material of Leviticus belongs to P (the priestly material), the latest of four literary sources (J, E, D, P), which reflects the social and religious condition of the post-exilic community.

Many assumptions are invoked in determining literary sources, including linguistic style, the suggestions of historical discrepancies, doublets and differences in theological stance. These observations are then interpreted with a particular evolutionary view of ancient Israel’s religious history in an effort to discover the history of the Pentateuch’s composition. In addition to this, the interpretative approach taken to the ‘religious’ rules that characterize much of Leviticus and the so-called P document has some bearing on how its material is viewed.

While Wellhausen’s method has dominated Pentateuchal study since the time of its inception, namely from the end of the nineteenth century onwards, recent criticism of its fundamental presuppositions has led to challenges to many of its commonly accepted results. Among others, Israeli scholars, beginning with Kaufmann, argue on the basis of societal and linguistic evidence that the date of P was earlier than suggested by Wellhausen and others (Kaufmann 1937–56; Weinfeld 1972; Hurvitz 1982). Nevertheless, despite this trenchant and valid criticism, the assumption is still adopted by many recent scholars. ...

The recent scholarly discussion appears to revolve around the question of whether it is appropriate to view the book as divisible into two parts, as assumed by Milgrom and Knohl, while scholars, including Milgrom, are increasingly attempting to interpret the book as it stands. Warning’s study on the rhetorical aspects of Leviticus may contain a serious challenge to traditional critical judgments concerning literary layers within the book (Warning 1999).

Other scholars have questioned the existence of P in addition to the traditional chronology ascribed to it. For example, in a study of Gen. 2 – 3, Wenham suggests that, assuming P exists, it could be viewed as the earliest among the four documents (Wenham 1999), an idea already espoused in the nineteenth century by scholars such as Dillmann. Yet Wenham also points out that Gen. 2 – 3, traditionally ascribed to JE, contains sanctuary symbolism (Wenham 1986), a characteristic normally used to identify P!

It must be added that alongside the so-called ‘critical study’ of Leviticus in the nineteenth century, conservative scholars such as Kurtz, Kellogg, Keil and others devoted considerable energy to exploring the symbolic meaning of rituals. These quests were particularly motivated by the New Testament and though their conclusions at times appear forced and speculative, their orientation remains valid, considering that Leviticus is replete with symbolic acts. It is posited in this commentary that much of the speculation concerning literary layers made in the above ‘critical studies’ arises from a deficient understanding of the symbolic meaning of these rites and ceremonies. Until such an understanding is gained, attempts to identify literary layers in this material are potentially misguided.

With this in mind, the present commentary will not devote discussion to proposed literary layers and sources. Rather it assumes the book as a whole makes good sense without having to resort to hypotheses about literary layers (cf. Wenham 1996).
The large majority of modern studies on Leviticus have abandoned Mosaic authorship (exceptions are Harrison (1980: 15–25) and Rooker (2000: 38–39)). To me it seems scholars have assigned the genesis of Leviticus to various stages of Israel’s history (cf. Gerstenberger 1993: 9–13), partly because in dwelling on the formal aspects of its ritual and ceremonial prescriptions they have overlooked the high existential demands the Lord places on the Israelites and priests. When due account is taken of
these demands, such as the need to destroy the human egocentric nature (see below), an admission that priests or any group in Israel’s history could not have written Leviticus seems inevitable. The demands made of such people are just too high! Leviticus has its origin in God. Though this does not in itself reveal the book’s date of authorship, in combination with what the book describes it does favour the view that it originates from the time of Moses – more so than traditional critical theories that date it somewhere in the first millennium BC (cf. Kiuchi 2003c: 523).