Leviticus

Leviticus looks like a pile of ancient laws—sacrifices, skin rashes, what you can and can’t eat. But the point is that God wanted to teach the people to be different from the surrounding nations. Geisler writes, “It took God only one night to get Israel out of Egypt but it took forty years to get Egypt out of them.”^[1]

Authorship

The authorship of Leviticus is bound up with the greater authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. However, in addition to this evidence for Mosaic authorship, we can observe that God spoke to Moses some 56 times in the book of Leviticus.^[2] The final verse states that Moses received all of these laws when he was on Mount Sinai (Lev. 27:34).

Furthermore, the NT authors attribute Mosaic authorship Leviticus on a number of occasions (Mt. 8:4; Lk. 2:22; Heb. 8:5). Consider some of the NT citations of Leviticus:

What is the structure of Leviticus?

It’s easy to view Leviticus as just a series of laws without any rhyme or reason behind it. However, the first half deals with the sacrifices for the people (Lev. 1-15), the middle deals with the ultimate sacrifice of Yom Kippur (Lev. 16), and the end deals with the response of the people (Lev. 17-27). Rooker writes, “It may be argued that chaps. 1-16 correspond to the dictum ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart’ (Deut 6:5), while the rest of the book, Leviticus 17-27, is summarized by the statement found within the section, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ (19:18).”^[3]

Themes in Leviticus

Being distinct from the nations. While Exodus is the story of redemption, Leviticus is the old covenant foundation of sanctification (i.e. being “set apart” or “distinct” or “holy”). The term “holy” (qdš) appears over 150 times, and it appears more frequently than any other book in the OT.^[4] The point of the Levitical laws was to separate them from the practices of pagan nations of Egypt and Canaan (Lev. 18:4).

Through Leviticus, God communicates that the Jews were to be separate or distinct from the pagan culture around them. While each individual verse has value, make sure that you don’t miss the forest for the trees! The central theme of Leviticus is what God says: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2). Since this book was addressed to all of the people of Israel (Lev. 1:1-2), they were all to understand God’s mission for them. However, the laws “mainly emphasize Israel’s worship of God and the instructions for the priests.”^[5] The Septuagint titled this book Levitikon, which means “pertaining to the priests.”^[6]

The blending of the secular and the sacred. God gave the people these laws and instructions as they were waiting to enter the Promised Land. The laws of Leviticus do not give a separation between the secular and the sacred. This blending shows that God should be in all of our lives—not just part of it.

Blood. This is a common and unique feature of Leviticus—one that is required for atonement (Heb. 9:22). Rooker writes, “Blood was established by God to have this atoning purpose (17:11). This unique teaching regarding the blood is particular to Israel, for there is little evidence of blood playing a significant role in any other sacrificial system, whether in Babylon, Syria, or Phoenicia. In Israel, however, the manipulation of blood was a unifying factor to the entire sacrificial system. Wenham may in fact be correct in contending that blood spilled in all animal sacrifices makes atonement.”^[7]

Pagan nations used blood to ward off the wrath of the deity and demonic entities. However, Harris writes, “It is of real interest that comparative studies of ancient religions find no such treatment of blood in their sacrifices. Evidently blood theology was exclusively Israelite.”^[8] Rather, the blood sacrifices of Leviticus set up a foreshadowing (or “type”) of Jesus’ atonement.

Atonement. The term “atonement” (kpr) appears more in Leviticus than any other book. Rooker writes, “The verb form occurs fifty times in the Book of Leviticus, while the cognate noun kippurîm is found three times and is best known for its occurrence in the expression Yom Kippur, ‘Day of Atonement.’ Thus all but forty-three occurrences of the root are confined to Leviticus, which indicates… that Leviticus says more about atonement than any other book.”^[9]

Traditionally, the word meant to “cover.” However, this view came from an Arabic cognate that doesn’t interface with ancient Hebrew. Consequently, this understanding has been abandoned today.^[10] The term can mean “to purge” (Isa. 27:9; Jer. 18:23) or “to ransom” (Ex. 21:30). Both “meanings are appropriate depending upon the context.”^[11] Harris argues that the verb form should be translated as “to pay a ransom,”^[12] and he notes that the “atonement cover” (kappōreṯ) was translated by the LXX with the word used for Jesus’ “propitiation” (hilastērion, Rom. 3:25).

Repentance. It was required to both offer a sacrifice and have a proper heart toward God. The Proverbs state, “The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable—how much more so when brought with evil intent!” (Prov. 21:27) and “The LORD detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases him” (Prov. 15:8). Rooker states that this explains the “high handed” sins in Leviticus. He writes, “Forgiveness cannot exist where there is no repentance. Sins committed in blatant contempt for the will of God lack the subjective precondition for atonement. Repentance, which manifests itself most explicitly in confession, is the inexorable condition of forgiveness. Put differently, in the Old Testament as well as the New there is no occasion where forgiveness can take place where there is unconfessed sin. This repentance would involve a willingness to turn from sin, with the desire never to repeat the sin again.”^[13]

Priesthood. The Levites were set apart to be the priests of God, and they oversaw the Tabernacle (Lev. 3:7). While God demanded the firstborn of all the children and animals of Israel (Lev. 3:13), he accepted the Levites as a substitute for all the people (Lev. 3:41). Since Christ is our ultimate high priest, who substitutes for us (Heb. 9-10), this prefigures what God would do through Christ.

Perfect offerings. The expression “without defects” appears eighteen times in this book. This foreshadows the perfection of Jesus, who was a completely sinless sacrifice and priest (see “The Sinlessness of Jesus”).

No innovation. As you read Leviticus, one of the themes that you discover is how much detail we see in the worship. It is so stringent, but why? This shows that we need to come to God on his terms—not on our own.

Understanding Judaism. Rooker states, “It is no exaggeration to claim that the Book of Leviticus has had more impact on Judaism than any other book of the Old Testament. Traditionally it was the first book taught to Jewish children, and over half the commentary of the Talmud is concerned with understanding its contents.”^[14]

Are Levitical laws obsolete?

Some aspects of the Levitical law have been abrogated by the new covenant. For instance, the Jews weren’t supposed to eat pork or shellfish (Lev. 11:7, 10-12), but Jesus repealed these laws in the new covenant (Mk. 7:19; Acts 10). Based on these passages, some interpreters teach that the Levitical law has been entirely done away with.

This is a major mistake. Not everything in Leviticus is ceremonial. Other portions have universal, moral imperatives that are still just as true today. For instance:

What if we considered bestiality, adultery, child sacrifice, idolatry, and loving our neighbor as only a ceremonial law? This alternative isn’t any better—indeed, far worse of a consequence. Thus, we have two hermeneutical extremes set before us:

Neither extreme is promising. Clearly some portions of Leviticus are ceremonial (or civil) law, while other portions are universal, moral imperatives. But which is which? How can we determine which portions are taken to be universal moral imperatives, and which were just for the Jewish people at the time?

Principles for Identifying Universal, Moral Imperatives in Levitical Law

PRINCIPLE #1: The use of the death penalty. We have argued elsewhere for why God commanded the death penalty in the OT (see “What about Capital Punishment?”). However, for our purposes here, we believe that the use of the death penalty in the OT law can demonstrate whether an act is moral or ceremonial. That is, why would God call for the death penalty in the case of a ceremonial law?[15]

PRINCIPLE #2: God never judges the nations for their failure to obey the ceremonial laws—only the moral laws. In the context of God’s condemnation of homosexuality, we read, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. ²⁵ For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:24-25 NASB). God brought judgment on the Canaanites for these practices, but he didn’t bring judgment for their failure to practice the ceremonial law. God was holding them responsible for these moral actions, which must be ascertained universally through general revelation (Rom. 1:19; 2:14-15), rather than specific revelation.

PRINCIPLE #3: The NT authors repeat these moral imperatives as universally, morally binding. As we noted above, the NT repealed the obligation of believers to follow OT ceremonial and civil laws (see “Tips for Interpreting OT Law”). However, the NT authors repeat that adultery (Mt. 19:8), idolatry (1 Cor. 5:10), and loving our neighbor (Mt. 22:39) are still universal moral principles today. Additionally, the NT authors repeat the fact that homosexuality is a universal moral imperative—not a cultural or ceremonial one (Rom. 1:24-28; 1 Tim. 1:10; 1 Cor. 6:9).

The antithesis is also true for this principle. That is, if a NT author repeals one of the laws in the OT, then this would be our basis for thinking that this was only for the old covenant Jews in Israel—not for new covenant believers in the Church. For instance, Sabbath observance was binding for old covenant believers, but not for new covenant ones (Mk. 2:28; Col. 2:16-17). Likewise, the OT dietary and priesthood laws are not binding today either, because the NT explicitly teaches us this. However, no NT author ever repeals the Levitical laws regarding homosexuality.

Consulted Commentaries

R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990).

R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).

Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000).

[1] Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 65.

[2] Geisler writes, “Some fifty-six times the Book of Leviticus says something to the effect that ‘the Lord spoke unto Moses.’” Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 65.

^[3] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 43.

^[4] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 46.

^[5] R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 502.

^[6] R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 502.

^[7] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 53.

^[8] R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 521.

^[9] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 51–52.

^[10] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 52–53.

^[11] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 52–53.

^[12] R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 522.

^[13] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 55.

^[14] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 22.

[15] Some, of course, point to the fact that God calls for the death penalty in the case of Sabbath observance, which is ceremonial—not moral (Ex. 35:2). However, we would retort that Sabbath observance is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, making it a moral imperative—not ceremonial.