Some sins defile the sanctuary - the kinds of ritual sins we met in Lev 1-15, along with impurities - but some sins, like those in this chapter, defile the land itself. And while you can purify the sanctuary…not so much the land.
There’s only one way for the land to be cleansed: the removal of the people whose behavior has defiled it. (And, crucially, defiled the people themselves, too - unlike what we saw in Lev 1-15.) That’s the land “spewing out” its inhabitants.
That’s what H says happened to the previous inhabitants, the Canaanites, who acted in all these abhorrent ways. (But we know that they actually didn’t, right? It’s just a nasty polemic.)
What we have here is a new threat, one that the original P text didn’t have in mind. For P, the threat was YHWH leaving the sanctuary. For H, it’s exile.
Nota bene: texts that threaten exile aren’t necessarily written in an exilic or post-exilic context. Exile was a threat long before the Babylonians. All someone in Judah needed to do was look north to recognize what the worst outcome would look like.
But what we may see here is a sense that the purely ritual concerns and dangers presented by P were insufficient to reflect the potential geopolitical realities. Exile was happening - but P makes no allowance for it. H does - not by disagreeing with P, but by expanding on it.
As we see all over the Bible - particularly in the prophets - new realities on the ground require new theologies. That’s not a failing, either then or now. It’s the standard way that texts written in one context are updated and interpreted for a new one. We do the same.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination.
How should we understand this verse? What does it mean that the Bible seems to prohibit male homosexual intercourse?
Let me start simply: it says what it says. It does prohibit it.
Do I like it? Of course not. But I don’t like plenty of what’s in the Bible. And neither do you - I don’t care what religion or tradition you claim. So we can begin there. Everyone picks and chooses, and everyone has always picked and chosen. Even in the Bible itself.
So holding this verse up and saying homosexuality is wrong is silly, unless you’re also in favor of slavery, or stoning disobedient children, or, I don’t know, keeping kosher. Especially, obviously, if you declare all the laws to have been voided by the coming of Jesus.
Did the biblical authors believe in the following: divine beings aside from YHWH? various demons and other supernatural beings? spaces not controlled by YHWH? dumping grounds for sins where they wouldn’t bother anyone?
Yes to all.
When we get hung up on the identity of Azazel, we miss the point (in this case, what’s actually happening in the ritual). Was Azazel a goat demon? Maybe! Probably, even. Is the identity of Azazel important here? Not so much, actually.
The question should be: if Aaron has just purified the sanctuary with the purification offerings, even brought inside the inner sanctum, all the way to YHWH’s seat, then what sins are left for hm to be placing on this goat?
Same blood from the same animals, the purification sacrifices. Just moving from the inner sanctum to the outer altar, because we all know you have to start sweeping from the inside and work your way out.
Here again we get really clear useful language about what this sacrifice does, here and everywhere: it cleans and purifies the altar, and the sanctuary, from the impurities of Israel. In none of this is any person being purified, or cleaned, or even forgiven. It’s the sanctuary.
To this point, a good deal of this ritual is relatively familiar: that is, it’s closest in form to the sacrificial procedure we saw back in Leviticus 9, where the Tabernacle was inaugurated. This isn’t surprising: what’s happening here is what I’ve called a ritual reset.
So there you are, about to make dinner, and you pull out your nice clay cooking pot, and horror! There’s a dead mouse inside! Truly, even today I’d have trouble ever using that pot again. Just chuck it and get a new one.
This section is about the impurity caused by dead mice (and equivalent small animals). This isn’t about anything you’d eat - but nor is it really about some inherent ickiness to these animals (icky though you may find them).
These get a special section because they appear in a different area of life. No one has ever found a dead camel in their soup bowl. You don’t run across the horse that just happened to crawl into your oven and die there. Dead mice and lizards, though? All the damn time. Still!
The laws of Leviticus 11 aren’t only, or even mostly, about what you can eat. Here we turn our attention to what animals create impurity, and how to remove it. And understanding impurity is central to understanding P.
So let’s start with what creates it. In this case, it’s physically touching the carcasses of certain non-kosher animals. But it isn’t their non-kosher-ness that makes them transmit impurity, since kosher carcasses do too (see 11:39). We’re just starting with these.
The animals at stake here are the large land animals that aren’t kosher, but that an Israelite might be likely to touch the carcass of. That is, mostly, domestic animals: donkeys, camels, dogs, cats. Because they’re common, touching them while alive is totally fine.
The “sin” offering. But we’re not calling it that.
We know the malady: unintentional sin. Now we get the treatment. It comes in four flavors, but the underlying procedure and concept is the same. And it’s absolutely crucial to understanding P’s system.
I’m going to start with flavor 4: the normal person who commits an unintentional sin. Since, after all, most of us are normal people. And so were most of the Israelites, too. (Kingdom of priests my ass.)
First things first, you have to know you screwed up. Did you unwittingly violate the sabbath? The moment that you realize what day it is, you’re obligated. Or the moment someone yells out the window “Dude, it’s Saturday!” That’s when you’re on the hook.