Leviticus Chapters 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Commentary by Mark Dunagan

LEVITICUS CHAPTERS 11-17

I. OUTLINE: I. Separation From Defilement: 11:1-15:33 A. Clean and Unclean foods: 11:1-47 B. Purification of mothers after childbirth: 12:1-8 C. Regulations governing leprosy: 13:1-14:57 D. Purification from bodily secretions: 15:1-33 II. Day Of Atonement: 16:1-34 III. Place of Sacrifice and the sanctity of blood: 17:1-16 “Chapter 11 opens a new section of the book of Leviticus. Chapters 11-15 deal with various kinds of uncleanness and how men may be cleansed from them….These five chapters look back to 10:10: you are “to distinguish between the holy and the common….the unclean and the clean”….These chapters then help to explain what is meant by uncleanness” (Wenham p. 161).

II. Commentary: Chapter 11 The laws in this chapter have puzzled and intrigued people in every generation.

Why did God decree that certain foods could be eaten and others must be rejected? Various explanations have been offered for these laws: 1. The distinctions are arbitrary. God never reveals the rational behind these laws (Deut. 29:29). “God was teaching the Israelites self-discipline and submission to him even in the most routine affairs of life” (Smith p. 374).

1

2.

Unclean animals were those often used in or closely associated with pagan worship, thus these animals were to be shunned. While this may reveal why the pig was viewed as unclean (Isaiah 65:4), it fails to explain why the bull was not prohibited, seeing that it was one of the major objects of worship in Egypt and Canaan.

3.

These rules are based on hygienic considerations, i.e. unclean animals were unfit because they were often carriers of disease “Pork can be a source of trichinosis. The coney and hare are carriers of tularemia. Fish without fins and scales tend to burrow into the mud and become sources of dangerous bacteria, as do the birds of prey which feed on carrion” (Wenham p. 167).

But the one difficulty with this explanation, is that Jesus would declare all such things clean in the first century (Mark 7:19). And it isn’t as if hygiene or improvements in refrigeration, or cooking processes had really improved that much since the Law of Moses had been given. Again, this may be a positive benefit or side-effect of such regulations.

4.

One suggestion is that unclean animals tended to be the “exceptions” in their kind, i.e. fish without scales or fins, insects which fly, but still have many legs.

The Israelites were being taught that they needed to avoid that which didn’t fit what we might call “normal”. Animals were considered clean or unclean depending on whether they possessed all the features that made them “normal” in their category.

5. Another idea is that a chosen nation, a nation selected out from among all the other nations, was given a chosen diet.

6. It could be that more than one explanation is behind these laws, i.e. not every unclean animal was viewed as being unclean for the same reason.

7. Carefully note that God never required that the Israelites become vegetarians.

11:3 The English phrase “chew the cud”, means they swallow their food without chewing it very much, store it temporarily in one of their stomach compartments, then later at their leisure regurgitate it and rechew it thoroughly, and then swallow and digest it. The camel, coney and hare do not technically chew the cud in this sense, but they do appear to chew their food very thoroughly.

11:4-8 Both qualifications for cleanness had to be met if an animal was to be viewed as clean. Hence, among domesticated animals, the Israelites could eat beef, lamb and goat, in addition to various wild animals (Deut. 14:5).

11:8 While these animals were unclean to eat and one could not touch their dead bodies, it would appear that one could still ride a camel.

2

11:9-12 These regulations govern aquatic animals. All fish could be eaten, either salt or fresh water (11:9), which had fins and scales. “Fish which do not have scales and fins are shallow water fish. They easily become carriers of various harmful bacteria” (Wenham p. 173). It appears that the Egyptians and the Romans also avoided such animals in their diets.

11:13-19 Most commentators agree that all the birds which are forbidden are birds of prey or eaters of carrion, i.e. birds that are scavengers. Such birds would be more apt to be carriers of various diseases.

11:20-23 Flying insects with jointed legs for hopping were clean. These included the locust, katydid, cricket and grasshopper.

11:26-31 Animals such as cats, dogs, bears and lions were unclean because they had paws.

11:32-35 The dead bodies of such animals transferred uncleanness to wooden articles, clothing, hides, etc…In the case of inexpensive pottery (11:33) such an object had to be destroyed. “It is difficult to be sure why a polluted wooden vessel is treated differently from a polluted earthenware vessel…It is usually explained by saying that impurity soaks into an earthenware vessel and is hard to remove by washing, whereas in the case of a wooden vessel if only remains on the surface….It seems possible that the distinction is between vessels and implements used for ordinary work and cooking vessels. Impurity in food would be more serious (or could be more serious) than on clothes” (Wenham p. 179).

11:36 An exception to the general principle is stated, Springs or cisterns were not rendered unclean if the body of an unclean animal fell into them. If it had, this would have had drastic consequences in a country where drinking water is often in short supply.

11:38 It is usually stated that water would enable the impurity to penetrate wet grain much easier than dry grain. But it also could be that wet grain was grain being prepared for cooking and not for sowing.

11:45-47 Man’s highest duty is to imitate His Creator (Matthew 5:48; 1 Cor. 11:1).

Point To Note:

3

The Christian realizes that all of these food laws have been removed by the death of Christ (Colossians 2:14-16; Acts 10:11-16). Yet, the demand to be holy as God is holy, to regard as pure what God proclaims is pure and to abhor what God proclaims is evil, remains! (1 Peter 1:14ff).

Chapter 12 Again, it is not easy to completely comprehend all the rationale behind the laws in this section. Why should a woman become unclean by bearing children, wasn’t it the will of God for her to have children? (Genesis 1:28) 1. Note it is not the birth itself that makes the woman unclean. There is no mention of the baby being unclean, rather it is the discharge that follows childbirth (4,5,7). It is consistent then for the woman to be treated as unclean as she is when she menstruates.

2.

“Why the more extended time of uncleanness after the birth of the female child? Given the obsession with seeking male offspring, the regulation may have been to protect the wife from an overzealous husband. He might be inclined to resume marital relations too soon after the birth of a female to the physical discomfort and possible jeopardy of the wife” (Smith p. 375).

3.

Noordtzij notes, “because of her menstruation and the….secret formation of a human being within her womb, woman was always regarded in ancient times (and modern times) as a more or less mysterious being, and that her motherhood in particular was thought to be an indication that she possessed supernatural powers. For this reason it was almost universally believed that the blood of menstruation had special, magical properties” (p. 131). God makes it clear that it doesn’t, in fact, such a flow renders the woman unclean.

4. Note that God is merciful, an alternative sacrifice was given for the poor. Be impressed that this sacrifice for the poor person is the sacrifice that Mary offered after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:22-24).

Chapter 13 This chapter begins a section on the laws concerning leprosy. This chapter divides into two main sections. The diagnosis and treatment of skin diseases (246) and the diagnosis and treatment of such diseases in clothing and similar articles (47-58). 21 different cases of skin disease are distinguished in the first section. We need to note that the English term “leprosy” in this chapter is being used for a whole range of infectious skin diseases. In this section we find that

4

the priest did not function as a doctor to prescribe medical treatment. He functioned more like a public health officer.

13:4-5 God understands that diseases can be contagious, and that isolation is at times the wisest policy when one isn’t sure about the true nature of the ailment under consideration. Carefully note that God didn’t want His priests jumping the gun and declaring as unclean every kind of skin irritation (13:6).

But neither does God believe that the comfort, convenience, feelings or rights of the individual, outweighs the health and well-being of the community (1 Corinthians 5:6-13).

13:44-45 Since the consequences here are very serious, I must reject the idea that this chapter is dealing with minor skin diseases. Obviously, to take such drastic steps, the disease that would render one unclean must be very serious and contagious.

13:47-59 The “mark of leprosy” is literally, “infection”. Some feel that this section is dealing with things such as mold or mildew (NIV). Others feel that the precise contamination remains unclear. “The deteriorated condition of garments (13:47-59) probably resulted from the incidence of dampness, mold, or fungus.

Its occurrence was taken seriously, and the material thus affected was burned if the deterioration showed signs of spreading” (Harrison p. 610). First of all, this would prevent other articles from being ruined, in addition, God might be trying to prevent some health hazards from developing.

Point To Note: I believe that it is very important to note that personal discomfort or inconvenience were not allowed to overrule the commands of God. These laws meant that personal sacrifices had to be made, one might have to remain outside the camp, away from friends and family in order to comply with these laws. Just like in the New Testament, the disfellowshipped member is to be viewed as unclean (1 Corinthians 5:11-13). Our emotions need to be governed by a love for God and a love for the final salvation of those that we claim to love.

“Although the ‘leprosy’ of the Bible was much more ravaging than the modern disease we call ‘leprosy’ and although it may actually have been a completely different diseases, the biblical method for control of infectious skin diseases is unequaled in the history of ancient man. Other historians credit the Bible for the dawning of a new era in the effective control of disease: ‘The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of a sanitary legislation’” (None of These Diseases, S. I. McMillen, M.D., pp. 21-22).

5

Historians note that that the leprosy that was ravaging Europe during the Dark Ages, was only brought under control when officials once again followed the biblical mandate for isolation of the leper. When precautions were relaxed, such as happened in Norway, the disease once again began to spread. In 1873, Dr. Armauer Hansen proved that leprosy wasn’t hereditary, but was actually caused by bacteria. The Norwegian Leprosy Act was then passed which ordered lepers to live in precautionary isolation away from their families.

Chapter 14 14:1-32 These regulations govern the individual whose infection went away or went into remission. The procedures here are not a part of the cure, but rather the acknowledgment that the person is cured. If the disease cleared up, then the person was readmitted to the community.

14:34-57 Once in the land of Canaan, and inhabiting homes built by the peoples that the Israelites had conquered, the inspection of such homes seems to have been a very logical precaution. In view of what the Canaanites practiced (Leviticus 18), who knows that sort of infections, etc… might be lurking in their homes? For all practical purposes, many people still follow these principles today, especially when it comes to such things as dry rot. If every bit of the infection isn’t removed, then you are only fighting a losing battle. To this today, people must at times simply cut their loses and tear everything down (14:45), and refuse to reuse any of the old materials. Their old building materials that were to be sent outside the city to an unclean place, is very much like our modern day land fill.

Chapter 15 This chapter deals with discharges from the body. The writer notes that chronic or long-term male discharges in this section may have been a man with gonorrhea. “It is noteworthy that while the normal sexual process between husband and wife (15:18) made both partners ceremonially unclean, it did not make them sinful—no guilt was involved and no sacrifice was required” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 194).

We need to be impressed with the level of personal hygiene that God required of His people (15:11). God definitely believes in washing your hands. “Though these rules would occasion great inconvenience, they seem to imply that a man with a discharge may continue to live at home” (Wenham p. 219). Apparently, he didn’t have to live outside the camp.

In addition, since the real cause of the discharge might be unknown, the wisest policy is to view it as something potentially dangerous. Remember, especially

6

when in the wilderness, one serious disease could wipe out the vast majority of the Israelite population.

15:19-33 These are laws which governed discharges from the female body.

Point To Note: “The laws concerning the menstrual period on first inspection seem very harsh to the modern mind. At face value they seem to consign every adult woman in Israel to a state of untouchability for one week a month” (Wenham p. 223). But such could of had some positive benefits: 1. It should have made any godfearing single young man wary of physical contact with the opposite sex. For if he was unclean when he went to worship God, he was liable to God’s judgment.

“In this way these regulations may have promoted restraint in relations between the sexes and have acted as a brake on the passions of the young” (Wenham p.

224). 2. Such also gave husbands and wives a chance to develop their own relationship with God, to spend time alone in prayer and reflection upon God’s laws (1 Corinthians 7:5). 3. This legislation could of assisted in helping husbands and wives in Israel. For this “time-out” from physical contact, could of only increased the need for affection the rest of the month. God may be trying to help Israelite marriages, in that when sexual relations happen in a marriage, the sex isn’t for selfish purposes, or the mere fulfilling of some physical need. In addition, seeing that sexual relations made both partners unclean, and therefore unable to participate in worship for a whole day, this regulation “excluded fertility rites and cult prostitution that were such a feature of much Near Eastern religion.

It also served to make ordinary prostitutes social outcasts. Evidently ancient Israel, like many other societies, was unable to ban prostitution altogether (cf.

Proverbs 7), but this rule deprived the prostitute of social respectability…..Similarly the prohibition on intercourse in war should have protected conquered women from abuse (Numbers 25)” (Wenham p. 223).

Chapter 16 16:1-3 This chapter begins with a historical connection with the events of chapter 10. The intervening chapters have been concerned with explaining the difference between the clean and the unclean. The sudden stroke against Nadab and Abihu in chapter 10 may have made Aaron hesitant concerning his priestly duties. He may have wondered how he could serve such a holy and righteous God without suffering a similar fate. Aaron is first warned that he was not to enter the Holy of Holies whenever he chose (16:2). The guidelines for worshipping God will not be based on human feelings or whims. “Familiarity can breed contempt. These laws drive home the truth that God is just as holy and demands just as much reverence when He dwells permanently with Israel as on the first occasion when He appeared on Sinai (Exodus 19)” (Wenham p.

229).

7

16:6 “for himself”-Aaron first had to make atonement for himself before he could properly make atonement for the people. The OT realized that even Israel’s high priests were far from being perfect or sinless. Once again, we aren’t reading a laundered Jewish history book.

16:7-10, 21-22 “Scapegoat”-apparently the release of the goat into the wilderness symbolized the removal of the sins of the nation. Some believe that the name “Azazel” (Hebrew for scapegoat), is a proper name, and applies to Satan, hence the sins of the nation are sent back to their ultimate evil source.

Since about 200 A.D. professed Christian writers saw in the “Scapegoat” a figure of Christ, who was crucified outside of the camp (Jerusalem) for the sins of the people.

16:12-13 Some feel that the cloud of incense was designed to create a screen which would prevent the High Priest from gazing upon the Holy Presence.

16:29 “you shall humble your souls”-This is language which is used elsewhere in reference to fasting (Psalm 35:13; Isaiah 58:3,5). The Day of Atonement was Israel’s only legally prescribed day of fasting. “seventh month”-i.e. approx., October. This day of fasting underlined the need for every individual in Israel to examine themselves and repent of their sins. “Apparently the ceremonies were considered ineffective in themselves if they were not accompanied by genuine penitence on the part of the people” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 198).

Point To Note: The Book of Hebrews makes it clear that the sacrifice of Christ removed the need for such a yearly atonement (Hebrews 9:11-12, 24-26; 10:12). This was also dramatically demonstrated when the veil of the Temple was rent following the death of Jesus (Luke 23:45). Now all believers have the right to enter into the presence of God through the sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 10:19ff).

Chapter 17 17:1-9 God knows that various Israelites might be tempted to bypass the tabernacle and the priesthood and offer their own sacrifices. “Anyone involved in secret demon worship might claim that he merely killed the animal outside the camp. To plug this potential loophole it is enjoined that all animals be killed in the tabernacle” (Wenham p. 243). Once the Israelites were settled in the land of Canaan, the legislation given here concerning having to slaughter any animal

8

at the tabernacle was adjusted accordingly (Deut. 12:20-28). Idolatrous goat worship had been practiced in the eastern delta of Lower Egypt. “If an animal could be slaughtered only in the sanctuary, then a person guilty of offering a pagan sacrifice could not excuse himself by claiming he was only killing it for food” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 199).

17:9 “cut off from his people”-Many feel that this expression could refer to 1.

The death penalty. 2. Excommunication. 3. Premature death by the hand of God. 4. Any of the above, with the added consequence of eternal death. In light of the fact that God would even “cut off” the sojourner who did such things (17:10), it appears that some form of physical death is under consideration.

17:10 “eats blood”-This includes eating meat from which the blood had not been properly drained. In many pagan cultures all sorts of superstitions surround the eating and drinking of blood, whether the blood of animals or the blood of a vanquished enemy. Today in Thailand the marketing of the blood of poisonous serpents is a thriving business. “The blood is believed to be a cure for a host of physical infirmities as well as an aphrodisiac” (Smith p. 383). The restriction on where animals to be slaughtered evidently was given because the temptation to given into the pagan practices concerning blood must have been prevalent among the people. “On the one hand, it is based on a positive valuation of blood as the seat of life which, as such, belongs to the Giver of life and must therefore be given back to Him. On the other hand, it has the negative intention of extricating the Israelites from the various idolatrous practices in which blood formed the main element, all of which were a consequence of the desire to achieve contact with the invisible realm of gods and spirits by eating the blood of animals and thereby adding their vital powers to one’s own” (Noordtzij p. 177).

Points To Note: 1.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood” (17:11), which is scientifically true.

“The pre-eminent importance of the blood in the biological mechanism has only been comprehended with any adequacy in recent years. In this century scientists have discovered that the continuance of life depends upon the continued temperature control, waste removal, and transportation of water, food and regulators to the cells of all parts of the body, and therefore the very life and nourishment of the body are furnished by the blood” (Has God Spoken? A. O. Schnabel p. 66). 2. Therefore, to refrain from eating blood demonstrates that one is showing respect for life. In addition, “God has chosen sacrificial blood as the ransom price for a person’s life, so the life of a substitute is given up in death); therefore to refrain from eating blood is to show respect for its sacredness as a vehicle of atonement” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 199). Because animal blood is used as the atonement for human sin, it is sacred and ought not to be consumed by man. This type of 9

legislation had been in effect since at least the flood (Genesis 9:4), and a similar command is given to Christians in Acts 15:29. “the old Jewish rabbis say that this prohibition against blood was made on account of an ancient custom of eating raw flesh, especially the flesh of living animals cut or torn out from them, and devoured while reeking with warm blood” (Manners and Customs, Freeman p. 107).

The reader needs to be impressed that many of God’s prohibitions are designed to keep us from engaging in disgusting practices. “Who would ever want to drink blood, or raw warm meat?” Yet these are the sort of things that people think that they can’t live without when they allow themselves governed by the deceptiveness of sin.

17:13-16 The previous laws had been dealing with domesticated animals.

These rules apply to the killing and eating of wild game. In such cases only the blood prohibition applies to wild game. Since there was no question of wild animals being offered in sacrifice, it did not matter where they were killed.

“Moreover, it would have been impractical to suggest that every gazelle be chased into the tabernacle before it was killed” (Wenham p. 246). Similar regulations about hunting and eating wild game are found in Deut. 12:15-16, 22ff.

10