The Setting of Leviticus within the Pentateuch

Leviticus is likely one of the least understood and least studied books of the Bible. The foreignness of ritual sacrifice, purity laws, or ancient agrarian life presents such a chasm for the modern reader that there is often little incentive to discern its theological meaning and its relation to the rest of Scripture. This is no modern phenomena. Similar sentiments were expressed by the early church scholar Origen, who argued that a literal reading of the text by “wicked presbyters” would result in a misinterpretation of its figurative meaning for the Christian reader.Footnote ¹ Even Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish rabbi, remained highly critical of the sacrificial system and sympathized with prophetic condemnation of cultic abuses. He argued that sacrifice was only given to Moses as a guide against ancient pagan religious practices but that it was never God’s intent for Israel to participate in sacrificial worship forever.Footnote ² Interpreters over the centuries have struggled to find value or coherence in the priestly writings of Leviticus, which makes it one of the most challenging books in the biblical corpus.

One immediate difficulty that presents itself when considering the theology of Leviticus is discerning how the work sits in relation to the rest of the Pentateuch and whether or not we may describe it as a “book” in its own right. Part of the problem comes from the LXX translation of the title as Levitikon (“Levitical”) and the Latin Liber Leviticus, which both point to the priestly tribe of Levi but obscure the distinction between priests and Levites that is a critical part of the book. The rabbinic Hebrew name tôrat kôhănîm (“teaching of priests”) is just as limited in its focus. The Hebrew Bible identifies the scroll (as it does for each Pentateuchal book) by its first word wayyiqrāʾ (“And he called”) in reference to God calling to Moses from the ʾōhel môʿēd (“tent of meeting”), the newly constructed tabernacle. This setting is critical because Leviticus sits in the middle of the larger Exodus/Sinai narrative and at the center of the Pentateuch.

Though the earliest extant texts of Leviticus attest to its independence as a scroll, its literary character reflects careful integration into the series of salvific events in the exodus that conclude at Mt. Sinai with the design and construction of the tabernacle. On the seventh day, Yhwh called Moses (wayyiqrāʾ) to ascend further up Sinai into the cloud of glory to receive the tablets of the commandments (Exod 24:16).Footnote ³ The same phrase (wayyiqrāʾ) introduces Leviticus when God reveals the laws concerning offerings within the tabernacle (Leviticus 1–7). This time Moses is called to the tent, which had previously been impossible to enter because God’s glory had descended upon it (Exod 40:34–35). The continuation of the theophany at Sinai centers around the newly constructed tabernacle where Yhwh now dwells. Yet God’s calling to Moses from the tent in Lev 1:1 introduces a transition in the story of Israel’s salvation from Egypt. With the divine decent made manifest at the end of Exodus, the theological imperative of Leviticus is to articulate how Israel might maintain their holiness in relation to the holy God who dwells in their midst. From this new reality emerges a theology of holiness that hinges on the critical relationship between Yhwh’s home (the tabernacle) and every Israelite home. The two spaces are inextricably linked in Leviticus because Yhwh’s requirement of holiness is one that extends to every aspect of Israelite life.

The construction of the tabernacle at the conclusion of Exodus points to a new creation, a new Eden, and the beginning of a new people, Israel, who will live and worship in God’s presence. As God ordered the universe in the beginning of Genesis and created his cosmic temple, so too does Moses take on God-like qualities as he brings to completion God’s tabernacle on earth. When God calls to Moses the seventh time (Exod 31:12), the reader is reminded of the seventh day of creation and God’s sabbath command that will sanctify Israel and will be the sign of a perpetual covenant. Finally, on the first day of the first month in the second year of wandering in the wilderness, the tabernacle is completed (Exod 40:16–33). The fullness of Yhwh’s glory descends (Exod 40:34) but there is no mention of offerings or sacrifice. Nothing is said about the consecration of the altar or how Aaron and his sons will serve within. This is where Leviticus begins and where Yhwh’s first words are uttered as a continuation of the instructions already received at Sinai. Now, however, God’s initial commands in Leviticus 1–7 focus on the life of the cult and sacrifice.Footnote ⁴

After the high drama at the end of Exodus, Leviticus may seem somewhat anticlimactic as we read God’s next command, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, when any one of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or from the flock” (Lev 1:1). What may seem to be a boring turn of events in the narrative is, in fact, critical to maintaining the order and holiness of God’s abode. Without ongoing sacrifices, rituals, and purifications, the tabernacle cannot function as a place where the divine intersects with the world and brings blessing to the people. The abiding presence of God with Israel is, to borrow Brueggemann’s phrase, one of its core testimonies that expresses a belief in the visible, tangible experience of God’s glory.Footnote ⁵ This is, in part, why Leviticus stands on its own as an individual book of the Pentateuch – it reveals an entire system of worship that encompasses cultic, ethical, and family matters that teach the Israelites how to live in relationship to God and to their neighbor.Footnote ⁶

If the inauguration of the tabernacle is the decisive narrative and theological link between Exodus and Leviticus, we can begin to understand why there is so much emphasis on sacrifice and purity. We may, however, question why so much detail is necessary since different types of sacrifices and offerings had already been a part of Israelite worship since the time of the patriarchs. Burnt offerings were made by Noah after the flood (Gen 8:20) and by Abraham in the place of his son Isaac (Gen 22:13). Sacrifices to God were known by Moses as he had argued with Pharaoh about not being able to make offerings in Egypt lest they caused an outrage among the Egyptians who would consider it an abomination (Exod 8:25–26; cf. 10:25). The altar laws of Exod 20:24–26 also give instruction for general sacrifices whether on earth mounds or stone. At the base of Mt. Sinai, to ratify the covenant, Moses instructs the young men to help offer two types of sacrifice – the ʿōlâ (“whole burnt offering”) and the šǝlāmîm (“peace offering” or “well-being offering”) (Exod 24:5; cf. 32:6), which are later explained in detail in Leviticus. Following a chronological narrative from Genesis to Exodus, we might question why Leviticus offers further commandments regarding sacrifices.

The rhetorical force of Leviticus is that, with the consecration of God’s holy abode on earth, there is now a need for “specialists” (i.e., priests) within the community to be set apart to make offerings according to God’s specific prescriptions.Footnote ⁷ Only men of certain lineage may be consecrated as priests to draw near to God’s holiness. This is emphasized by the continual refrain in the opening chapters of Leviticus where cultic functions, like the sprinkling of blood, are to be performed only by “Aaron and his sons” (Lev 3:2, 8, 13; 6:16; 10:12; 13:2). Israel’s relation to the tabernacle, and the divine presence within, requires distinct cultic instructions that must be performed by authorized persons alone. These new regulations reform the previous altar laws of the covenant code since they describe the particularity of sacrifice within the tabernacle space with a rhetorical emphasis on the priestly role. The average Israelite was still involved in the sacrifice, but the priest’s role becomes prominent in Leviticus as one who orders and oversees cultic life in and around the tabernacle. The result is an elevated theology of priesthood that maintains a high regard for lay participation and knowledge of the cult.

Leviticus, it will be argued, does not restrict the priesthood to a single, central shrine but implicitly allows for sacrifices to take place at multiple sites. What remains critical for the theology of Leviticus is not where sacrifices take place but that they take place at an authorized altar by an authorized priest according to God’s prescriptions.Footnote ⁸ Leviticus is not concerned with a centralized shrine but, rather, it emphasizes the sanctity and holiness of the priesthood that serves the community within the presence of God’s holy altar.

Leviticus is not, however, simply a manual for priests that is shrouded in mystery like some gnostic, esoteric text reserved for the elite who lived behind temple walls. Its instructions are made known to the people of Israel who, in turn, can hold the priests accountable for their actions. Though strict divisions made between layperson and priest seem to promote a social hierarchy, these divisions serve, instead, to demystify the cult and level out social relationships so that the prevailing call to holiness is incumbent on all of God’s people (cf. Lev 19:2). As Brueggemann argues, “This may suggest that the extended inventory of sacrifices and related materials in the book of Leviticus is to be understood not as a manual for practice, but as a liturgical, aesthetic act of imagination of what the world of Israel is like when it is known to be focused upon glad responses in obedience and sacrifice to YHWH.”Footnote ⁹ Leviticus, therefore, seeks to order the cult as it consolidates, secures, and standardizes sacred traditions around ritual and sacrifice, but it does so by presenting (and sometimes explaining) how it functions so that religious power is not held by a select few.

The narrative connection between Exodus and Leviticus is critical in understanding the shift in focus from God’s power revealed in the deliverance from Egypt to the power of his holiness revealed at Sinai, which is then made manifest in the tabernacle. Yhwh’s home on earth is a sign of salvation, new creation, and the promise of his abiding presence with his people. His glory fills the tent at the end of Exodus, but its function is not complete until the altar is consecrated and atonement becomes possible through the priests. Though the narrative links to Exodus are clear, the book of Leviticus stands on its own as a priestly and prophetic book. Sacrifice, atonement, and how Israel can live as a holy people are at the heart of its kerygma, which offers a holistic theology through both ritual and ethical practice.

The emergence of such a “book” in Israel stems from ancient cultic traditions and liturgical rites that were collated, refined, edited, and passed on from generation to generation. Layers of tradition will be discernible in the text that may reflect different time periods or the theological interests and concerns of the authors, but the goal of the present study is to determine how these different theological strands come together to form the theology of the Book of Leviticus in its final form. Leviticus puts forward its own vision for Israel’s calling as a priestly kingdom that reflects an overarching concern for the holiness of God and how that is reflected in the holiness of God’s people.

A Theology of Holiness

At the heart of the theology of the Book of Leviticus is holiness. Holiness resonates throughout each chapter and culminates in the all-encompassing command, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2). Holiness is to permeate every aspect of Israelite life whether it is offering a sacrifice, eating a meal, tending to the land or animals, having sex, or loving one’s neighbor. The priestly world is defined by the sacred and the glory of God’s permanent presence abiding with his people. William Blake once wrote, “everything that lives is holy,”Footnote ¹⁰ which expresses well the sentiment of Leviticus. Every aspect of life is holy because all things live in relation to the holy God of Israel who now dwells on earth. The emphasis on holiness is not, as P. R. Davies suggests, a type of “neurosis” to which all life is reduced as if it is merely the result of social, political, or economic forces.Footnote ¹¹ Instead, holiness offers a vision for a world in which the divine presence is fully manifest in the tabernacle that sanctifies Israel and the land.

The biblical idea of holiness is difficult to grasp because it relates to the numinous, wholly otherness of God.Footnote ¹² Only God is holy and people or objects become holy by being set apart to him. The Hebrew root q-d-š generally means to set apart for holy purposes. When used in the pîēl verbal stem, it means “sanctify, make holy,” which refers to something that is transferred from the profane into God’s presence. This can relate to time (sabbath, festivals), to people (priests), or to offerings on the altar. For something to be set apart as holy means that it has been dedicated to God and thereby acquires a degree of God’s holiness.

To become holy something must first be taken from the ordinary or profane. In English, the word “profane” often takes on negative moral connotations today, but it derives from the Latin pro (“before, outside”) fanum (“temple”). The term originally referred to anything that dealt with matters of life and work outside the temple.Footnote ¹³ In biblical Hebrew, the verbal root for “profane” (ḥ-l-l) describes something that is no longer suitable to come into God’s presence or that has been defiled. This more negative nuance, however, should not be confused with a permanent state of contamination. Instead, Leviticus understands that the consecration of life is an ongoing process. People and things can move toward Yhwh’s holiness or they can become defiled and move away from his holiness. For most things, the state of uncleanness in the profane world is temporary and can be remedied. As Baruch Levine argues, “The gulf between the sacred and the profane was not meant to be permanent. The command to achieve holiness, to become holy, envisions a time when life would be consecrated in its fullness and when all nations would worship God in holiness.”Footnote ¹⁴ Though Leviticus is concerned with separation and division between the sacred and the profane, the end goal is for God’s holiness to flow from his dwelling place to his people and to the world.

The theology of holiness in Leviticus is multilayered and is concerned with both ethical obedience to God’s commands as well as cultic obedience expressed through ritual. Holiness in Leviticus is not presented as a set of propositional truths about God, but it is conveyed through signs, symbols, rituals, and actions that convey the drama of participating in God’s salvation. To understand this drama, one must look to the culture and worldview that undergirds each ritual act in order to determine its meaning.Footnote ¹⁵ Clifford Geertz argues that “any religious ritual, no matter how apparently automatic or conventional … involves this symbolic fusion of ethos and world view.”Footnote ¹⁶ The dialectic nature between thought and action is critical in the study of Leviticus because its theology is expressed through word, symbol, and ritual performance. This can be a challenge for modern readers due to the fact that the rituals of Leviticus stem from an ancient agrarian culture where life consisted largely of subsistence farming and religious beliefs that centered around blood sacrifice. This is a far cry from religious practice in the contemporary world. Yet to understand the depth and breadth of Leviticus’ theology, the reader is required to move beyond purely rational approaches to the Bible and to open their imaginations to the signs and symbols of an ancient world to determine how these might convey theological belief.Footnote ¹⁷

To interpret ritual is to understand how the body is actively engaged in worship as an act of world shaping and world creating. Catherine Bell argues that “acting ritually emerges as a particular cultural strategy of differentiation linked to particular social effects and rooted in a distinctive interplay of a socialized body and the environment it structures.”Footnote ¹⁸ Rituals are not merely static, repetitive acts but, rather, they help construct social and religious relationships of power. In Leviticus, this encompasses both the human authority of Moses and the priests within the Israelite camp but also the divine authority of Yhwh. Leviticus centralizes the locus of divine power in the tabernacle, which is the physical representation and sign of the reordering of the world. The hierarchy of priests and laypeople establishes a social structure that allows Israel to move from the threat of chaos produced by sin to the order and stability of God’s creation. The social and religious power dynamics advocated in Leviticus are ultimately for the sake of preserving the holiness of God’s people and thus preserving the holiness and life of the world.

Rituals also link communities to the rhythms of the environment. Harvest, summer rains, sowing seed, and care for the land are tied to festivals and life around the altar. Samuel Balentine contends that the “priestly conviction is that God’s creational order is generative of and sustained by human observance of an imaging ritual order.”Footnote ¹⁹ To be attuned to the natural rhythms of the world is one way that Leviticus expresses a theology of holiness. The seasons draw the community back to the story of salvation year after year, which leads to the right ordering of God’s people and protects them from the forces of chaos and death.

A theology of holiness in Leviticus, however, is not limited to ritual acts. The priestly text that guides the reader through blood, atonement, and purification also contains moral and ethical commands for social justice and the preservation of the family and the land. Leviticus is as much a prophetic text that condemns the mistreatment of the poor and vulnerable in society as it is a cultic text.Footnote ²⁰ For Israel to be a holy people they must strive for ritual and ethical purity. At the core of such belief is the idea that holiness is a corporate undertaking that can never be achieved by the individual alone. To be holy necessarily means to be in community and in loving relationships characterized by God’s justice, righteousness, and goodness. Israel’s call to holiness can only be achieved through its communal response to God’s command.Footnote ²¹

Leviticus also highlights the critical connection between the holiness of Yhwh’s home and the holiness of the Israelite home. The two are inextricably tethered because the tabernacle’s purity is linked to the purity of Israel’s most intimate family relationships. With the advent of the divine descent, God tells Israel, “I will place my dwelling in your midst, and I shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people” (Lev 26:11–12). The language of walking among the Israelites recalls Eden (Gen 3:8) and foresees a time of re-creation, re-birth, and the reclaiming of God’s rightful place as king over all the earth. The humble dwelling of a tent in the wilderness has cosmic implications and represents the order of the divine kingdom being re-established on earth through God’s holy presence, which is to be mirrored in every Israelite home.

The most basic social structure in ancient Israel begins in the home and extends to the clan and tribe. Leviticus makes no mention of a king, a royal court, or those of privileged position apart from the “elders” or “chieftains” (Lev 4:15, 22; 9:1; 19:32). Instead, we find what is often referred to as a “democratization of holiness.”Footnote ²² Though there are distinctions between the priests and laypeople, all of God’s covenant community is called to the imitatio Dei without exception (Lev 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:26). Thus, every Israelite family is meant to reflect the purity and holiness of the tabernacle, which means that everyday things like eating, drinking, farming, sexual relations, and familial relationships are all tied to God’s home. If God’s home represents a microcosm of the cosmic temple where his purity and holiness dwell, then every Israelite home must imitate this same purity and holiness.

One of the significant and unique contributions of Leviticus’ theology in the scriptures is its understanding of holy space and time. We shall discuss holiness in more detail later, but it is important to grasp the critical links that are made throughout the book between purity in the space of Israel’s tent and how that is directly connected to Yhwh’s tent. Holiness in Leviticus is not simply about the divine presence in the shrine where the deity resides, as it was for many other ancient religions. Instead, holiness in Leviticus is something so pervasive that it extends to the home and to the land to the extent that if any of those places are defiled it affects God’s dwelling. Such an emphasis on purity and holiness presents a theological vision of a sacralized world where Yhwh is actively consecrating his people and the land through his glory and abiding presence. To read Leviticus through this theological lens is to see how and why its arrangement moves from purity in the tabernacle (chapters 1–16) to purity in the covenant community (chapters 17–27). What has traditionally been seen as a division in authorship of the book is the natural theological flow for instructions on how to live in Yhwh’s presence and in his consecrated land. The unity of holiness between tabernacle, home, and land is key to understanding how Leviticus represents its vision for a world where God is reconsecrating his people and his kingdom on earth.

A theology of holiness in the home in Leviticus also expresses a theology of power. God’s divine power in the tabernacle can provide blessing or it can be a force that brings death. Oftentimes, the instructions given to Moses or the priests are made with the proviso that the priests act accordingly or else they will die (Lev 10:7, 9; 16:2, 13). What is true in the tabernacle is also true of the Israelite home. Most of the commands concerning the household have as their assumed audience the male head of household (paterfamilias) with the understanding that his actions can bring about the life or potential destruction of the family. The ritual sacrifices found in Leviticus 1–16 often have the paterfamilias as the presumed offerer. The more ethical focus of Leviticus 17–27 is also directed at the male head of household especially in the chapters on sexual purity (Leviticus 18 and 20). Issues concerning land management, ethical treatment of slaves or sojourners, enforcement of sabbath rest for family and livestock, and treatment of one’s neighbor are almost all aimed first at the male head of the household. This is not to diminish the critical role of the matriarch or women in the family, but the commands of Leviticus presume a theology of home under the primary authority of the patriarch who, like the priests, must be obedient to God’s commands for holiness to prevail in the household.

When considering a theology of holiness in Leviticus, the contemporary reader must be willing to suspend prejudices and attempt to enter into the sacred world of its authors. In Leviticus, all of life is wrapped in a beautiful web of holiness and all of life must be consecrated as holy if it is to remain in unity with the God who is wholly other. The epicenter of holiness lies in the heart of God’s home, the tabernacle, but it does not end there. Reflections of his glory are meant to be found in the homes of his covenant people as they set themselves apart from the world so that God’s holiness might be made manifest to all nations. Though Leviticus may seem preoccupied with the minutiae of sacrifice or the appropriate divisions between the pure and impure, it is only because it sees the possibility of a world that is fully healed, restored, and consecrated to the God whose holiness will fill all the earth.

Critical Scholarship and Leviticus

Since the nineteenth century, Pentateuchal scholarship has focused mainly on the sources behind the Torah and how it was brought together in its final form. Julius Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis (DH) argued for four distinct sources (J, E, P, and D) that made up the Mosaic Pentateuch. The latest of these, dated to the fifth century bce, was the priestly source (Priesterschrift or P), which includes the law code of Leviticus 17–26 (Holiness Code or H) that emphasized the centrality of the Jerusalem temple.Footnote ²³ Wellhausen traced the development of Israelite religion and argued that it moved from a simple, free form of worship to an increasingly legalistic and ritually focused practice established by the priestly classes. Unfortunately, Wellhausen’s negative characterization of priestly influence reflected sentiments of his own Protestant cultural milieu. Since Wellhausen, some scholars such as Yehezkel Kaufmann have argued for the antiquity of P and its pre-dating of Deuteronomy (D),Footnote ²⁴ but many have held to the position that P is the latest document of the Pentateuch and is responsible for its final formation.Footnote ²⁵

More recent approaches have called into question the DH and the idea of a specific priestly source. Some have argued that the growth of Leviticus and the Pentateuch can be understood as a more organic transmission over time whereby narratives, laws, poems, and other forms of literature were gradually brought together in different generations that reflected their own use and understanding of the Mosaic tradition.Footnote ²⁶ If this was the case, then we may speak more generally about “priestly writings” in the Pentateuch rather than a “Priestly Source” or even a “Holiness Code.”Footnote ²⁷

Despite the preference of scholarship to dissect the Pentateuch into its constituent parts, the literary unity of Leviticus has been defended by anthropologist Mary Douglas in her work Leviticus as Literature. She argues for a tripartite ring structure in the book, which reflects the tripartite structure of the tabernacle. Douglas sees the division between P and H as an artificial scholarly construction that does not take into account the thematic unity and structure of the priestly writers. She contends that the alleged split between P and H more likely reflects Christian theological preferences imposed on the text. P is characterized as the pedantic priest incessantly worried about the precision of ritual while H is the good liberal concerned with social issues and the treatment of the poor. She argues, however, that “according to the anthropological analysis, the differences between the two halves of Leviticus do not quite follow these lines. Both halves of the book use analogies in the same way, and neither demonstrates ‘causal’, ‘logical’, ‘discursive’, or ‘dialogic’ reasoning.”Footnote ²⁸ Her analysis leads to the conclusion that Leviticus was likely authored by someone bringing together a variety of sources from different periods in a distinctly mytho-poetic style that varies throughout the composition but remains unified in its structure.Footnote ²⁹

Though some have agreed with Douglas’ work, ever since August Klostermann’s use of the phrase “Holiness Code,” most scholars have continued to divide the book into two main sections to differentiate between the P legislation found in Leviticus 1–16 and the H writings in 17–26 (27).Footnote ³⁰ The holiness writings are thought to be a later (priestly) development, possibly composed as early as the eighth century bce or as late as fifth century bce. They demonstrate a thematic unity summed up in the command, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2). The call to be holy is often repeated throughout H (cf. 20:7–8; 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32) but can also be found in other redactions such as within the dietary restrictions of Lev 11:44–45.

There is extensive debate about the nature and scope of H in Leviticus and the rest of the Pentateuch.Footnote ³¹ Scholars such as Jacob Milgrom and Israel Knohl have argued that H is a redactional layer that is distinct from P. Knohl contends that a “Holiness School” was responsible for the final editing of the Pentateuch, while Milgrom prefers the term “Holiness Source.” Both argue that H was influenced by Isaiah’s call to social justice and ethical holiness. Though Knohl highlights linguistic differences between what he calls the “Priestly Torah” and the “Holiness School,” his interpretation of these differences is often reductionistic.Footnote ³² He tends to depict the priests as an elite circle isolated within the walls of the Jerusalem temple concerned only with esoteric cultic matters. He sees them as a religious class who care little for ethical behavior and are obsessed with maintaining the purity of the temple.Footnote ³³ While those from the “Holiness School” appeal to ethical holiness and the popular religion of the people. Such a bifurcation of Leviticus is unnecessary, and we shall see that the connections made between Yhwh’s home and Israel’s home provide a natural link between chapters 1–16 and 17–27 and for the overarching vision of holiness offered by the authors.

It is clear that Leviticus contains various layers of tradition that express different themes and motifs, but this does not mean that we cannot speak about a theology that emerges from the book as a whole.Footnote ³⁴ Knohl rightly argues that one should not speak casually of “the priestly theology” in view of the different traditions that have been collected in the Pentateuch. We can, however, examine Leviticus in its final form as an expression of priestly theology that is multivalent since it speaks with resonances of Israelite religion that have grown throughout centuries of worship and obedience to the Mosaic laws. Rather than separating P and H, they will be analyzed synchronically since both earlier and later priestly traditions have been joined together in Leviticus to form a distinct theological voice.Footnote ³⁵

Another issue that critical scholarship has addressed is the dating of Leviticus’ final form. Since Wellhausen, P has been viewed as the product of postexilic authors writing during the Persian period. This would account for similarities between P and the more elaborate cultic descriptions found in Chronicles as well as the lack of any reference to a king. However, more recent proposals from Knohl and Milgrom have argued for an eighth-century bce provenance sometime during the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah following the Assyrian destruction of the northern tribes.Footnote ³⁶ Allowing for various layers of redaction, this view generally argues for the antiquity of P and its cultic traditions, which have been modified and updated by H to form the Book of Leviticus.

Historical background is important in understanding why certain beliefs emerged in Israelite religion at particular times and these will be addressed in the following chapters. Theology in the Old Testament is not a matter of timeless truths created in a religious vacuum. The beliefs of ancient Israel stem from traditions that were passed down in both oral and written form. These were ultimately integrated, composed, and redacted into the Book of Leviticus. The focus of the present volume, however, demands one avoid being overly dependent on compositional debates. Attempts to date different layers of priestly tradition are fraught with difficulties. One often finds the scholarly assumption that any variation within the text points to different authorship or distinct documents that once circulated independently of one another. These presuppositions, at times, make for circular arguments that cannot be sustained. This makes it almost impossible to come to any firm conclusions regarding the date and final composition of Leviticus.Footnote ³⁷ Though arguments for preexilic or postexilic authorship have their merits, this work will assume, with Milgrom and Knohl, that the antiquity of Israel’s cultic traditions were standardized by later priestly authors around the eighth or seventh century bce but thereafter went through later redactions.Footnote ³⁸ This periodization will be defended as different theological points are discussed. In the present volume, however, the concern will be to examine Leviticus through a synchronic approach that seeks to discover how the final form of the text articulates its theological vision.

Leviticus, Decentralization, and the Israelite Home

One of the key theological themes that emerges from Leviticus is the significance of sacrifice at an authorized shrine by the hands of authorized priests. This has often been interpreted as Leviticus’ support for a centralized sanctuary, but we shall see that this is not necessarily the case. The theology of Leviticus actually promotes a decentralized form of worship where the standardization of priestly practice allows for regional, authorized shrines to be active in the everyday life and worship of Israelite communities. Just as cultic restrictions around the altar are standardized, so too does Leviticus advocate a standardization that shapes the life of the laity through purity laws, festivals, ethical behavior in the home, and work on the land. Leviticus offers a holistic pattern for life and worship both in the home and in the tabernacle.

Wellhausen argued that cult centralization was originally the result of Deuteronomic reforms under Josiah. According to his dating of P (and H) as postexilic, he contended that cultic texts in Leviticus represented continued support for a single, centralized sanctuary that was initiated under D.Footnote ³⁹ Scholarship since then has continued to support and build on this theory, but there have been dissenting voices. Kaufmann argued that the priestly material predates Deuteronomy and that centralization was not a concern of Leviticus since multiple sanctuaries had existed in Israel throughout its history in the land and well into the postexilic period.Footnote ⁴⁰ He saw no literary connection between P and D concerning the centralization of a worship site and argued, instead, that the portability of the shrine points to a time of worship that best reflects the earliest phases of ancient Israel’s history in the land.Footnote ⁴¹ Kaufmann also argued that the language and laws of Leviticus better reflect a preexilic rather than postexilic period and that Leviticus shared more similarities with second millennium bce Mesopotamian traditions than it did with postexilic Persian documents. In support of this, E. A. Speiser also argued that the priestly laws came together over a lengthy period of time and contain both earlier and later material but were not reliant on D and did not push for centralization.Footnote ⁴²

Milgrom departs slightly from Kaufmann by arguing that P probably intended the tabernacle to support limited centralization at a regional sanctuary (possibly Shiloh) but that the priestly authors accepted the existence and legitimacy of other regional sanctuaries.Footnote ⁴³ Milgrom highlights early Israelite histories that focus on different offerings being made at Shiloh in pre-monarchic times and the fact that this is the first site where the tabernacle resides when entering the land (Josh 18:1). This tradition finds confirmation in the independent text of 2 Sam 7:6–7 (1 Chr 17:5–6).

Early narratives of life in the land depict both the use of local altars and common slaughter as well as a regional shrine where households would visit for annual pilgrimages (1 Sam 1:3; 2:19) or festivals (Judg 21:19). Shiloh seems to have been the regional center primarily for the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, but other sites of worship are mentioned such as Mizpah (Judg 11:11; 20:1; 21:5, 8; 1 Sam 7:5–6) and Bethel (Judg 20:18, 23, 26, 27). Milgrom concludes that neither P nor H advocates the centralization of worship but that H innovates cultic tradition by banning all common slaughter that originates prior to the centralization of Josiah.Footnote ⁴⁴ Pitkänen comes to a similar conclusion in his analysis of the Priestly source and writes, “in many ways the Priestly material argues for a central sanctuary as an ideal in the strongest possible way, but more or less tacitly allows other options as well.”Footnote ⁴⁵

Further examination of the evidence in Leviticus is in order, but Lev 26:31 stands out as one text that acknowledges multiple sites of worship. Yhwh warns the Israelites that he will lay waste to their cities and their “sanctuaries.” The use of the plural here, and in v. 31b referring to “pleasing odors,” indicates that multiple sites of worship were employed throughout the land.Footnote ⁴⁶ Gerstenberger, however, rightly points out the polemical context of Lev 26:30–31 and argues that the parallel reference to the destruction of “your high places” in v. 30 strongly suggests that this condemns the use of local sanctuaries.Footnote ⁴⁷ Yet Gerstenberger also acknowledges that the plural “sanctuaries” is used in Lev 21:23 (in a non-polemical context) and concedes that there may have been a multiplicity of sanctuaries in use (cf. Jer 51:51; Ezek 7:24; 21:2; Amos 7:9).

Other scholars have supported a theology of decentralization in Leviticus. Benjamin Sommer argues that the priestly concept of divine presence favors an alternative to that of a centralized sanctuary. Sommer contends that the “locomotive” notion of God’s abode is critical to understanding how the divine presence can move with the covenant community.Footnote ⁴⁸ Sacred space can exist anywhere God chooses to abide and thus the divine presence is not limited to a central temple. With the mobility of the tabernacle, Israel is instead taught that a single cultic site could be established at multiple places within tribal territory where the peripheries are only determined by the boundaries of the allotted land.Footnote ⁴⁹

In a similar manner, Douglas argues that the tabernacle is concerned with “virtual space” and “virtual time” where the primary importance is not on how often the shrine is re-created but that its construction is done according to the one standard revealed in the wilderness.Footnote ⁵⁰ The tabernacle is the physical sign that becomes representative of the theophany at Sinai. The proportions of the tabernacle given in Exodus mirror the divisions of God’s cosmic tabernacle and the gradations of holiness revealed at Sinai. “In this sense, the tabernacle is spiritualized, like the celestial Jerusalem and the celestial Israel. Leviticus does not need to legislate for secular slaughter because it expects multiple sanctuaries throughout the land, [based] on the one sanctified design of the desert tabernacle, Mount Sinai, and the body.”Footnote ⁵¹

Indeed, the “spiritualization” of the tabernacle is also witnessed through the idealized setting in which its construction takes place. Exodus 35 presents the extreme generosity of the Israelites in their giving toward the materials for God’s home. The ideal tabernacle is one that comes into existence through communal participation out of gratitude for Yhwh’s salvation, which brings forth creativity and unity among the people. The construction of the shrine becomes a metaphor for Israel’s grateful worship as a whole community where each one contributes to the site where Yhwh will be worshipped. It is possible that this model was repeated in tribal settlements with the construction of shrines at Shiloh, Bethel, or Ramah where Samuel constructed an altar to Yhwh (1 Sam 7:17).

More recent approaches to Leviticus have offered a more nuanced approach to the notion of centralization. Julia Rhyder argues that centralization should be understood through the various means of social organization that structure power and authority in a concentrated manner. Centralization is, therefore, dependent not only on physical place but also on how social or religious structures are set up within certain spaces to create hierarchies and institutions. The standardization of the cult is a way for Leviticus to centralize the social and religious authority of the priesthood.Footnote ⁵² Thus Leviticus 17–26, and the stipulations for holiness, become a means for the temple/priests to control Israelite behavior both in cultic matters and in all aspects of life including family, festivals, agriculture, and other socioeconomic relationships. Rhyder goes on to argue that “the nexus between centralization and standardization that is strongly developed in H, as well as in the earlier P materials, serves as a device for developing norms and scripts that regulate behavior in order to silence local discretion in favor of conformity with centralized authority.”Footnote ⁵³

One difficulty with Rhyder’s argument is that she closely associates the concept of “centralization” with “standardization,” which seems to confuse the force behind the priestly legislation of Leviticus. It is apparent that the standardization of cultic traditions can connote the power of a central authority, but this does not necessitate the silencing of local discretion. As detailed as Leviticus is about cultic and ethical matters, it is not exhaustive and leaves many issues around life and worship unaddressed. Questions such as where animals were slaughtered, what type of wood could be used for the altar, or what type wine could be offered were all debated later by the rabbis because Leviticus did not provide such details. What is important for Leviticus is not merely the regulating of practice but a standardization that produces or elicits a theological orthodoxy among tribes and clans.

Restricting sacrifices to an authorized altar was not for the sake of institutional power but, rather, it was to prohibit the Israelites from participating in pagan or chthonic worship (Lev 17:7).Footnote ⁵⁴ The theological imperative found in Leviticus is not one interested in creating social power structures; instead, it is a call to cultic and moral holiness for all Israelites that eschews the religious practices of the Canaanites. Rather than an authoritarian class of priests seeking to establish centralized power through standardization, Leviticus depicts Aaron and his sons as being called to the dangerous role of serving in the tabernacle that is instituted to maintain Israel’s ongoing relationship with a holy God. Leviticus presents the cultic commands not as a means of power to silence and control the laity but, rather, they are given so that Israel might have a perpetual mediator through the lineage of Aaron that will offer a continuity in the covenant for future generations.

What we might consider innovative in Leviticus are the links created between the sanctity of God’s home which is to be mirrored in the purity of the Israelite home. Leviticus does not advocate for a socioreligious system based on institutional power, but it demonstrates a desire for orthodoxy and orthopraxy within the tabernacle and within Israelite homes and communities. The imperative for holiness in Leviticus is one that emerges from a theological motivation that creatively tethers the tents of Israel to the tent of Yhwh.

What is of primary concern in Leviticus is not the centrality of a single sanctuary but the decentralizing of worship through the authorization of particular spaces and of a particular people to operate within and around those spaces. The altar and the surrounding shrine must be maintained according to the priests, while the Israelite home is maintained by the head of the household. In this way, Leviticus upholds some of the earliest traditions in the land where several authorized shrines existed throughout the Israelite territories, but it also reiterates and intensifies the call to holiness among the laity. James Watts is correct to argue that the rhetoric of Leviticus is about establishing the authority of the Aaronide priesthood and the sanctuary, but this need not be portrayed as a mere power grab or a desire for a single sanctuary.Footnote ⁵⁵ Instead, cultic authorization stems from the desire to ban ancestral worship or other rites associated with the “high places” (bāmôt) or open-air altars where Israelites often offered their sacrifices. In an effort to curtail such practices, Leviticus presents a theology of holiness that mandates the purity of every Israelite home as it relates to the only authorized place of sacrifice, Yhwh’s home.

Conclusion

The final form of Leviticus within the canon represents fragments of cultic and ethical traditions that stretch back to the earliest history of Israel. These traditions were brought together by the priestly authors and shaped into a standardized model for Israel’s cultic practice even in cases where those practices may appear contradictory. The authors of Leviticus appear to be concerned with maintaining the Mosaic cultic tradition to preserve the right practice of worship in Israel. Yet with cultic legislation found in both Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, we might ask why a biblical book on ritual, ethical obedience, and a call to holiness was written in the first place? Standardization of practice in religion is a powerful tool to bring about a catholicity in worship and doctrine. Whether this occurred after the fall of the northern tribes to the Assyrians or the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, Leviticus provides a comprehensive overview both of Israel’s cultic practice and their moral calling as God’s holy people. The original audience may have been eighth-century Israelite refugees or fifth-century Judeans. Whoever it was, Leviticus presents a way for faithful communities in Jerusalem and beyond to live in devotion and obedience to Yhwh through authorized sacrifice, moral and ethical living, yearly festivals, and care for the land.

The theology of the Book of Leviticus is concerned with the whole covenant community. Though the priests are set apart for specific duties in the tabernacle, they remain intimately bound to all the tribes of Israel. They are not a magical, arcane class of professionals. Their duties are composed in written form which is read to the whole of Israel (Neh 8:1–3) for their understanding. By preserving and conveying the Mosaic traditions this way, Leviticus establishes a priestly authority that can be held to account by the whole community. The divisions between priest and lay person in Leviticus is less about hierarchy and more about idealized service within the covenant community that results in God’s blessing upon his whole people.

Though Leviticus is often referred to as “law,” it may be better to think of it in terms of Mosaic tôrāh, or “teaching.” The term “law” in contemporary settings can often be associated only with legal restrictions that are instituted for the good of society. Though Leviticus does contain such laws, many of its instructions, both cultic and ethical, seek to offer a way for how Israel can live in purity and holiness in the presence of a holy God. Moses’ teachings present a vision for a people of faith who live in social and economic harmony, who care for the land, and who maintain the purity of God’s home through the mediation of the priests. Leviticus presents a people whose homes reflect the holiness of God’s home and whose lives reflect Yhwh’s justice, compassion, and mercy.

There are compelling reasons to study Leviticus and its theology in a post-Enlightenment culture that often substitutes rationality for religious experience. David Brown argues that we have lost the “enchantment of place” in our modern context and that current thinking suggests that once we can explain religious phenomena there is no further need to address related religious questions.Footnote ⁵⁶ When life is reduced to a series of propositional truths and empirical evidence, we are in danger of stripping away mystery and how we perceive the divine presence in the world. Leviticus reminds us that a holy God has come to dwell on earth and that he has called his people to live as the expression of his holiness. This holiness is one that is conveyed through symbol, ritual, seasonal festivals, and ethical behavior. It is a holiness that reminds Israel of the sacredness of all life. As Walter Brueggemann writes, “The holiness of God is urgent in the face of profanation, which empties life of larger passion and dignity. The holiness of God is urgent in the face of pervasive brutality, which trivializes God’s purpose and abuses God’s world. The holiness of God is urgent in the face of growing authority of technique, which diminishes mystery that keeps life open.”Footnote ⁵⁷ Leviticus invites its readers into a sacred world where the God of Israel is present, where his glory emanates from his tabernacle, and where his people might draw near to him as they tread on holy ground.