Reading the book of Leviticus can be a daunting task. We read of clean and unclean animals and all sorts of purity laws that can quickly put you to sleep. Furthermore, much of Leviticus can seem opaque, confusing and simply not applicable to present believers. When we approach the book of Leviticus we need to notice a few factors.
Much of the clean/unclean and holy/unholy aspects in Leviticus can be viewed in order and spatial categories. For instance, abnormalities are generally viewed as unclean. Any natural defects or things out of the ordinary were considered unclean. For instance, animals were typically unclean for not being consistent or orderly. Consider that Israelites could not eat monkeys because they walked on their hands and feet (Waltke, 467). We can extend this idiom to other areas of attention in Leviticus. Certainly diseases are unclean for health reasons, but there is an added dimension regarding leprosy and other skin diseases. These types of diseases caused the skin to turn different colors – a visual indication of abnormality. Any spots that came up would have to be inspected. Once declared unclean, a person was not clean again until the spot went away and the subject became normal or orderly again.
This same principle sheds light on the laws against mixing different types of fabric, mating different kinds of species [read: non-human] or planting with various types of seeds (cf Lev. 19:19). Mixing fabric or seeds is not an inherently unholy activity. The idea was to embed an illustration of purity within the everyday life of an Israelite. Just as the Israelites were set apart as a holy people to remain distinct from the world, they were to keep the holy and unholy – the clean and unclean – distinct and separate. We can see how right order is the general principle since deviations were unclean or unholy. In his commentary, R. Laird Harris quotes Mary Douglas “holiness requires that different classes of things shall not be confused… all the rules of sexual morality exemplify the holy. Incest and adultery are against holiness, in the simple sense of right order.†(Harris, 527)
The “right order” dimension certainly starts to remove the veil from much of Leviticus for the contemporary reader, but there is another dimension. We must consider a spatial dimension in terms of who or what is closest to God. This spatial aspect is demonstrated in the levels of access within the tabernacle and temple. The Holy of Holies was most closely identified with God’s presence. Certainly God is omnipresent, but there is a special presence, a special holiness to the innermost part of the temple. We may then proceed out into lesser and lesser degrees of holiness. We move to the inner court, then to the outer court – then even to the city of Jerusalem. Finally we move to outside the city. This was the worst place to be for it was the farthest from God.
This spatial dimension can also be applied to people. We begin with the priests, then the ceremonially clean Jews (particularly men). Further down the chain are the ceremonially clean women, then Gentiles and the ceremonially unclean. Each class had varying degrees of access to God and consequently possessed varying levels of holiness. The spatial dimension encompasses much of what is not covered under the heading of orderliness.
Keeping in mind these two categories can certainly help today’s reader appreciate much more of Leviticus. Once these basic ideas are grasped, the typological and redemptive dimensions of the book begin to open up. The inclusion of the Gentiles, the sacrifice of the Messiah, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and many other themes are seen with greater appreciation.
Works Cited
Harris, R. Laird and Frank J. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible commentary Volume 2, Genesis-Numbers. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976.Â
Waltke, Bruce. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. 1st ed. Grand Rapids Mich.: Zondervan, 2007.Â
Tremper Longman in his Introduction to the OT offers a helpful diagram and explanation of this spatial component. Beale will pick this up eschatologically in his understanding of the world as Temple in his comments of Revelation.
It should be noted that the spatial separation of men and women DOES NOT have to do with equality or value, but with representation. In our egalitarian age, this could easily be misconstrued. Instead, I would suppose the spatial ordering here has to do with the role of men, male headship, and the fact that the mediators of God in the OT–in Leviticus, namely priests–are necessarily male and thus by extrapolation it makes sense that the men are permitted more closely.
It may also have to do with the monthly menstrual cycle of women, for this did make a female unclean according to the holiness code of Leviticus. Of course, so did a nocturnal emmission.
Good synopsis, Camden. What are your thoughts on the male-female distinction as it relates to the Tabernacle’ / Temple’s configuration?
Dave
David,
That’s an excellent point regarding women’s roles in the Old Testament. The access issue of women and the temple is certainly not an equality/value or ontic issue. I’m inclined to follow your thoughts on the male-female distinction here. Quite frankly, I haven’t made an explicit connection in my thinking between ceremonial laws and complementarianism. But it is certainly a connection worth pondering.