THE EXEGETICAL STUDY OF CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR OF
THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS
01. INTRODUCTION
The Book of Leviticus[1] pertains to the various aspects of the Israelite’s worship, duties of the Levitical priests who were the sons of the tribe of Levi (cf. 1 King 12:31; Duet 18:1),[2] and priestly nation as a whole,[3] which is constructed upon the foundation of the call of the covenant God to holiness (cf. Lev 19:2).
This paper attempts to explore the meaning of the text in itself, and its significance to the present time, through the modern exegetical method – by understanding its complexity of form, source, context; inseparability of the text and theology from the totality of the Book of Leviticus, though chapter twenty four is an integral part of the Code of Holiness (Lev 17-26).
02. DELIMITATION
Probably Lev 23-25 could be viewed as a unit, because of the theme of holy days (Lev 23), holy places (Lev 24), and holy land (Lev 25).[4] Though Lev 24 is a part of this unit, it itself has three independent passages. But here the focus would be on the chapter twenty four alone.
03. STRUCTURE
- The Sanctuary Lamp (vv. 1-4)
a. The Refrain (v. 1)
b. The Ritual Guideline (vv. 2-4)
- The Show Bread (vv. 5-9)
- The Blasphemy and the Punishment (vv. 10-23)
a. The Accusation of Blasphemy (vv. 10-12)
b. The Refrain (v. 13)
c. The Punishment (vv. 14-16)
d. The Law of Retaliation (vv. 17-22)
e. The Execution by Moses (v. 23)
04. CONTEXT
The exodus under the leadership of Moses and company is the historical context, and so the setting is typically desert. Such a context is perceptible as the book, opens saying: “The Lord called Moses, and spoke to him from the tent of meeting” (Lev 1:1), and ends that all the commandments were given to Moses by the Lord on Mount Sinai (Lev 27:34). The text also implicitly suggests the declining of the ritual practices, because of the prejudices against temple worship, distant travel, and dispersion of population.[5] Hence it is obvious that the historical factors have definitely influenced the shaping of the material by the compiler.
The general biblical context of Leviticus 24 is that it is a part of the Code of Holiness, which explicitly makes a call to holiness. This is formally expressed by Yahweh himself (cf. Lev 19:2), and accordingly the people of the covenant are expected to cleanse themselves through ritual means, definite ethical standard of living (cf. Lev 19), nourishing the fellowship with Yahweh and fellow beings (cf. Lev 19:18).
The immediate context is, that this chapter is preceded by a chapter on the calendar of religious festivals (Lev 23), and succeeded by a chapter, which elaborates on the sabbatical year (Lev 25:2-7), and jubilee year (Lev 25:8-24).[6]
05. SOURCE CRITICISM
The chapter twenty-four of the Book of Leviticus exhibits a composite source of priestly material (vv. 1-14, 16c, 22a), and the Code of Holiness (vv. 15-16b, 17-21, 22b, 23).[7]
06. FORM CRITICISM
This Chapter contains narrative (vv. 10-14, 23), ritual prescription (vv. 1-9), and Mosaic Laws – customary laws (vv. 15, 16), law of retaliation (vv. 17-22).[8]
07. TEXTUAL CRITICISM
There are some minor textual problems. The sense of the adjective “pure” in v. 4 and v. 6 is not explicitly clear. It could mean “ritually” or “pure gold”. “The name of Yahweh” in v. 16, is maintained in the Greek Version, but “a name” in the Hebrew, and “the name” in the Samaritan Pentateuch. In v. 17, the phrase “strives down” reads “fatally” as narrated in Ex 21:22.
08. REDACTION CRITICISM
The form and content of the blasphemy and the punishment (vv. 10-23) explicitly reveal that they are editorial works, even, without which the integrity of the flow of thought is not interrupted. But this insertion which would have happened during the exile or after the exile, serves the theological purpose of the compiler to highlight the importance of the covenant community.
09. STUDY OF THE TEXT
A. The Sanctuary Lamp (vv. 1-4)
v. 1: The refrain “The Lord spoke to Moses”[9] acts as an introductory statement in order to dramatize the forth-coming monologue.
vv. 2-4: These verses have parallel text in Ex 27:20-21; 25:31-40. The sanctuary articles like oil for the lamp, and the golden stand for the lamp are qualified by an adjective of quality – “pure”, which subtly suggests the most sacredness of the place that stands for the presence of the Lord. Aaron is preferred by the Lord to light the lamp regularly, though he is not described as a highpriest, but it is implied (cf. Ex 30:7-8; Num 8:2-8), and it is also the wish of the Lord that the practice to be continued throughout the generation.
B. The Show Bread (vv. 5-9)
The meticulous descriptions on the choice and quantity of the flour, the significance of twelve loaves - a “numerical symbolism” of God’s covenant with the twelve tribes, and the importance of placing the loaves orderly in two rows, describe the concern of the priestly tradition for a systematic ritual worship. The bread renewed on every Sabbath becomes the share of the priest. Such a practice perhaps originated from the pagan cult of Egypt and Mesopotamia - “It was believed that the gods dined at the sanctuary table, the bread that were entirely burned and worshiped”.[10]
C. The Blasphemy and the Punishment (vv. 10-23)
vv. 10-12: These verses introduce a case of blasphemy in the wilderness setting by narrating “the personal identity” of the blasphemer and the accusation against him. They also project the exilic and post-exilic social condition of the Israelites with cases of mixed marriages, though any kind of mixed breeding is discredited (cf. Lev. 19:19; 20:16; Deut 22:9-11), and mixed marriages forbidden (cf. Deut 7:3).[11]
v. 13: The refrain introduced here gives a divine sanction to the judgment, which would be reaffirmed in v. 23.
vv. 14-16: Here Yahweh himself introduces the sanction for blasphemy though “blasphemy was forbidden in the Decalogue with out sanction,”[12] which is ritualized with a twofold purpose - legal and disciplinary. The man is punished legally for blasphemy by taking him outside the camp placing hands on the head and stoning, so that the community would be cleansed from defilement of curse on the “name of Yahweh. It also has a disciplinary purpose, which would vividly instruct the community, which witnesses the fate of the blasphemer, “not to be so”.
vv. 17-22: The rigid sanctions for inflicting injury and death on a beast or a man are expressed strongly as “fracture for fracture, eye for eye”. This kind of legal formulation is already found in many places in the Pentateuch (cf. Ex 21:23-25; Deut 19:21).
v. 23: Moses becomes the mouthpiece of God that he executes the sentence of stoning the blasphemer to death, after having consulted the Lord (v. 12). v. 23c gives a solemn attestation to the execution, that it is done so, not because of somebody else, but precisely because the Lord has commanded so, to Moses.
11. THEOLOGY
This chapter branches out from the central stem of Leviticus – “You shall be holy; for I the Lord God am holy” (Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:26; 21:8), and so, the importance of sanctuary lamp (vv. 1-4), the show bread (vv. 5-9) are the response of the covenant people, expressed in the form of rituals. So also the blasphemy and the punishment (vv. 10-23) are the social response of the community, which considered that the community is defiled by the curse on the “name,” hence needs to be cleansed through the accepted norm of law in use – “stoning to death”.
12. SIGINIFICANCE
The fundamental call to be holy (cf. Lev 21:8), which is substantiated in this chapter, in terms of ritual and social response to the holy God, challenges everyone of us today to be “holy”, which is reaffirmed by Jesus himself – “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48), by living a radical life – “true to oneself, to God, and to the universe”, as a substitute to the law of retaliation, and the ritual offerings of pure oil, pure lamp stand, pure flour.
13. CONCLUSION
Thus the exegetical study of the chapter twenty-four of the Book of Leviticus, has disclosed the “complex reality” of the text, which is both the “ritual” and “social” response of the covenant community that which cannot, but to be holy, to the call of the covenant God “to be holy” (cf. Lev.19:8). Hence the same call to holiness, significantly strikes every heart today, to respond through a radical life of holiness - true to oneself, to God, and to the universe in love and freedom.
14. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen C. MYERS, (ed.), The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.
Edward P. BLAIR, The Illustrated Bible Hand-Book. Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1987.
Jacob MILGROM, “The Book of Leviticus”. In Charles M. LAYMON, (ed.), The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary On The Bible. New York: Abingdon Press, 1971.
Nathaniel MICKLEM, “Leviticus”. In Nolan B. Harmon, (ed.), The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.II. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953.
Wayne A. TURNER, “Leviticus”. In Dianne BERGANT, C.S.A., and Robert J. KARRIS, O.F.M., (ed.), The Collegeville Bible Commentary. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1989.
THE HOLY BIBLE, The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India. Bangalore: The Theological Publications in India, 1993.
G. Robert John Kennedy
II Theology, 11.08.2001
* This paper was presented in the class on 03.11.2001.
[1] The term “Leviticus” is the reproduction of the “Leviticus” from the Latin Version, which is originally derived from the term “Leuitikon” used in the Greek Version of the Hebrew Bible.
The general outline of the book could be: Chapters 1-7 (Laws concerning sacrifices); Chapters 8-10 (Recount the origin of Israel’s priesthood); Chapters 11-15 (Laws concerning individual purity); Chapter 16 (The ritual for the Day of Atonement); Chapters 17-26 (The code of Holiness).
[2] Henceforth, all quotations are from THE HOLY BIBLE, The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: The Theological Publications in India, 1993. They are immediately noted by permitted abbreviations for the particular book in the Bible.
[3] Cf. Nathaniel MICKLEM, “Leviticus”, in Nolan B. HARMON, (ed.), The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. II, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953, p. 3; also Cf. Allen C. MYERS, (ed.), The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987, pp. 653-654.
[4] Cf. Wayne A. TURNER, “Leviticus”, in Dianne BERGANT, C.S.A., and Robert J. KARRIS, O.F.M., (ed.), The Collegeville Bible Commentary, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1989, p. 138.
[5] Cf. Ibid., p. 117.
[6] Cf. Allen C. MYERS, (ed.), op.cit., p. 654.
[7] Cf. Jacob MILGROM, “The Book of Leviticus”, in Charles M. LAYMON, (ed.), The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary On The Bible, New York: Abingdon Press, 1971, p. 82.
[8] Cf. Edward P. BLAIR, The Illustrated Bible Hand-Book, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1987, p. 115.
[9] This refrain is quite common in the Book of Leviticus that from the point of view of literature, acts as a “literary frame”, in which the material is placed, and from the perspective of theology, it projects the theological motive of the community and the compiler, based on the faith experience of the covenant God, which gives a “divine sanction” to the material.
[10] Charles M. LAYMON, (ed.), op.cit., p. 82.
[11] Further, v. 11 states in very minimal words that the man “blasphemed the name in a curse”, but it is much concerned about his “mixed origin”, that he is the son of an Egyptian father (v. 10) through an Israelite mother, whose identity is revealed even with a short genealogy (v. 11c). Therefore such an “improper emphasis” could suggest a sense of “racial prejudice” in the “cross-cultural-context” during exile, and its consequence in the “post exilic times”, which would have caused this accusation eventually to death, though blasphemy is forbidden without any sanction until to this account.
[12] Geron G. FOURNELLE, Old Testament Reading Guide-The Book of Leviticus, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1967, p. 89.
No comments:
Post a Comment