A change of subject matter indicates another major division in Leviticus. We move now from narrative to more legislation. These five chapters pick up the idea introduced in 10:10: ". . . make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean."This section of legislation culminates in chapter 16, the cleansing of the nation on the Day of Atonement. These chapters help explain what uncleanness means.
"The regulations of the sacrifices and institution of the priesthood, by which Jehovah opened up to His people the way of access to His grace and the way to sanctification of life in fellowship with Him, were followed by instructions concerning the various things which hindered and disturbed this living fellowship with God the Holy One, as being manifestations and results of sin, and by certain rules for avoiding and removing these obstructions."99
The rationale behind the order of these various laws seems to be the length of time for uncleanness. Violation of dietary laws (ch. 11) resulted in uncleanness for hours, childbirth uncleanness (ch. 12) left the woman unclean for months, and skin and covering uncleanness (chs. 13-14) could mean uncleanness for years. Genital discharges (ch. 15) resulted in uncleanness for hours, weeks, or years.100
"This chapter contains a selected list of creatures that divides each type of creature into various classes of purity. According to the final verse in the chapter, the decisive question was whether a class of animals was unclean or clean. The goal of the distinctions was to determine whether an animal could be eaten. The notion of uncleanness and cleanness is specifically applied in this chapter to the question of holiness. Violating any of the regulations relating to clean and unclean animals rendered one unclean (i.e., profane or common, 11:44-45), and thus unable to enter into community worship (12:4). The purpose of the chapter is to tie the concept of holiness to God's own example of holiness (11:45)."101
Uncleanness was not all the same under the Old Covenant; there were degrees of uncleanness. The uncleanness that certain defiling things caused required simple purification, for example, washing and waiting a short time. The uncleanness that other defiling things caused required more involved rites.
The reason or reasons for the distinction between a clean and an unclean animal are still somewhat unclear. Even the identity of some of the animals is obscure.102
"Many attempts have been made by scholars and expositors over the centuries to interpret the catalogue of abominable creatures in the book of Leviticus, but with uncertain results."103
Many ancient nations and religions observed lists of clean and unclean foods. These lists differed from one another but undoubtedly had their origin in the clean unclean distinction that God specified at the Flood (cf. Gen. 7:2-3). The presence of this distinction in the ancient Near East points to a common recognition of the inadvisability of eating certain foods. This recognition shows that the Fall has affected the whole creation, not just humankind (Rom. 8:19-22).
There have been at least six major different explanations for the distinction between clean and unclean animals in the Mosaic Law.104Some of these views have very ancient pedigrees.
1. The distinction is arbitrary. The rationale was known only to God. God simply told the Israelites what to do to test their obedience (cf. Gen. 2:16-17). They had no idea what the reasons for these distinctions were.105The problem with this approach is that it is negative; it offers no explanation that human beings can understand.
2. The distinction is cultic. The reason the Israelites where to regard some animals as unclean was that the pagans used them in their worship and or associated them with their deities. Avoidance of these unclean animals then was a mark of the Israelites' fidelity to the Mosaic Covenant.106The problem with this view is that it explains very little of the evidence. The Israelites may have associated certain unclean animals with pagan cultic practices, but scholars have not been able to explain all the prohibitions on this basis alone.
3. The distinction is hygienic. Those who hold this view believe that the unclean animals were unfit to eat because they carried diseases or were unhealthful.107This view has gained popularity in recent times as many readers have become increasingly concerned about health care and medical science.108
"In general it can be said that the laws protected Israel from bad diet, dangerous vermin, and communicable diseases. Only in very recent days have better laws of health been possible with the advance of medicine. These were rule-of-thumb laws that God gave in his wisdom to a people who could not know the reason for the provision."109
There are good reasons, however, for believing that the Israelites did not view these provisions as hygienic. First, hygiene can explain only some of the distinctions. Second, there is no hint in the Old Testament that God regarded the animals He proscribed as dangerous to health. Third, this view fails to explain why God did not forbid poisonous plants as well as dangerous animals. Fourth, if these animals were dangerous to eat, why did Jesus Christ pronounce them good later (Mark 7:19)?
4. The distinction is symbolical. This view sees the behavior and habits of the clean animals as illustrating how the Israelites were to behave. The unclean animals represented sinful people.110Some commentators have adopted this view but have applied the criterion subjectively, without careful regard to the text of the whole Mosaic Law. However when one views the data in the Mosaic Law comprehensively and seeks to understand the distinctions on that basis, this view seems to make the most sense.
5. The distinction is aesthetic, based on the animal's appearance.111This view seems entirely subjective.
6. The distinction is ethical. The animals chosen taught reverence for life.112This view also seems highly subjective and impossible to prove.113
Probably a combination of these reasons is best. The basic idea underlying holiness and cleanness seems to have been wholeness and normalcy.114God seems to have regarded imperfection or abnormality in the animal world as unclean.
"Holiness requires that individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong."115
This does not explain all the cases, however. For example, why did God declare sheep and goats clean but pigs and camels unclean? One explanation is that sheep and goats conform to the norms of behavior that are typical of pastoral animals (chewing their cud and or having cloven feet). Pigs and camels do not.116
"Further analysis demonstrates that each sphere of the animal realm is similarly structured. Water creatures divide into the clean and the unclean, but land and air creatures further subdivide into clean animals that may be eaten and clean animals that may be sacrificed as well as eaten. This threefold division of animals--unclean, clean, and sacrificial--parallels the divisions of mankind, the unclean, i.e., those excluded from the camp of Israel, the clean, i.e., the majority of ordinary Israelites, and those who offer sacrifice, i.e., the priests. This tripartite division of both the animal world and the human realm is no coincidence, as is demonstrated by various laws in the Pentateuch, which apply similar principles to man and beast (Gen. 1:29-30; Exod. 13:2, 13; 20:10; 21:28ff.; 22:28-29 [Eng. 29-30]; Lev. 26:22). Once it is admitted that the animals symbolize the human world, the uncleanness of the birds of prey becomes intelligible: they are detestable because they eat carrion and flesh from which the blood has not been drained properly, acts that make men unclean (Lev. 11:13-19; cf. 11:40 and 17:10ff.)."117
As late as New Testament times the Jews appear to have regarded their food laws as symbolic of the division between themselves and Gentiles. The abolition of these laws under the New Covenant illustrates the fact that Christ has broken down the wall of partition that separated Jews and Gentiles for so long.
The laws of purification begun in this chapter connect in principle with the preceding ones that deal with unclean food and animals. The defilement dealt with in this group (chs. 12-15) proceeded from the human body. Pollution could come from within the Israelite as well as from his or her environment. Contamination resulted in separation from the fellowship of the sanctuary and or fellow Israelites.
". . . at first sight no reason or rationale is apparent for the material selected in Leviticus 12. The subject matter of this chapter deals solely with the question of the impurity of childbirth. What was the logic' of focusing on this particular topic at this point in the collection of laws? Many consider its placement here completely arbitrary. However, the details of the text as well as the larger structural patterns provide helpful clues about its purpose. For example, the terminology of Leviticus 12 alludes to the curse involving childbirth in Genesis 3. This suggests that beyond the parallels in Leviticus 11, the further arrangement of topics in Leviticus may also fit within the pattern of Genesis 1-11. If this be the case, then the purpose behind the narrative's present structure may be to portray the spread of ritual defilement in Israel's camp as a reversal of God's original plan of blessing."124
Two different situations caused uncleanness: moral transgression and ceremonial defilement. Moral transgressions caused spiritual defilement (moral uncleanness). However ceremonial defilement (ritual uncleanness) did not necessarily mean that the defiled person had sinned. Some practices that resulted in ceremonial uncleanness were not morally wrong in themselves, such as childbearing. Therefore we must not think "sinful"whenever we read "unclean."
The ritual purification of the mother of a newborn son lasted a total of 40 days. For the first seven of these she was contagiously unclean. Even though she had not entered the sanctuary after the birth of her child, her presence in the camp had still contaminated the altar (cf. 15:31). That is why she had to offer a sin (purification) offering. Her ritual uncleanness evidently resulted from the woman's bodily discharge that followed the baby's delivery (cf. vv. 4, 5, 7).125For the remaining 33 days she was to remain separate from the sanctuary and anything holy. This period served the double purpose of allowing the new mother to regain her health and strength and her ritual purity.
Keil and Delitzsch believed that the number 40 ". . . refers to a period of temptation, of the trial of faith, as well as to a period of the strengthening of faith through the miraculous support bestowed by God."126
In this explanation, the strengthening of her faith would be the reason for the 40-day recovery period.
All these periods were twice as long if the woman bore a female child. One explanation for this difference is that in the case of a female child the mother had given birth to a sinner who would normally bring forth another sinner herself. Probably God designed this distinction since "the superiority of their [male's] sex . . . pervades the Mosaic institutions."127We see this in the fact that the redemption price of women was about half that of men in Israel (27:2-7). Another possibility is that the distinction resulted from the curse on Eve and her sex that followed the Fall.128There is some medical evidence that the postnatal discharge (lochia) lasts longer in the case of a girl.129If this was true in ancient Israel, this explanation may explain the difference.130
Why should a bloody discharge make someone unclean? If we apply the principle already observed to this legislation, we would have to conclude that bleeding suggested an unnatural condition to the Israelites. Loss of blood leads to death, the antithesis of a healthy normal life. Anyone losing blood is at least potentially in danger of becoming less than physically perfect and is, therefore, unclean.131
". . . blood is at once the most effective ritual cleanser (the blood makes atonement,' 17:11) and the most polluting substance when it is in the wrong place. This is profound. Our greatest woes result from the corruption of our highest good, e.g., speech, sex, technology, atomic power."132
"Some commentators have found difficulty with this section of purification laws, since it appears to designate as unclean the act of childbirth that resulted from God's command to be fruitful and multiply (Gn. 1:28). Since children were regarded as a divine heritage and gift (Ps. 127:3), and a fruitful woman was esteemed as blessed of God (cf. Ps. 128:3), it would appear somewhat surprising for the birth of a child to be regarded as a circumstance that was sinful, and therefore needed atonement. The legislation, however, deals with the secretions that occur at parturition, and it is these that make the mother unclean. Thus the chapter should be read within the context of chapter 15, which also deals with bodily secretions."133
"It was the sense of the sacredness of the tabernacle and temple space that made purification from moral and ritual impurity essential."134
Circumcision (v. 3) was an act of obedience to God by the parents that demonstrated their faith in God's promises to Abraham (Gen. 17). For many years people believed that circumcision was a hygienic practice. However some medical experts now dispute this theory claiming that the practice has little value in promoting good health. Nevertheless some medical studies have indicated that the eighth day after birth is the best time to circumcise a boy because his blood clots best then in his early development.
Some of Israel's neighbor nations also practiced circumcision. However they did so as a puberty rite. Apparently infant circumcision was peculiar to Israel. It precluded any licentious puberty ritual that the other nations may have observed as well as conveying a spiritual message about the faith of the parents.135
"This narrative tells us that as long as the woman was unclean, she must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary' (12:4). This statement defines impurity with respect to the sanctuary (the tabernacle) and, more importantly, in terms of one's acceptability within the worshiping community. Impurity is not defined in terms of a vague notion of taboo but in terms of acceptance or restriction from worship. The sense of impurity is thus defined with respect to the goal of the covenant and the goal of Creation . . . , that is, the worship of God."136
The fact that Mary, the mother of Jesus, brought two birds for the offerings specified here (Luke 2:22-24) indicates that she and Joseph were poor (v. 8). It also shows that she was a sinner since she offered a sin offering (v. 8). God also made provision so the poor could offer birds instead of a lamb for the burnt offering (cf. 1:14-17; 14:21-22).
Many translations and commentaries have regarded the legislation in these chapters as dealing with leprosy, but this is misleading. The confusion has arisen because the term "leprosy"appears in most English texts in these chapters, and English readers automatically think that what we know as leprosy is in view. However as the chapters unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that what is in view is not modern leprosy (Hansen's disease).137The solution to the problem involves recognizing that the Septuagint version has influenced the English translations of the Hebrew word used here, tsara'at. In the Septuagint, the Greek word lepratranslates tsara'at, and the English translations have simply transliterated this Greek word because of similarities with modern leprosy.138That tsara'atdoes not mean leprosy becomes especially clear in chapter 14 where we read that tsara'atappeared as mold and mildew in clothes and houses, something leprosy does not do. What tsara'atdoes describe is a variety of abnormalities that afflicted human skin as well as clothing and houses, coverings of various types. Lepraetymologically refers to scaliness, and tsara'atmay also.139Evidently there was enough similarity between these abnormalities for God to deal with them together in this section of Leviticus.
The section contains three parts. Moses frequently divided various material into three subsections in Leviticus. Each part in this section begins, "The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron"(13:1; 14:1, 33), and it closes, "This is the law for"(13:59; 14:32, 54).
This chapter concludes the regulations on uncleanness (chs. 11-15).
"The uncleanness laws start with uncleanness that is permanent: that associated with various animals and food (ch. 11). Then they deal with the uncleanness of childbirth, which may last up to eighty days (ch. 12). Chs. 13 and 14 deal with uncleanness of indefinite duration; it all depends how long the serious skin disease persists. Finally, ch. 15 deals with discharges associated with reproduction, pollutions which usually only affect a person for up to a week. Whatever the explanation of the order of the material within chs. 11-15, these laws illuminate the day of atonement rituals, which are designed to cleanse the tabernacle of the uncleannesses of the Israelites' (16:16). Without these chapters we should be at a loss to know what was the purpose of the ceremonies described in ch. 16."159
Moses described four cases of secretions from the reproduction organs that resulted in ritual uncleanness in this chapter. Two of these cases arose from disease and two from natural causes. The chapter opens with an introductory statement (v. 1) and closes with a summary (vv. 32-33), which we have come to recognize as typical in this part of Leviticus. In the four central sections, there is a definition of the type of pollution, a description of its consequences, and an explanation of the appropriate rite of purification. The rite usually involved simply a wash and a wait until evening.
The first two cases concern continuing and occasional emissions of the male. Moses followed these with the last two cases that reverse this order and deal with the female. The writer apparently used this chiastic literary structure to demonstrate the unity of humankind in two sexes. Verse 18, the center of the chiasm, mentions sexual intercourse, the most profound expression of the unity and interdependence of the sexes.
15:1-15 The first case is the secretion caused by some disease affecting a man's sexual organs.160The writer did not describe the physical problem in detail. The terms used seem to refer to either a diseased flow of semen (gonorrhea) or a discharge of pus from the urethra.161In either case this was a fairly lengthy ailment (v. 3).
Another possibility is that this first case describes some affliction that both men and women suffered, such as diarrhea. The Hebrew words translated "any man"(v. 2) permit this. However the structure of the chapter and the references to the sexual organs argue against this view.
Note that things that the man sat on in his defilement, those things under him (bed, chair, saddle), became unclean and a source of defilement themselves. Also any direct contact with an unclean man resulted in uncleanness for those who touched his person (v. 7).162
"It is the uncleanness of the man and its consequences that are the main concern of this section. The striking thing about the uncleanness associated with these discharges is that not only the affected person becomes unclean, but also people and objects that come in contact with him, and these in their turn can become secondary sources of uncleanness. In this regard the uncleanness described here is much more infectious' than the uncleanness of skin diseases dealt with in chs. 13-14. . . . In this respect, then, gonorrhea in men and menstrual and other female discharges are viewed as much more potent sources of defilement than others."163
Nevertheless the uncleanness that these discharges caused was less serious ritually than those associated with skin disease. The man could live at home; he did not need to move outside the camp. He just had to wash and wait until evening (vv. 16, 18); he did not need to go through a more elaborate ritual. He also needed to offer only two inexpensive sacrifices (v. 14; cf. 14:10-20).
15:16-18 The second case deals with a voluntary emission of semen. Note that it was not sexual intercourse generally that produced the uncleanness but specifically the emission of semen in coitus or at other times (cf. Exod. 19:5; 1 Sam. 21:5-6; 2 Sam. 11:4).
"The intent was to keep a legitimate but unclean' biological function from defiling that which was [otherwise] holy."164
The purification process involved no sacrifice, only washing and waiting until evening (vv. 16, 18).
"The practical effect of this legislation was that when a man had religious duties to perform, whether this involved worship or participation in God's holy wars, sexual intercourse was not permitted."165
"The banning of the sexual and the sensual from the presence of God (Ex. 19:15, [sic] 20:26; Lev. 15:16-18) may have been one of the most noteworthy characteristics of Israel's religion, uniquely distinguishing it from the other religions of the ancient Near East."166
15:19-24 The third case deals with the woman's menstrual cycle.
"By placing the woman in what amounted to a state of isolation, the legislation made it possible for her to enjoy some respite from her normal duties, and gave her an opportunity of renewing her energy."167
This law appears very harsh to the modern reader. It appears to consign virtually every woman in Israel to a state of being untouchable for one week each month. Some authorities, however, believe that women in ancient Israel had menstrual periods far less frequently than modern women. They believe that earlier marriage, later weaning (up to the age of two or three), and the prevalence of large families made these unclean periods far more infrequent.168Those most affected by this law were probably unmarried teenage girls. The result would have been that God-fearing young men would have been wary of making physical contact with them. This law then would have had the effect of curbing the passions of the young.
15:25-33 The fourth case involves a woman who had continuing menstrual problems beyond her normal period. The ritual for purification was the same as for a man with an extended sexual malady (case one above, vv. 13-15; cf. Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43).
Verse 31 explains the reason for these regulations. God gave them so the Israelites would not fall into serious sin because of ignorance of how they should behave when unclean. The rules about bodily discharges helped the Israelites appreciate the seriousness of intermarriage with the Canaanites and the prohibitions against foreign customs and religion, which conflicted with Israel's holy calling. God discouraged certain acts by designating them as resulting in uncleanness, which undoubtedly proved helpful in the area of private morality where legal sanctions are not as effective as in public life.169
"The sexual processes thus make men [and women] unclean, but that is not the same as saying they are sinful. Uncleanness establishes boundaries of action, but as long as these are not transgressed no guilt is incurred."170
"One valuable feature of this legislation that had an important bearing upon Israel's cultic and social life was the rule which made partners in coition unclean for the whole day. This contingency separated sexual activity from cultic worship in a unique manner, and this precluded the orgiastic fertility rites that were so much a part of religion among peoples such as the Canaanites. Furthermore, the continuous state of ceremonial uncleanness experienced by the prostitute in Israel would remove any possibility of her participation in Hebrew worship, and take away anything approaching respectability from her way of life, if, indeed, she was at all sensitive to the requirements of the sanctuary."171
What made these secretions unclean was perhaps their association with unnatural (irregular) bodily functions. Childbearing (ch. 12) and the bodily fluids involved in procreation (ch. 15) were ritually unclean because they have connection with what is abnormal in terms of regularity. They were not unclean because sex is sinful. It is not (Gen. 1:28).
Note the slightly different view of another writer.
"Within this framework it becomes clear why the conditions described in Lev. 12 and 15 are polluting. They all involve the loss of life liquids.' Life is in the blood' (Lev. 17:11, 14). Thus a woman suffering from any bloody discharge, whether it be the puerperal discharge (Lev. 12:4-5), menstruation (15:19-24), or some other malady (15:25-30), is presumed to be losing life. Bleeding may eventually lead to death. So the discharging woman is regarded as unclean in that she evidently does not enjoy perfect life: indeed unchecked her condition could end in her death. Similarly too we presume that male semen was viewed as a life liquid.' Hence its loss whether long-term (15:1-15) or transient (15:16-18) was viewed as polluting."172
Sin is wrong done to God, but ritual uncleanness was a condition that while related to sin was not itself sinful. Sin separated the person further from God than uncleanness did. These conditions did not result in the sinfulness of the Israelite but in his or her disqualification from public worship in the nation.
Jesus' attitude toward the laws about bodily uncleanness were the same as His attitude toward the food laws. When He came He announced the end of their authority because God would open the church to Jews and Gentiles equally. These Israelite laws separated Jews from Gentiles by illustrating Israel's unique function in God's program, which ended temporarily (until the Millennium) with the death of Christ.173
