The reputation of the Book of Leviticus, which we begin to read this Shabbat, has suffered from ups and downs in the public eye. In traditional Judaism it was considered so important that the education of little children began with the study of Leviticus. “Let those who are pure come and study the laws of purity” was the common saying. In the nineteenth century, however, Leviticus was severely criticized by non-Jewish Biblical critics, who considered it to be a primitive book, concerned only with dry ritual, far from the high ideals of the prophets.
Fortunately the reputation of Leviticus has recently been restored by the work of two outstanding individuals: Rabbi Jacob Milgrom and the late Prof. Mary Douglas.. Rabbi Milgrom has written a magnificent commentary that has revealed the religious concepts that underlie the book. Prof. Douglas, a devout English Christian anthropologist, viewed the book from a unique perspective. In Leviticus As Literature she explained the purpose of Leviticus as follows:
“Read in the perspective of anthropology the food laws of Moses are not expressions of squeamishness about dirty animals and invasive insects. The purity rules for sex and leprosy are not examples of priestly prurience. The religion of Leviticus turns out to be not very different from that of the prophets which demanded humble and contrite hearts, or from the psalmists’ love of God….The more closely the text is studied, the more clearly Leviticus reveals itself as a modern religion, legislating for justice between persons and persons, between God and His people, and between people and animals.” (Pages 1-2)
We often distinguish Messianic Jewish theology from historic Christian theology by emphasizing our approach to the Torah. But as I read through Leviticus, I wonder if we Messianic Jews don't also struggle to discern the relevance of the forms of worship described in this central book of the Torah. I wonder if what makes it seem dry to us isn't a nagging feeling that these rituals depend on a metaphysics that is strikingly different from our own? The idea of God being worshipped through animal sacrifice is itself a difficult one which Jewish thinkers have been wrestling with since the medieval period.
This is a particularly timely study since we've reached Leviticus in the Torah cycle and we're drawing near to Passover. I hope to review further insights derived from Derek's book in the weeks to come. If you want to join me in learning about these topics, you can order a copy of Yeshua Our Atonement here.
'via Blog this'
There is a group of scholars within what is known as the Radical Perspective on Paul (i.e. Paul as a Torah-observant Jewish apostle to the Gentiles) who are asking similar questions specifically in the context of the Pauline corpus. William S. Campbell, Kathy Ehrensberger, and J. Brian Tucker are all exploring ways in which Gentile identity is both continued, transformed, and reinvented in Paul’s ministry as evidenced in his letters.
There are also a number of papers by J. Brian Tucker available for free on mjstudies.com:
- (On the Radical Perspective on Paul) ‘Beyond
the New Perspective on Paul’ and the Evangelical New Testament Scholar:
Is Paul Torah-Observant in 1 Corinthians 9.20–21?
- The Continuation of Gentile Identity in Christ
- “Paul, Gentiles, and Identity Negotiation: A Response to Kathy Ehrensperger”
- “The Continuation of Gentile Identity in Ephesians”
- “‘Gentile
Christianity’ and the Study of Christian Origins: A Response to Terence
L. Donaldson Focusing on Gentile Self-Identification”
While both Campbell and Tucker perhaps raise as many questions as they answer, they show that there may be much more to learn about Gentile identity in Messiah from the first-century apostle to the Gentiles.* Paul goes on to address the Ephesians using a form known as a household code (see Eph. 5.21-6.9), a Roman religio-cultural value system which is structured around the father. Some interpreters think Paul transforms the household code away from its normal patriarchalism in the way he gives specific instructions not only to wives, children, and slaves, but also to husbands, fathers, and masters. To the degree that household codes are a particularly Greco-Roman way of addressing issues of order in families and households, this is relevant to the discussion at hand.
** Don't trip up over Campbell's use of the term "Christian." He is part of a cadre of Pauline scholars who are well aware of the anachronism. Of course, you can if you want. I'm just saying I think it would be counter-productive.