WHAT DOES HOLINESS MEAN IN LEVITICUS?
of society ... God will be described as complete, whole, perfect, and this perfection will be discernible in God’s relationship to God’s people and God’s world.”
78
So as we look at what holiness means as it is worked out in Israelite society, we will at the
same time gain a fuller picture of God’s holiness.
Holy people, things, times and places
Apart from God, members of certain domains in the human world have the potential to be holy: people, priests, garments, offerings, places, and occasions. Since
God is holy, then anything associated with him or his service is also considered holy.
The location for the sacrifices: the tabernacle
The drama of the Israelite sacrifices was to take place in the environment of the tabernacle Lev 17:8-9 where God dwelt, also known as the tent of meeting the
place where God met with his people or their leader or the sanctuary. Yahweh gave Moses detailed construction plans Ex. 25:8-
9. “The tabernacle was tripartite: one entering the outer court could proceed directly forward to the holy place, and the
most holy place the holy of holies is dire ctly behind the holy place.”
79
This most holy place contained the ark of the covenant, a chest containing the tablets inscribed
with the decalogue. A slab of pure gold rested on top, with a cherub at each end resting on top. These symbolised a throne with God enthroned above them. The most
expensive colours and metals were used nearest the ark, as a symbol of its holiness. As one moved away from the ark, less valuable materials were used.
The priesthood
One of the twelve tribes of Israel, Levi, was set aside to assist in the performance of religious rites, and to educate the people on what God expected of
them Lev 1:2. Within the tribe, the family of Aaron was given special status as high priests and the responsibility of serving in the holy place and the most holy place in
the tabernacle. The close connection between the priests and the tabernacle was emphasised symbolically by similar colours in priestly clothing and tabernacle cloth.
78
Malina, B., The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology; Westminster: John Knox Press, 1993, p.158.
79
Ryle, Wilbert and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Images; Leicester and Illinois: IVP, 1998, p.837.
The priest’s role in the sacrificial rites was to represent Israel to their God, and to represent God to his people.
Animals: unclean, clean and sacrificial
Leviticus divides animals into the clean and the unclean. Eating unclean animals was forbidden Lev 11,
and touching the carcass of one entailed temporary uncleanness Lev 11:24,
which meant that the person could not approach the tabernacle. Among the clean animals, certain species were considered appropriate to
be sacrificed. The social anthropologist Mary Douglas seeks to relate the distinctions
among animals to all the laws on holiness found in Leviticus. She argues that holiness means separateness, wholeness and perfection:
“Much of Leviticus is taken up with stating the physical perfection that is required of things presented in the temple and of persons approaching it. The
animals offered in sacrifice must be without blemish, women must be purified after childbirth, and lepers should be separated and ritually cleansed before
being allowed to approach it once they are cured. All bodily discharges are defiling and disqualify from approach to the temple. Priests may only come
into contact with death when their own close kin die. But the high priest must never have contact with death ... In short, the idea of holiness was given an
external, physical expression in the wholeness of the body seen as a perfect container.”
80
Douglas argues that the same idea of wholeness is carried over into the categorisation of the animal world which is divided into three categories in Genesis:
those that fly in the air, those that walk on the land and those that swim in the sea Gen 1:20-
30. Wenham summarises Douglas’ argument well: “Each sphere has a particular mode of motion associated with it. Birds have two wings with which to fly
and two feet for walking; fish have fins and scales with which to swim; land animals have hoofs to run with. The clean animals are those that conform to these standard
80
Douglas, M., Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Pollution and Taboo; London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1966, p.51-52.
pure types. Those creatures which in some way transgress the boundaries are unclean. Thus fish without fins and scales are unclean ... ”
81
There is a parallel between holiness required in humans conformity to moral and physical norms and cleanness in animals conformity to the norms of the animal
group to which they belong. Further the “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.”
82
Holy and common, clean and unclean
The high priest Aaron and his descendants were instructed as follows: “You
must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the clean and the unclean” Lev 10:10. So there is here a double contrast:
1. What is holy is opposed to what is common.
2. What is clean is opposed to what is unclean.
Wenham’s analysis of these contrasts in Leviticus can be summarised as follows:
83
Everything that is not holy is common. Common things divide into two groups, the clean and the unclean.
Cleanness is an intermediate state between holiness and uncleanness. The diagram below sets out the relationships between the holy, the clean and the
unclean, how moving from one state to another is described and how it is effected.
81
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.169.
82
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.170.
83
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.19.
Figure 5: Dynamics of sacrifice sin and infirmity in Leviticus
Cleanness is the usual intermediate state of most persons and things. This implies that what is holy is set apart as somehow special.
Clean things become holy when they are sanctified, but unclean objects cannot be sanctified.
Clean things can be made unclean, if they are polluted. Holy items may be profaned and become common. They may even be polluted
and made unclean. The unclean and the holy are two states that must never come into contact with
each other. For instance, if an unclean person eats part of a sacrificial animal, which is holy food, he will be cut off from his people Lev 7:20-21.
Sin and impurity cause profanation and pollution, while the offering of sacrifices reverses the process and brings cleansing and sanctification.
Jenson
84
sees Wenham’s scheme as a useful starting point but somewhat over-simplified. It can be refined in various ways to reflect more accurately the
Levitical picture. 1 The impression from the scheme is that the steps between the holy, clean
and unclean are regular and uniform, but this does not reflect the priestly emphases. Jenson writes,
“Although Wenham introduces a ‘profane’ step for the step from a
84
Jenson, Philip, Graded Holiness, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992, p.47.
S A
C R
I F
I C
E HOLY
sanctify profane
CLEAN cleanse
pollute UNCLEAN
S I
N I
M P
U R
I T
Y
holy to a clean step, this is primarily to retain the symmetry of the diagram rather than to reflect Priestly vocabulary.”
85
Jenson suggests it is to better to think of the divine sphere represented by the holy and its opposite, the common and the human sphere clean and unclean. God
is never called pure or clean, as this sphere does not apply to him.
86
“The presence of a holy God and a holy sanctuary in the midst of Israel ensures that these two points
of view overlap in a complex way.”
87
Milgrom offers the diagram below to help explain this complex relationship:
88
Figure 6: Dynamic categories of holiness and impurity
Holy Common
Pure Impure
Two categories, holiness and impurity are dynamic and mutually antagonistic their boxes do not touch. They are contagious as they extend their influence over
what they come in contact with in the two static categories, the common and pure. Israel is enjoined to advance the holy and diminish the impure. This is represented
by the arrows in the diagram. 2 There are different degrees or gradations of both holiness and impurity.
For example, anything associated with disorder, such as skin diseases, mixed crops, mixed teams of plough animals is impure, but disorder is manifested supremely in
death. This is exemplified in the regulation that to eat any sort of dead animal, even of a clean species, which has not been ritually slaughtered, is to become temporarily
unclean Lev 11:39f. Death is the greatest disorder directly opposed to life and wholeness, and thus to holiness.
Wenham himself offers the following diagram
89
to represent the gradations in holiness with respect to persons from God to the dead, of places from the holy of
85
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.47.
86
Noted by Levine, see Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.47, fn.2.
87
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.47f.
88
See Sawyer, Reading Leviticus, A Conversation with Mary Douglas, p.72.
89
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.177.
holies to Sheol, the realm of the dead, and of animals from unblemished sacrificial beasts to carcasses:
Figure 7: Gradations of holiness
LIFE Increasingly abnormal
DEATH NORMALITY
TOTAL DISORDER
Holy of holies
Altar Tabernacle
court Camp
Outside camp
Sheol realm of dead
God Priests
Deformed priests
Israelites Unclean
people Dead people
Perfect sacrificial
animals Blemished
sacrificial animals
Clean animals
Unclean animals
Animal carcasses
Jenson adds two further dimensions, the ritual and the temporal, to what he calls the “Holiness Spectrum”
90
:
Figure 8: Holiness spectrum
I II
III IV
V Very Holy
Holy Clean
Unclean Very unclean
myvdq vdq Vdq Rwhm
amf amf
Spatial holy of
holies holy place
court camp
outside Personal
high priest Priest
Levites, clean Israelites
clean, minor impurities
major impurities,
the dead sacrificial
animals sacrificial
animals clean
animals unclean
animals carcasses
Ritual Sacrificial
not eaten sacrificial
priests eat Sacrificial
non-priests eat
purification 1 day
purification 7 days
Temporal Day of
Atonement festivals,
Sabbath Common days
90
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.37.
3 Another refinement is offered by Amorim,
91
who distinguishes between desanctification and profanation. Desanctification is a necessary aspect of moving
from the holy to the profane sphere, marked by minor rituals like the high priest changing his clothes and washing on leaving the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement
Lev 16:23f. Profanation is much more serious. It is any deliberate attempt to treat the holy as profane and constitutes a serious act of rebellion against God. Profanation
may occur in any of the four dimensions: the sanctuary Lev 21:12,23, the priests Lev 21:4, the holy portions of the sacrifice Lev 19:8; 22:15 or the Sabbath Exod
31:14. 4 The method of cleansing and sanctification is also more nuanced than
Wenham’s model suggests. In cases of ritual impurity, the process depends on its seriousness and could involve one or more of the following: waiting a specified
period of time, ritual washing, and, for the more serious case, sacrifice. In the cases of impurity caused by sin, sacrifice is always required. If the sin is deliberate,
repentance too is necessary. 5 Impurity and sin are both antithetical to holiness, but the relationship
between the two is complex. Sin inevitably causes impurity, and certain sins, especially in the sexual domain, are explicitly said to be defiling e.g. Lev 18:6-25.
On the other hand, not all ritual impurity is sin, as it cannot be avoided in the normal course of events, such as contact with a corpse. However to deliberately defile
oneself in contradiction to God’s prohibitions is sin e.g. Lev 21:1-4. So is failure to deal with ritual impurity in the prescribed way.
Wenham sees the disorder associated with impurity as symbolic of the disorder caused by sin: “Wherever disorder is manifested, man is reminded of the sin
which perpetually disrupts creation.”
92
Conclusion
Sacrifice plays a central role in maintaining the holiness of the people. It is used in the consecration of things to God, and in rectifying holiness caused through
sin and serious ritual impurity.
91
See Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.51.
92
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.59.
Jenson
93
admits that the Holiness Spectrum he proposes is not an ideal representation; but his analysis, coupled with that of Wenham, gives a useful
framework within which to consider the five sacrifices set out in Lev 1-7. We shall consider these five in detail in the next chapter.
Before moving on to that, though, it is worth taking a brief backward glance at chapter 3 in the light of what we have discussed on holiness, to keep in mind the
Supyire perspective, and to consider if the Israelite concept of holiness has any parallels in the Supyire’s view of the world.
The Supyire certainly have a concept of the otherness of the supernatural. Events and things out of the ordinary are considered to belong to the realm of Kile,
such as the python skin see p.18 which is viewed as a manifestation of Kile. Here, then, there is at least some parallel with the Israelite distinction between what is holy
and what is common. The two societies, too, have a similar view on the need to take care in approaching the power involved in the supernatural. For example, the detailed
instructions for the disposition of the sacrificial beasts in Lev 1-7 have some parallels in the rules observed by the Supyire in their rites see p.53. An approach to the
power made in the wrong way can have disastrous consequences: witness the death of Nadab and Abihu Lev 10 and the threat of death for touching the remains of the
chicken sacrificed at a Supyire funeral see p.53. Other aspects of Israelite holiness, however, are not found in Supyire thought;
or perhaps only the faintest reflection of them is discernible. Fundamental to Israelite holiness is the holiness of Yahweh, the personal God whose moral character is
reflected in the Ten Commandments. For the Supyire, Kile is a somewhat distant, fairly shadowy figure: the most that is said about him is in the ascription “the good
God”. The Supyire have no notion of the need for purity to approach any deity.
Before making a sacrifice they appeal to tradition as justification for their approach: “Every good person says God and every bad person says God” see p.33. Just as
there is no concept of purity, there is no antithesis for the Supyire between what is holy and what is impure in either the physical or moral domain.
So, in Supyire thinking, the supernatural is something over and above the common, the normal, and needs to be approached with care. For the Israelites,
holiness is more than that: it is the perfection in Yahweh’s character which he
93
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.37.
expects to be seen mirrored in his people. How sacrifices contribute to maintaining that holiness we will investigate in the next chapter.