Friday, June 6
Leviticus 9: We come now to this book’s first reference to the “eighth day” (verse 1), a symbolic time that will become a virtual theme in Leviticus (12:3;14:1023;14:14,29; 22:27; 23:36,39). Because seven days represents the work (and rest) associated with Creation, the eighth day signifies the beginning of history, the work of man that follows the work of God. It is the new day of the new week. Hence it represents renewal.
For this reason, it is the day that separates the Israelite from the rest of the human race. As all men were created during the first week, so the sons of the Covenant are created on the first day of the second week. Hence, circumcision takes place on the eighth day.
If this eighth day was so important for the Jew, how much more for the Christian! The eighth day, after all, is Sunday, and “Sunday seems to be an image of the age to come. Notice that although Sunday is the beginning of days, Moses did not call it the first day, but one day: ‘And there was evening and there was morning, one day,’ because this day would recur many times. Therefore ‘one’ and ‘eight’ are the same, and the ‘one’ day refers to itself and to the ‘eighth’ day. Even the Psalmist follows this custom in certain titles of the psalms [e.g., Psalms 6 and 12 in the LXX]. This day foreshadows the state that is to follow the present age, a day without sunset, nightfall, or succession, an age that does not grow old or come to an end” (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 27.66).
For this same reason, major feast days in the Christian Church often last eight days—what we call an “octave.” Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas come to mind. One likewise recalls that the traditional baptismal fonts of the Church are commonly octagonal, in accordance with the number eight associated with Baptism, the beginning of the new life (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21).
The whole congregation “approaches” (qarab) and “takes its stand” (‘amad) before God (verse 5). To “approach” or “draw nigh” suggests the intimacy of worship (cf. Hebrews 10:22), whereas “standing” indicates the respect due to the majesty of God. The latter word, for example, is used with respect to throne rooms (cf. 1 Kings 1:28). The priest always stands before God (Deuteronomy 10:8; 2 Chronicles 29:11; Hebrews 10:11).
This chapter twice refers to “the glory of the Lord” (verses 6,23), the divine radiance that prompts the respect and reverence indicated by the “standing” of verse 5. Israel has beheld this divine glory in the desert (Exodus 16:7,10), on Mount Sinai (Exodus 33:18,22), and at the consecration of the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34-35), which will become the regular place of its appearance (Numbers 14:10; 16:19,42; 20:6).
Saturday, June 7
Leviticus 10: The prohibition against drinking alcohol prior to divine services (verse 8) immediately follows the tragic account of Nadab and Abihu (verses 1-7), a fact suggesting that these two priests may have been intoxicated when they undertook the unauthorized liturgical rite that cost them their lives.
In any case this latter incident discloses the danger inherent in divine worship. This probably needs to be emphasized, because some of those who drive off to church each Sunday morning seem not to be aware that they are placing their very souls in peril. (Otherwise, they would be dressed with modesty and dignity, arrive on time, stay until the service is over, and avoid distraction and gossip while they are in church. Indeed, sometimes the behavior of the clergy up in the sanctuary is even worse.)
Worship, after all, is encounter with God, and God is anything but safe. Throughout Holy Scripture, therefore, we find the theme of danger with respect to the things of God, particularly the rites and appointments associated with the divine worship. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is worship portrayed as completely safe.
In this sense biblical worship is nearly the opposite of “seeker friendly,” the adjective describing worship along lines dictated by the religious tastes of the uninitiated, worldly, unrepentant, and spiritually immature folks who are likely to drop in at church on Sunday morning.
Those that would draw near to God must resolve to feel uncomfortable (very much like Moses, when he was commanded to take off his shoes at the burning bush), at least until they become accustomed to the discipline of the worship. The experience of the holiness of the true God is not native to man (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; Hebrews 12:28-29).
These reflections pertain with special intensity to those charged with the oversight of divine worship, the stewards who safeguard the sacred mysteries (1 Corinthians 4:1-5; 6:9-11; Revelation 22:14-15). It is instructive to observe that St. Paul warns such men (for Holy Scripture never envisions women in this ministry) especially against the evils attendant on the drinking of alcohol (1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 4:5).
Sunday, June 8
Leviticus 11: We come now to five chapters specifying many rules concerning ritual purity and impurity. These rules form a logical sequence after the story of Nadab and Abihu, who perished from their thoughtlessness about the holiness required in God’s true worship. They also prepare the reader for the section on Yom Kippur (chapter 16), which provides a general rite of purification. These five chapters, then, join Yom Kippur back to the tragedy of Nadab and Abihu.
This section, which interrupts the narrative of Leviticus, is sometimes called the Manual of Purity. Its structure consists of six divine revelations: four to Moses and Aaron (11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1), and two to Moses alone (12:1; 14:1). In these three instances, when the subject matter of the revelation is intended for the general instruction of the Israelites as God’s holy people, Moses is instructed to hand the material on to them (11:2; 12:2; 15:2). Each of these revelations concludes with a summation of the material contained (11:46-47; 12:7; 13:59; 14:32,54-57; 15:32-33). The final revelation ends with a general summary (15:31).
This first chapter deals with the difference between “clean” and “unclean” meats, both adjectives being understood in a ritual and cultic sense. The distinguishing characteristics of these two classifications were probably more obvious at the time than they are to us, but this consideration is not important to the theology of the chapter. In principle, the Israelites are to be governed, even in their diet, by distinctions that do not govern the rest of mankind. This restricted diet was a sign of the holiness of God’s people. Why God chose to make one animal “clean” and “another” unclean is, after all, a matter that can safely be left to God.
That principle established, it is worth reflecting on the Bible’s general classification of the animal world into wild, tame, and swarming (Genesis 1:26). Only the tame animals, the domesticated animals, properly share in man’s daily life. Some of these could be used for food (sheep, cattle), others for labor (horses, oxen). No animal could be used for both.
Among wild animals, preference is shown for animals that feed on grass, not those that feed on flesh. Those animals that feed on carrion (vultures, bottom-feeder fish) are unclean.
For two reasons these rules do not govern the diets of Christians (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:9-16):
First, Gospel purity is of a more spiritual nature. This is why the determining factor for dietary purity in the Christian Church is related to demon worship (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:21).
Second, the distinction between Israelite and Gentile, a distinction expressed in these ancient dietary laws, is destroyed by the common source of holiness, which is the sanctifying blood of Christ.
Monday, June 9
Leviticus 12: Among all the purification rules in Leviticus, those contained in this shortest chapter of the book are probably the most offensive to modern sensibilities. It is very difficult for us today to think of childbirth as “defiling.”
If we look a bit more deeply into the subject, however, the meaning of these prescriptions will become clearer. The defilement involved here has to do with the shedding of blood, which is normal in childbirth. It is the impurity of the bloodshed that must be purified.
This point will perhaps be clearer if we remember how we speak of “purifying” the chalice after everyone has received Holy Communion. We use this expression even though what must be “purified” from the Eucharistic chalice is the blood of Christ! That is to say, the word “purification,” used in a ritual context, does not necessarily mean that something is dirty. The woman is no more “defiled” by childbirth than the chalice is defiled by the Blessed Sacrament. In matters of ritual, the word “purify” means something different.
We recall that the last of the Queen Mothers of Judah was subject to the prescriptions contained in this chapter (Luke 2:22-24). The Holy Family being poor, the redemption in this case was effected by two small birds, not by the customary lamb (verse 8; Exodus 13:2,12; Nehemiah 10:36).
With respect to the abysmal (but apparently widespread) custom of requiring Christian women nowadays to observe forty days of seclusion and absence from the worship of the Church following childbirth, one hardly knows whether to weep or just to feel embarrassed. Like the other prescriptions in Leviticus, such rules were for those living under the old law, not the Gospel. The continued value of such prescriptions lies entirely in their prophetic quality, not in their practical application to Christians.
Tuesday, June 10
Acts 2,36-47: The summary of the response to Peter’s first sermon includes (in verse 42) the three constitutive components of the Church’s liturgical life: First, the authoritative proclamation of the Word of God (“the apostles’ doctrine”); second, the serving of the Sacraments (“the Communion, the breaking of the Bread”); third, common worship (“prayers”). It is in these three things that the “baptized” (verse 41) are to “continue steadfastly.” Their practice of “holding all things in common” should not be interpreted in a legal sense of ownership (cf. 5:4) but with respect to their operative attitude toward their possessions. It is significant that this attitude is mentioned in the immediate context of the Church’s liturgical life. It was from the beginning that the Church made “collections” of material resources at the common worship, particularly the Eucharist. All the components of the liturgical worship mentioned here are also found in our earliest extant description of the Eucharistic Liturgy by Justin Martyr (Apologia Prima 67) in the mid-second century. That first generation of Christians maintained their worship in the temple (Luke 24:53) as well as the Eucharistic communion in their homes (Acts 2:46). Like Jesus (Luke 2:27,49; 19:45; 22:53), they used the temple as a missionary forum (Acts 3:11; 4:2; 5:20-21,42).
Leviticus 13: Modern readers, sensitive to the dangers of infection, will be more kindly disposed toward the prescriptions in this chapter, which have to do with various skin diseases, most of which are covered in the Bible by the noun “leprosy.” These, too, “defile” a person, in the sense of rendering inappropriate his participation in the congregation’s sacred worship.
The priests are authorized to declare when such an affliction has been healed (Luke 17:14).
Jesus’ curing of such people was one of the signs by which His contemporaries could recognize Him as the Messiah (Matthew 8:3; 11:5; Mark 1:41; Luke 5:13; 7:22). Indeed, after curing these lepers Jesus goes on to commission His apostles to do the same (Matthew 10:8). The curing of leprosy, then, becomes one of the great symbols of the power of the Gospel itself.
The real healing, however, takes place when Jesus Himself becomes, as it were, a leper in order to take away the sins of the human race (Isaiah 53 passim).
Wednesday, June 11
Leviticus 14: We come now to purification from blights, both blights of the flesh and blights of the home.
With respect to the first (verses 1-32), we have already considered its significance in our reflections on leprosy in the previous chapter.
The blights on human flesh lead to a consideration of the blights on human homes (verses 33-57). This sequence is both logical and symbolic. As a person’s social relationships are “defiled” by his appearance, the same is true for the appearance of his home. The rules for each, accordingly, are similar.
In this legislation we perceive a relation between the Israelite’s house and the house of God. This relation is continued in the New Testament, where Jesus enters the homes that would receive him (Mark 2:14-15; 14:3; Luke 19:9).
Indeed, the apostolic ministry itself was directed to the home. This truth is very clear in the Gospels: “And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace [shalom] come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace [shalom] return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:12-14). It was to homes, to households, that the authority of the Apostles was sent.
A Christian home is a home where the Apostles are invited in and well received. A Christian home is a household where the apostolic authority holds sway, and this fact proposes a challenge for all our homes. Do we live in households that are governed by the presence of the Apostles? Or are our homes places where the apostolic authority is not admitted? When the Apostle bids shalom to our homes, does that greeting abide therein, or does it return?
The authority and teaching of the Apostles is not something found in a church building. After all, Christians spend very little of their time at church. Indeed, we would be subject to apostolic authority on a few hours each week if we found it only in church. In the Gospels, however, the Apostles are chiefly sent to homes, places where people actually live.
This truth poses certain questions for each household: “In what measure does the authority of the Apostles actually live and prevail in my home? Do the behavior and conversation in my home reflect the active presence of the Apostles? Do the values and entertainment in my home manifest and respect the authority of the Apostles? Worse yet, do we live in homes where the Apostles have already left in disgust and shaken the very dust from their feet?
In this respect the Apostles replace the Old Testament priests in their capacity of “home inspectors.”
Thursday, June 12
Leviticus 15: The rules in this chapter, we notice, all pertain to “case law.” Because it has no strict parallel in the New Testament, this chapter’s concern with the defilement occasioned by the discharge of bodily fluids is more difficult to appreciate in a Christian context. How should a Christian approach these rules?
He should recognize, first of all, that sexuality in the Bible is hardly ever neutral. As St. Augustine recognized in the experience of his own life, God created human sex as one of His highest goods in the physical order, but man’s Fall from grace, as described in Genesis 3, seems to have infected the experience of sex more deeply than other aspects of man’s life. This is why Adam and Eve, after they had disobeyed, became aware of their nakedness before anything else. Indeed, Augustine speculated that all sexual expression had at least some amount of sin in it.
While this latter view is not that of the Bible nor of the Christian Tradition as a whole, it does express the reserve and restraint that the Christian conscience properly feels with respect to this subject. In the prescriptions of this chapter we gain some sense of this reserve and restraint.
That is to say, while sex itself is not inherently defiling, it is defiling in most circumstances. For starts, it is always defiling outside of the relationship of marriage. It is always morally defiling in adultery, fornication, homosexuality, masturbation, pornography, and the intentional cultivation of wrong sexual fantasies (cf. Matthew 5:27-28). Even within marriage, sex is morally defiling when accompanied by brutality, anger, selfishness, and those expressions that place the marital intercourse outside of its natural and divinely intended purpose.
In other words, God’s law, as expressed in nature and divine revelation, hedges the proper expression of sex into a fairly narrow set of circumstances. This truth, hardly popular in any period, seems most offensive in today’s atmosphere of moral glibness. It is difficult for contemporary man to understand that “safe sex” involves a great amount of caution, circumspection, reserve, and restraint. It is arguable that the Puritans understood this truth better than most, and consequently seemed to have appreciated the joys of sex better than many people today.
Friday, June 13
Leviticus 16: We come now to a detailed instruction respecting the Day of Atonement, an instruction broken into two unequal parts. The first (verses 1-28) prescribes the elaborate ritual for the feast, the second treats of related concerns, particularly the associated fasting and the prescribed rest (verses 29-34). These instructions are given to Moses, who is to convey them to his priestly brother Aaron.
The first prescription is a prohibition against the priest’s entering into the Holy of Holies except after the rest of the ritual prescribed (verse 2). This prohibition refers to the “propitiatory” (kapporet), the golden cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:17-22). It is here that God’s luminous glory is revealed (Exodus 40:34; Numbers 7:89).
The rite preparatory to Aaron’s entrance into the Holy Place includes a sin offering (hatt’t) and a burnt offering (‘olah), a ritual washing, and a prescribed vesting (verses 2-3). More extensive sacrifices are then prescribed for the priests and the congregation (verses 4-7; cf. Hebrews 7:27-28; 9:7).
One goat is offered in sacrifice. The other, chosen by lot, is not sacrificed but becomes the scapegoat (literally, “the goat that escapes”) that is sent out into the desert, ritually bearing the sins of the people to carry them away (verses 8-10,20-22).
The sacrificial blood of the slain victims is sprinkled on the propitiatory in order to expiate the sins of both the priests and the congregation (verses 11-15; cf. Hebrews 5:1; 9:7,13,25).
One purpose of this latter ritual was to expiate and consecrate the Holy Place itself (verse 16; cf. Hebrews 9:23). From this text it appears little or no distinction was made between expiation and consecration with respect to the Holy Place. Expiation was a consecratory act, whereby the Holy Place was consecrated through the blood sacrificially offered to God (verses 18-20).
Those animal parts that remained after the sacrifice were to be burned outside the camp (verse 27; Hebrews 13:11).
The Day of Atonement, observed like the Sabbath as a day of rest (verse 31), was to be kept annually (verse 34; Hebrews 9:7; 10:3) in the autumn. To accompany this ritual, the people were to “afflict themselves”; that is, to observe a fast (cf. Isaiah 58:3-5). Because this was the only fast prescribed in the Torah, the Day of Atonement became known simply as “the Fast” (cf. Acts 27:9).