Leviticus Old Testament

Introduction to Leviticus

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. 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:

Themes in Leviticus

As you read through Leviticus, it’s best to look for these major themes, rather than getting caught up in the minutiae.

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”). Geisler writes, “It has been well said that it took God only one night to get Israel out of Egypt but it took forty years to get Egypt out of them.” 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.” The Septuagint titled this book Levitikon, which means “pertaining to the priests.”

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 and atonement. 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.” The blood sacrifices of Leviticus set up a foreshadowing (or “type”) of Jesus’ atonement.

Regarding the concept of atonement, Harris writes, “The verb ‘atone’ (kipper) has been much discussed. It has been derived from a root that in Arabic means ‘cover.’” The noun form (kōp̱er) means “ransom.” Harris argues that the verb form should be translated as “to pay a ransom.” The “atonement cover” (kappōreṯ) was translated by the LXX with the Greek word hilastērion (used for Jesus’ atonement, Rom. 3:25).

Do not drink the blood. We repeatedly read that the Israelites were not allowed to drink the blood of the animal (Lev. 3:17; 6:30; 7:27; 17:10-11; 19:26; Deut. 12:32).

The priesthood. The Levites were set apart to be the priests of God, and they were in charge of 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 of the people (Lev. 3:41). Since Christ is our ultimate high priest, who substitutes for us (Heb. 9-10), perhaps 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? It seems that God wants to communicate that we need to come to him on his terms—not on our own.

Which Levitical laws carry weight for today?

Some of 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). Likewise, while the Jews needed a human priest as their mediator, the book of Hebrews emphatically states that this was fulfilled by Christ and is no longer needed.

However, not everything in Leviticus is ceremonial. Other portions have universal, moral imperatives that are still just as true today. For instance:

• Adultery (Lev. 18:20; 20:10)

• Child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5)

• Bestiality (Lev. 18:23; 20:15-16)

• Idolatry (Lev. 19:4)

• Loving one another (Lev. 19:18; cf. Mt. 19:19; 22:39)

Critics sometimes mock believers by asking, “If you consider same-sex marriage immoral, then so is eating pork and sleeping with your wife during her menstrual cycle! But why don’t you Christians treat these as serious sins, too?” This is a good question, but consider the alternative: What if we considered bestiality, adultery, child sacrifice, idolatry, and loving our neighbor as only a ceremonial law? This alternative isn’t any better. Thus we have two extremes set before us:

Neither extreme is favorable or correct. 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 Leviticus

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 or not an act is moral or ceremonial. That is, why would God call for the death penalty in the case of a ceremonial law? White and Niell write, “Not a single application of the death penalty to the general citizenry of Israel existed for violation of a ceremonial law.”

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.

PRINCIPLE #2: God never judges the nations for their failure to obey the dietary 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). 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.

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.

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.