Exegetical Paper: Leviticus 18:1-5 - · PDF fileExegetical Paper: Leviticus 18:1-5 רמאל הׁמ־לא הוהי רבדיו 1 םכיהלא הוהי ינא םהלא תרמאו לארׂי

Exegetical Paper: Leviticus 18:1-5

1 וידבר יהוה אל־מׁשה לאמר

דבר אל־בני יׂשראל ואמרת אלהם אני יהוה אלהיכם 2

כמעׂשה ארץ־מצרים אׁשר יׁשבתם־בה לא תעׂשו וכמעׂשה ארץ־כנען אׁשר אני מביא אתכם ׁשמה לא 3

תעׂשו ובחקתיהם לא תלכו

תׁשמרו ללכת בהם אני יהוה אלהיכםאת־מׁשפטי תעׂשו ואת־חקתי 4

וׁשמרתם את־חקתי ואת־מׁשפטי אׁשר יעׂשה אתם האדם וחי בהם אני יהוה 5

Old Testament History and Theology I

Westminster Theological Seminary

November, 2011

William A. Ross

© William A. Ross - 1

Sitting as it does almost at the center of the Pentateuch, Leviticus 18:1-5 proves to be a

fascinating text that contains themes reaching far through the canon. The passage follows on the

literary and chronological heels of the giving of the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant at

Sinai (Exod. 20:1-17; 21:2-23:33), as well as the construction of the Tabernacle (chs. 35-40). As

such, it is tied intimately to specific redemptive-historical aspects of Israel’s history and identity

as they prepare to dispossess Canaan. In the passage, YHWH calls Israel to diligently follow his

statutes and rules rather than those of other nations, which the people have often failed to do

already (Exod. 32:7-8; Lev. 10:1-2). Appended to this command, however, is the fascinating

promise that “if a person does them, he shall live by them” (v. 5, ESV). The promise has been

taken many ways over the history of interpretation, but as we shall see, the life of YHWH’s

promise is tied closely to Israel’s holiness in his presence, specifically in the context of the

Promised Land.

Interpretive and Historical Stance: The range of opinions on the historical and canonical

settings results from the variety of interpretive methodologies, which cannot be addressed here.1

Some scholarship has called heavily diachronic criticism into scrutiny.2 In an effort to follow that

lead, the author undertakes a more synchronic reading of scripture, while also taking diachronic

developments into consideration in an effort towards balance. The author also proceeds with a

view of scripture as God’s inerrant and authoritative Word (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).3 As a result

1 John E. Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 4 (Dallas, TX: Word Inc., 1992), xxxv. For a discussion of

these methodologies, see John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Louisville, KY: Westminster

John Knox Press, 1996). 2 Hartley, xxxix. See R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, SDOT Sup 53 (Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 130 for a persuasive critique of certain contradictory presuppositions of the Documentary

Hypothesis. Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979), 75-83, who

says “the canon establishes a platform from which exegesis is launched rather than a barrier by which creative activity is

restrained” (83). Also see Moisés Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible? The History of Interpretation in the Light of

Current Issues,” in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation: Six Volumes in One, ed. Moisés Silva (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan Press, 1996), pp. 15-196, especially pp. 100-102 for his proposal for a literary approach to scripture. Also see T.

Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

Academic Press, 2002), 7-16, 42-61, 80-94 for a summary and critique of source and form criticisms, as well as his

proposal for a synchronic reading of the text as a way forward. 3 See Moisés Silva, “Old Princeton, Westminster, and Inerrancy” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge,

A Debate, ed. Harvie M. Conn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1988), 67-80.


of these stances, the author follows Sailhammer, who says the canonical Pentateuch was written

by Moses, and is identical with its original form “with only few exceptions… [I]t comes to us

more or less as an updated edition of a single earlier Mosaic composition.”4

The precise identity and location of the original audience of Lev. 18:5 is elusive, since the

book is not strictly narratival like its surrounding Pentateuchal books, but a sort of compendium

of divine speeches to Moses over time.5 We might place the original setting of our recorded text

somewhere in Moab, where God commanded the people to go at the end of their period of

wandering (Deut. 2:17-18; Num. 21:13), just before entering Canaan (Josh. 1:1-3).6 By or at this

time, Moses may have compiled the “Book of the Law” (Josh. 1:8) using texts he had already

written down (Exod. 17:14; 24:4, 7) in combination with oral preservations (Exod. 24:7, 17:14,

note “recite it”) of the commands God had given him over time.7 In this scenario, the Israelites in

4 John H. Sailhammer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL:

IVP Academic, 2009), 48. 5 Hartley, 291. Alexander notes that the events of Leviticus are inherently connected with those of Exodus and Numbers,

and thus it is a part of the larger Pentateuchal narrative. Its composition may be placed, then, at least in the general context

of after the 13th month after the Exodus (cf. Exod. 40:17 and Lev. 1:1), although it also records earlier events (204). 6 Jacob Milgrom has contributed significantly to the study of the book of Leviticus, interacting with what he sees as two

sources present: P and H. I have placed the first reading of Lev. 18:1-5 in the plains of Moab before the Conquest in part

due to Milgrom’s persuasive case for a pre-exilic dating of both sources, contrary to the traditional views of the

Documentary Hypothesis (in which P is dated as the latest source [E.W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth

Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 21.]. This came under scrutiny beginning with

Y. Kaufmann, who dated P prior to D, and influenced the work of many subsequent Jewish scholars [Alexander, 50-53]).

Milgrom observes that H has marked pre-exilic characteristics, such as a lack of mentioning intermarriage bans in 18:6-23

(Leviticus 17-22 [AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 1362-64), and Ezekiel’s use of ch. 26 (ibid) which has a “pre-

prophetic” view of repentance and acknowledges multiple sanctuary sites (Leviticus 1-16 [AB 3; New York: Doubleday,

1991], 373-78). Elsewhere, Milgrom has gone to great lengths to also show P’s pre-exilic origin, and to propose that

Exodus and Numbers also date from the same timeframe (“The Case for the Pre-Exilic and Exilic Provenance of the Books

of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers,” in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, eds. J.G. McConville

and Karl Möller [London: T&T Clark International, 2007], 48-56). The issue of priestly sources in Leviticus is complex,

and makes finding an “original audience” or a first reading, as well as redactional considerations, more difficult. At this

point, I consider the possibility of a pre-exilic H redactor working with essentially Mosaic texts most persuasive, given that

some parts of even Lev. 18 seem to have a perspective from within the land (vv.24-30; Adrian Schenker, “What Connects

the Incest Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, eds. Rolf

Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 93 [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 162-85; 180), and H’s

apprehension with the sanctity of the land itself, extending purity commands even to the גר among them there (Milgrom,

Leviticus 1-16, 48-49; Preston M. Sprinkle, Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in

Paul [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 28-29]). 7 Levine points out that Leviticus presumes several settings from the post-exodus years; Lev. 1:1; 8:3-4; 9:5, etc. indicate

God’s commands to Moses coming at the Tent of Meeting, while 7:37-38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34 indicate Sinai, and 26:3ff

seems to indicate the steppes of Moab. Though Levine takes this as evidence for multiple authorship, an equally plausible

scenario is an essential corpus of commands given at Sinai, preserved in writing and oral tradition, and augmented (by God)

through the era of wandering, specifically after the construction of the Tabernacle, ending in Moab where Moses’ wrote

down his Pentateuch (Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the

New JPS Translation [New York, NY: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989], xxx). In support of mnemonic preservation


Moab who first heard the written form of Leviticus would have been well exposed to both the

Sinaitic commandments (7:37-38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34), and also those commandments given to

Moses at the Tabernacle (1:1; 8:3-4).8

Grammatical Exegesis: The received Levitical text has been shown to be very stable.9 The

Pentateuch being the earliest authoritative textual tradition for Israel, its books would have been

carefully copied from their earliest forms, such that even the oldest extant manuscripts of

Leviticus support the Masoretic text.10

Indeed, as the text of Leviticus 18:1-5 stands, no

significant textual issues exist that deserve comment. The translation provided by the ESV is

satisfactory, as the text is a concise oracle and relatively straightforward. Although difficult to

bring out in English, most notable in the Hebrew text is the change in the normal clause order in

verses 3 and 4, where the adverbial phrase11

is stated first, likely in order to emphasize YHWH’s

direct and personal opposition to the ways of other nations.12

Also, and in step with the previous

observation, YHWH’s imperative in verse 4 is an injunctive imperative and so might be treated

more forcefully than the ESV, rendered “…you must follow my rules...”13

In order to say exactly

prior to inscripturation, Hartley notes the presence of “rhetorical devices such as key words, assonance, and the clustering

of laws in groups” (xl), which would “both facilitate the priests’ memorization of this speech and serve to imprint these

decrees deeply in the minds of the hearers” (290). 8 As a result, it is difficult to determine how “new” Lev. 18:5 would have been to the “original” audience in Moab. Because

Leviticus records speeches that were probably repeated for cultic purposes during the wandering years, the first audience to

hear or see this material written may have already been familiar with it by virtue of hearing it recited mnemonically.

Hartley notes the common “[divine] introductory formula plus a commission-to-speak formula means that not only had

Moses received a word from YHWH, but he had also been commissioned to deliver it. The purpose of Leviticus then is to

preserve divine sermons for the instruction of the congregation in cultic and ethical matters” (xxxii, emphasis mine). 9 For an analysis of the textual stability of Leviticus in the major traditions, and the Qumran scroll’s lack of clear

dependence on any one, see K.A. Matthews, “The Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible” The

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 171-207. Sprinkle notes that even the LXX translation appears to be merely

rendering the Hebrew (50). 10

Hartley, xxix. Levine also states that even Qumranic texts do not depart from the Masoretic text of Leviticus in meaning

or intent, but that most variations “are simply alternative ways of stating the same laws and rituals and involve little more

than different tenses of the same verbs, juxtapositions of syntax, alterations of sequences, and stylistic variations” (xx). 11

Which is roughly “like their doings/practices in Egypt/Canaan.” See fn. 23 below. 12

Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York,

NY: Doubleday, 2000), 1518. 13

Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, revised and expanded by John C. Beckman, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University

of Toronto Press, Inc., 2007), §173a.


what this text meant to the historically located audience, however, we do well to consider

linguistic, thematic, and redemptive historical contours in the literary canon of the Christian OT.14

Literary-Theological Exegesis: Moving from setting and syntax, we may now exegete the

text in its proposed historical setting, and in its canonical setting.15

Wenham has posited that Lev.

18:1-5 introduces a covenant-treaty that is detailed in vv. 6-30.16

J. Milgrom disagrees, saying the

solitary blessing in v.5 and a lack of the “historical retrospect” one would expect in the preamble

of v.2 invalidate a covenant form. Still, he points out that the divine name in v.2b echoes the

Sinaitic Covenant17

which, to the present author, seems certain to have evoked a clear historical

retrospect in the ears of the original audience, so familiar with the Decalogue which itself

contained such a retrospect (Exod. 20:2).18

Likewise, though only one blessing is present (v.5), it

is rather superlative; life itself. Dispensing with a covenant-treaty form in Lev. 18, then, may be

hasty. Thus the literary form of the passage would have stressed its importance to the original

audience, and the rhetorical thrust leads one to ask, “Will Israel comply and gain life?”19

As a result of YHWH’s covenant with Israel (Exod. 24:8), he associates his divine name

with the nation, which reveals something about the indispensability of his character to their

distinctive identity.20

In other words, because of the covenant, Israel’s identity must conform to

14

I consciously refrain from analyzing the phrase וחי בהם since its translation is undisputed, and since syntax alone cannot

render conclusive answers as to its meaning. Not only is the form חי not present in nearby texts, but even taking, as most

do, the beth preposition as result does not address the quality of the חי, or what the alternative would be (Sprinkle, 31-34). 15

These settings are distinct, but necessarily related, although speculating on the historical setting is primarily that:

speculation. Childs says aptly “[Reconstructing] the history of the canonical process does not seem to be an avenue through

which one can greatly illuminate the present canonical text” (67). The author will thus pose a historical setting within the

canonical text’s own horizons. 16

Wenham, 249-251. 17

Milgrom, 1516-18. He says this is the only place he knows of other than Exod. 20:2 and Deut. 5:6 where the long formula

אני יהוה אלהיכם stands at the head of a legal pericope, putting this text on par with the Decalogue. The formula is repeated

again at the end of v.4, and a shortened form in v.5. 18

Wenham, 251. Also, in Num. 15:41, this exact phrase brackets a historical retrospect, indicating that the two ideas would

be linked in the minds of the audience. At this point, there is a formal literary similarity of the text, and a historical

audience following an oral (and written) tradition from the Decalogue in Exodus. (Also see Lev. 19:36; 23:43; 25:38;

25:55; 26:13; Ps. 81:10, etc.) 19

In its canonical setting, it is worth noting that ch.18’s content is echoed in Lev. 20:10-21, bracketing ch.19, which Mary

Douglas sees as the climax of the book (Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 234-40). These

three chapters form a unit regarding Israel’s behavior and the relationship to the land, as we will see. 20

Hartley, 293. Wenham says the whole book of Leviticus as God’s word to his people, largely in command form rather

than narrative, nonetheless tells specifically of his character (16). Milgrom notes the preoccupation of H with the


and imitate the identity of YHWH, which Leviticus discloses as holy.21

In Lev. 18:1-5 God’s

name appears three times, twice in relation to Israel in particular (vv. 2, 4, 5), and previously in

the book the same statement, “I am the LORD your God,” provides a clear imperative towards

holiness (Lev. 11:44, note “consecrate yourselves”; also Exod. 19:5-6). Indeed, God’s

relationship with Israel and the ensuing need for holiness is part and parcel with the stipulations

pertaining to the Day of Atonement, when cleanness is restored to the nation (16:34).22

Leviticus,

then, is the crucial book for stipulating how Israel is to be holy, addressed not only to the Levites

but to the entire congregation.23

In 18:1-5, the audience, by being boldly reminded that YHWH is

their holy God in treaty form, receives the same strong imperative24

towards their corresponding

holiness, and is clued in to the pertinence of what follows in the passage towards that end.

The unique identity of Israel through covenantally mandated holiness is given new

contours in this passage. The audience of this text likely would have been familiar with oral and

written tradition that made clear a connection between obedience and the land to which the

Israelites were being taken. As in verses 1-2, Moses had been receiving direct commands from

YHWH and delivering them to this audience in the wilderness ever since Sinai (Exod. 24:7; 25:1-

2; 35:1; Lev. 4:1; 6:1; 7:22; etc.).25

In doing so, Israel was repeatedly made aware that obedience

to YHWH and their inhabitance in Canaan were intertwined (Exod. 20:12; 23:20-33; 34:10-17).

In Lev. 18:1-5 the audience begins to learn how so. Here, covenantal holiness is shown to be a

desecration of the divine name, which leads others to discredit him and thus is punishable by death (“The Desecration of

YHWH’s Name: Its Parameters and Significance” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature,

and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, vol. 1, eds. Chaim

Cohen, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, et al. [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008], 69-81). 21

Levine, 118. Sailhammer likewise agrees, saying the book is fundamentally and specifically about holiness (The

Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Press, 1992], 323). 22

Hartley says “the laws on holy living come after ch. 16 because a forgiven and cleansed priesthood and congregation are

spiritually prepared to heed the exhortation ‘be holy for I, YHWH, your God, am holy’ (19:2)” (xxxv). 23

Sailhammer notes that the very name of the book from the Greek LXX means “pertaining to the Levitical priests,” by

whom atonement was made and cleanness restored to the nation (Pentateuch as Narrative, 323), but Hamilton calls to

attention that “precious little in this book is directed exclusively at the clergy… [but] Leviticus is describing a holiness that

applies to everyone… out of the reach of none” (Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook of the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus,

Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005], 233). 24

Recall the injunctive imperative in v. 5, following inductively from the repeated statement אני יהוה אלהיכם. 25

Hartley, xxxi-xxxii.


key step, not merely towards land possession, but land retention.26

The new contour, then, is that

holiness is distinction from other nations who already have land (v.3), not “merely” identification

with the commands of YHWH (v.4). Covenant obedience leads to holiness, and holiness leads to

(dis)possession of land. In other words, holiness is the prerequisite of land, and v.3 describes it in

terms of dissimilarity with other nations who will soon be driven out for that very reason.

Verse 3 gives a compact survey of what the nation should not be, with grammatical

arrangement to emphasize the point, as has been noted above. Egypt’s and Canaan’s ways are

clearly portrayed as standing in direct contrast YHWH’s commands to Israel.27

This particular

“you shall not” command is the first of its kind in scripture, directly condemning the practices of

other people groups.28

In traversing from and to the lands mentioned in v.3, our passage begins to

make explicit to Israel that the unholiness of other peoples who do not know YHWH is the reason

they are being cast out of Canaan (Lev. 18:24-25; 20:23; Deut. 9:4-5; 18:12).29

Indeed, the sexual

immorality of Egypt and Canaan are well attested in both canonical and non-canonical sources,

and surely would have been known to the Israelites who are given extensive instruction on sexual

ethics (18:6ff).30

For the audience, however, Lev. 18:1-5 begins teaching that it is not merely that

Egyptians and Canaanites are sexually immoral, but that they are not holy; they are not in

covenant with YHWH.31

26

To recall the apparent unit of chs. 18-10, climaxing in ch. 19’s “be holy” command (v.2), these chapters together set forth

the “necessary conditions for Israel’s remaining in the land” (Schenker, 176.). 27

Milgrom points out that כמעׂשה is usually a collective verbal noun, connoting “doings” or even “mores” (1518).

Departing from the Masoretic athnak, he contends that that v.3b, “you shall not walk in their statutes,” refers to both the

preceding nations’ statutes (1520). 28

According to a BibleWorks search on the English phrase “you shall not” in the ESV. Obviously, sinful practices of other

people groups have been condemned in scripture prior to this point by virtue of divine judgment (Gen. 11:1-9; 19:24, etc.)

or positive command (Exod. 20:1-17, etc.), but this command as a blanket, negative command against the “ways” of

specific nations, particularly to nascent the covenant nation, is relatively novel. 29

As far as I can tell, this is the first passage (and, more broadly, first chapter) where God tells Israel explicitly that other

nations’ unholiness is the reason they are being displaced in favor of the Kingdom of Priests. 30

See Gen. 9:20-26; 19:5-8; 39:6-12; Ezek. 16:26 (Milgrom, 1520).Wenham points out that Ugaritic texts speak of gods

copulating with animals, and that some Hittite laws “legislate against certain forms of bestiality while permitting others,”

(251-52). Also see the Code of Hammurabi, laws 154-158 for parallels to Lev. 18 (James Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near

East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011], 169.). 31

It may be a category mistake to separate “holy” from “immoral/ethical”, but what I have in view here is to indicate that

this text is sharpening the specific reasons for the Canaanite’s expulsion for the Israelite audience.


Thus, our passage alludes to a larger context that the audience would have surely known:

ancestral blessing and curse. As some scholars have noted, Leviticus 18 alludes to the ancestral

curse upon the two nations mentioned in v.3. This curse occurs in the Noahic episode of Gen.

9:22ff, where Ham has a deplorable encounter with Noah. The curse for his actions, however,

falls on Ham’s son(s), Canaan (vv.24-25).32

Though different explanations for this narrative have

been given,33

it seems clear that it precipitates the Canaanite seed’s covenantally cursed state, and

is ultimately the reason that the land of Canaan vomits out this reprobate lineage (Lev. 18:24-

25).34

In our passage, then, an anti-Canaanite polemic is at work, contrasting the Canaanite loss of

land with the promise of the land to Israel through Abraham (Gen. 17:8).

While Israel receives an explanation here for why the Canaanites are being driven out,

namely that they do not do the commands of YHWH and YHWH is not their God, the Israelites

also receive a warning that they too may be vomited out (Lev. 18:24-30).35

Indeed, there is a

lifelike relationship between Israel and the land.36

Israel must be distinct from the nations because

they are fundamentally unholy and out of covenant with YHWH, thus they cannot possess the

land (Lev. 20:24, 26). In Lev. 18:3, therefore, YHWH unequivocally states he will not tolerate

unholiness in the land.

After YHWH has reminded the hearers of their identity, by way of a structural similarity

to the Decalogue, of their covenant relationship to him and its correspondent imperative towards

obedient holiness, after he has undertaken an anti-Canaanite polemic with inbuilt warning to the

32

Milgrom, 1519. He says the curse falls upon both Canaan and Egypt, by virtue of their both being Ham’s sons, but that

whatever Egypt’s sexual promiscuity is, its citation in this passage is primarily to allude to the Noahic episode. 33

Milgrom presumes homosexual rape on Ham’s part in his analysis, and proposes that the curse comes on Ham’s sons

because he is protected in some way by the blessing on Noah’s sons in Gen. 9:1 (1518-19). Scott Hahn and John S.

Bergsma survey scholarly views of this encounter and propose maternal incest based on similar language from Lev. 18.

They say the curse on Canaan is because he is the biological result of this reprehensible union (Lev. 18:7) (“Noah’s

Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Gen. 9:20-27)”, Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 124 no. 1 (Spring 2005): 25-40). 34

Milgrom, 1519. One might even go so far as to say “unelect” state, given the servant imagery in Gen. 9:26 in favor

YWHW who is Shem’s God (cf. Lev. 18:2b, 4b), and it is Shem who ultimately precipitates the victorious seed lineage. 35

Milgrom, 1519. He notes also that the sense of אני מביא אתכם emphasizes the subject, connoting that “God will drive out

the Canaanites only if Israel does not follow their practices” (1520). 36

Hartley, 290. He states “The opening paraenesis… [of Lev. 18:1-5 vivifies] the [curse for transgressing God’s laws so

that] the bond between the people and the land is personified; i.e., indulgence in immoral acts will make the land so sick

that it will vomit out its inhabitants.”


Israelites pertaining to their possession of the land, God then commands them to keep his statutes

and rules. Verses 4 and 5a strongly rephrase a similar point in positive terms. It is clear what

Israel must not do, now YHWH makes clear what they must do, appealing again to his covenant

Lordship (v.4b).37

God’s ways are not merely like those of other nations, they are his מעׂשה מׁשפט

and .carrying greater weight, since YHWH is their God חקת, 38

Hartley offers that the use of הלך

and ׁשמר in the commands to keep YHWH’s rules echoes the Sinitic commandments, and

indicates that the will must be involved to ingrain them in one’s life journey (Gen. 17:1).39

The final verse in our passage proves one of the more difficult to interpret. As noted, v.5a

completes a chiasm with v.4a in which YHWH as covenant God of Israel is once more

emphasized. The following statement, “if a person does [my statutes and rules], he shall live by

them” has perplexed interpreters for ages.40

The connection of covenant holiness and land

possession that we have observed, however, provides a context for this “life”. In the book of

Leviticus chs.1-10 show the way to YHWH through sacrifice (1-7) and priesthood (8-10), which

chs. 11-27 describe as the way to holiness by sanitation (11-16) and sanctification (17-27).41

Covenant unholiness, as we have seen, cannot dwell with YHWH, which spells disaster for the

people. After the Golden Calf incident in Exod. 32, YHWH commands Israel to depart from Sinai

and states he will not accompany them to the land he promised them (33:1-3). If he were to do so,

37

Milgrom notes that v.4a and 5a form a chiasm around the covenantally weighty (1522) אני יהוה אלהיכם. 38

Milgrom, 1521. Wenham observes that “little attempt is made to justify these rules… ‘I am the LORD’ is sufficient

motive for keeping them” (252). These words carry theological tones, in contrast with כמעׂשה, and are decidedly judicial,

referring to both the command and the method of one’s carrying out that command (Peter Enns, “מׁשפט,” in New

International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 2459-5525, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren [Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997], 2:1142-45). 39

293. Also Levine, 119. 40

Various contemporary interpretations include taking commandment keeping to mean that one ought to keep these rules

while one is alive (Levine, 119), that by doing so Israel “will have a secure, healthy life with sufficient goods in the

promised land as God’s people” (Hartley, 293; Wenham, 253), and that doing so is “essential for a viable human society”

for Israel in Canaan (Milgrom, 1522). Some early Jewish interpreters took 18:5 to speak specifically to eternal life (Tg.

Onquelos; Tg. Ps.-J ). Sprinkle examines other early Jewish uses of 18:5, including the Damascus Document, which reads

the verse in light of Ezek. 20 and take life as eternal (68), Words of the Luminaries (5Q504), which is fragmentary and

implies covenantal blessing (85), Psalms of Solomon, which assumes eschatological life (100), Philo’s De Congressu 87-87

and liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, which seems not to inform his theology to a great extent (114, 120-130). 41

Hamilton, 232.


he “would consume them” (v.5) because of their unholiness.42

Moses, calling upon the covenant

relationship, asks the Lord “show me your ways that I may know you in order to find favor in

your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people" (33:13). Here Moses asks to know how

Israel might be holy, so that YHWH’s presence remains with them, and by which they are

distinguished from other peoples and given favor (33:15-16; 34:9-11).

The audience of Lev. 18:1-5 would hear the treaty echoes of the text, knowing their

covenant with YHWH has made them into a distinct nation, called to holiness, in order that they

might dwell with God and God with them, ultimately situated in the land promised to their

forefathers. YHWH’s presence with his people, then, is the life in view in 18:5. The entire

sacrificial system culminates in the driving out of the scapegoat from the camp with the iniquities

of the people laid upon it (Lev. 16:21-22), so that YHWH may dwell with the people and not

consume them (Exod. 33:5). Israel has already broken the covenant commandments (Exod. 32:7),

so that YHWH would be fully just in consuming them (32:9-10), but for his promise to give them

the land (33:13). The “doing” of God’s statutes and rules in v.5, then, is the obedient submission

to YHWH’s commands by which they come to know him and find favor, primarily in the form of

his presence with them in the land, conceived of as life itself.43

Final Canonical (2nd

) Reading:44

Reading the finished canon Christotelically (Lk. 24:44),

we may reflect on how the promise in Leviticus 18:1-5 was fulfilled in Christ, heir to the chosen

lineage of Shem (Lk. 3:23-38) and new head to his people, the church (1 Cor. 15:45; Eph. 5:23).

God graciously entered covenant with Israel to make them into a great nation and to bless others

42

For the same reason, YHWH and Moses meet in the tent outside the unholy camp (Exod. 33:7). 43

As similarly observed by Brensinger, YHWH holds the keys to life and death (Deut. 32:39), thus “the possession of true

life is consistently linked with maintaining covenantal values… Israel has survived previous ordeals and has remained alive

because of obediene to the Lord (4:4). Concerning the present and future, Israel will enter and live in the land where the

people are faithful to YHWH… in short, the words of the law are life to the people (32:47)” (Terry L. Bresinger, “חיה,” in

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 2459-5525, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren [Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997], 2:108-113). 44

The tradition history of our text is significant, clearly influencing later prophetic literature (Ezekiel, for instance),

however space prohibits such a discussion.


through them (Gen. 17:1-4), but his redemptive plan was larger than their own national situation.

Israel was a vehicle of God’s final kingdom, itself an expansion and consummation of God’s

Edenic telos of dwelling immediately with his people. In Galatians 3, Paul says the works of the

law cannot bring eternal life, since no man can live by it (3:10-11; Rom. 3:23). This theological

point is undoubtedly a “surprise” (and relief) in the redemptive plan of God for his people, who

had lived guiltily under the law for so long, no doubt wondering what was the exact quality of

their “life” in the land with YHWH and whether it might ever be obtained.45

In Galatians, Paul

cites Lev. 18:5 to emphasizes that the law is of works; “the one who does them,” an emphasis on

human action, not faith, “will live by them.” The law was a “guardian” until Christ came (Gal.

3:24) and took the curse of the law on our behalf (v.13). The righteous instead live by faith,

receiving the promised Spirit, which allows the blessing of Abraham to come even to the Gentiles

(Gal. 3:14). As a result, we are given True Life in already/not-yet fashion; we are presently

renewed by the Spirit and will dwell in God’s holy presence for eternity in New Jerusalem (Gal.

6:8; Rom. 5:21; Rev. 21).46

Christ, though he kept the law perfectly (Jn. 8:29; Heb. 4:15), was

cast from God’s presence (Mk. 15:34), fulfilling the atoning role of the scapegoat. In undergoing

this suffering, the wrath of God was appeased (Rom. 3:21, 26), and Christ received the promised

life, being raised from the dead and in turn raising those whom the father has given him (Heb.

2:9; Rom. 6:4; Eph. 2:6) to dwell in holy, covenant union eternally (Rev. 21).

Although Lev. 18:1-5 seems simple, upon closer reading exegetical fruit comes to bear,

and connects the passage to crucial scriptural themes. It is only through the unfolding of God’s

plan that the text becomes clearer and, in the end, broader than the nation of Israel. That Christ

45

Sprinkle finds that Paul is arguing against a semi-gracious, synergistic understanding of doing works and gaining life,

germane to the Second Temple context, and instead arguing that the Gospel is fundamentally not about the compatibility of

divine and human action, but is purely grace through faith (203). 46

Sprinkle persuasively defends Paul’s already/not-yet understanding of eschatological life on p. 196, saying “It is this

already/not-yet eschatological life, then, that obedience to the law is unable to attain. Paul disagrees with… Second Temple

Jewish interpreters who, while agreeing that eschatological life is both now and not yet, believe that the law is a necessary

precondition for eschatological life.”


fulfilled the Law is not to downplay its significance, and Christ’s death and resurrection does not

nullify the fact that God’s character is fundamentally holy, and man in covenant rebellion can

never dwell with him unless he is sanctified by keeping his commands perfectly. But thanks be to

God for providing the means by which he has done so on our behalf through Christ.

“I understand and have not violated the seminary’s position on plagiarism.”

William Ross


Bibliography

Alexander, T.D., From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 2nd

ed.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Barton, John, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Louisville, KY: Westminster

John Knox Press, 1996.

Bresinger, Terry L., “חיה,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &

Exegesis, 2459-5525, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, 2:108-113. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

Childs, Brevard, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979.

Dempster, Stephen G., Dominion and Dynasty: A theology of the Hebrew Bible, New Studies in

Biblical Theology, ed. D.A. Carson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Douglas, Mary, Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Enns, Peter, “מׁשפט,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis,

2459-5525, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, 2:1142-45. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1997.

_______, Exodus, The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Hahn, Scott, and Bergsma, John S., “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Gen. 9:20-

27)”, Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 124 no. 1 (Spring 2005): 25-40.

Hamilton, Victor P., Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,

Deuteronomy, 2nd

ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1982.

Harrison, R.K., Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

Press, 1980.

Hartley, John E., Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 4. Dallas, TX: Word Inc., 1992.

Levine, Baruch A., Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the

New JPS Translation. New York, NY: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.


McNamara, Martin, Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus, trans.

Robert Hayward and Michael Maher, ed. Kevin Cathcart and Michael Maher with Martin

McNamara, The Aramaic Bible. Collegeville, MN: the Liturgical Press, 1994. (vol. 3)

Matthews, K.A., “The Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible” The

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 171-207.

McNamara, Martin, The Targum Onquelos to Leviticus and The Targum Onquelos to Numbers,

trans. Bernard Grossfeld, ed. Kevin Cathcart and Michael Maher with Martin McNamara,

The Aramaic Bible. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc, 1988. (vol. 8)

Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16. AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991.

_______, Leviticus 17-22. AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000.

_______, “The Case for the Pre-Exilic and Exilic Provenance of the Books of Exodus, Leviticus

and Numbers.” In Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, edited by

J.G. McConville and Karl Möller, 48-56. London: T&T Clark International, 2007.

_______, “The Desecration of YHWH’s Name: Its Parameters and Significance.” In Birkat

Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism

Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, vol. 1, edited by

Chaim Cohen, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, et al., 69-81. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

2008.

Neusner, Jacob, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction, vol. 1.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002.

Nicholson, E.W., The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Pritchard, James, ed., The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 2011.

Sailhammer, John H., The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, Interpretation.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

_______, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Schenker, Adrian, “What Connects the Incest Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?” In The

Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A.

Kugler, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 93, 162-85. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Silva, Moisés, “Has the Church Misread the Bible? The History of Interpretation in the Light of

Current Issues.” In Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation: Six Volumes in One,

edited by Moisés Silva, 17-102. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Press, 1996.


_______, “Old Princeton, Westminster, and Inerrancy.” In Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A

Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate, edited by Harvie M. Conn, 67-80. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Book House Co., 1988.

Sprinkle, Preston M., Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in

Paul. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Wenham, Gordon J., Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch, Old Testament,

vol. 1. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

_______, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament.

Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

Whybray, R.N., The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, SDOT Sup 53.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.

Williams, Ronald J., Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, revised and expanded by John C. Beckman, 3rd

ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Inc., 2007.

Documents

Exegetical Paper: Leviticus 18:1-5 - · PDF fileExegetical Paper: Leviticus 18:1-5 רמאל הׁמ־לא הוהי רבדיו 1 םכיהלא הוהי ינא םהלא תרמאו לארׂי