For modern readers, Leviticus is one of the most grueling books of the Bible because of its long lists of rules, regulations and outlining of rituals that seem mostly irrelevant to today’s life. We do not sacrifice animals to atone for our sins, or make burnt offerings to Yahweh, so readers may question why this text is relevant.
It is this phrase, “atone for our sins,” that makes Leviticus so relevant. When we understand more about this phrase, we will understand more about how we, too, may live more pure lives.
You probably have heard your pastor speak about atoning for sins at some point. In fact, you probably have an idea of what your pastor means when they say this phrase: You need to ask forgiveness for and turn away from the bad things you are doing.
Mallory Challis
But atoning for one’s sins looked different to an ancient Israelite audience.
Leviticus 1-16 is known by scholars as P, which stands for “priestly.” This means these chapters were written by Israelite priests who were running and/or heavily involved in Jewish religious sects. P texts describe the ways regulations and rituals are supposed to function, often in a utopian manner. They were written for an Israelite audience.
However, it is unlikely that every Israelite followed each of these rules perfectly, or that the Israelite community functioned exactly as it is laid out in this text.
This is comparable to the U.S. legal codes, for example. Every American driver probably has driven faster than the posted speed limit, even though it is against the law. Although it is written that we should, we do not abide by the government’s system of rules and regulations perfectly in our daily lives because we ourselves are imperfect.
This imperfection is not surprising, and the text addresses it. In fact, this imperfection is the purpose of Leviticus’ rules of ritual sacrifice for atonement.
There are two types of sacrifices outlined in Leviticus 1-16: free will offerings and required offerings. Free will offerings include things like burnt offerings and well-being offerings. For these offerings, the text simply gives directions on how to do these. Required offerings are sin offerings. This includes sins committed inadvertently or accidentally. The text is mostly about sins committed unintentionally.
Leviticus 4 outlines the process of animal sacrifice for unintentional sins. In verses 30-31, readers learn that through this ritual, they have achieved atonement.
“Like laundry detergent, it is a liquid being poured out on behalf of something that is dirty for the purpose of cleansing it.”
Scholars sometimes call the blood used in this sacrifice “ritual detergent.” This is because, like laundry detergent, it is a liquid being poured out on behalf of something that is dirty for the purpose of cleansing it.
But what here is dirty?
Modern readers might say the person committing each sin has dirtied or defiled themselves and needs cleansing. However, ancient Israelite readers for whom this text was written would have understood sin a little differently.
For ancient Israelites, sin acted like dirt. When a person in the community committed a sin, they collected it like dirt, and unless they performed the proper bathing rituals, this dirt would be tracked into the sanctuary.
Over time, dirt builds up in the sanctuary, which is a problem.
You may also have heard your pastor say something like, “This is God’s house” when talking about your church. The ancient Israelite audience of Leviticus would have understood their sanctuary as being God’s house as well, but more deeply. They would have considered this space to have been the literal dwelling place of their deity.
This means the sanctuary needed to remain as sacred and pure as possible to maintain the presence of God.
Anything can be sacred, but once it is made sacred, this cannot be undone. For example, if I dedicate a sanctuary to the deity Yahweh, this sanctuary always will be a sacred space. The word “sacred” simply means something that has to do with God.
Everything that is not sacred is considered profane. (For example, the laptop I am using to write this article is profane and always will be unless I dedicate it to God.)
The difference between pure and impure things is a bit less rigid. The distinction between purity and impurity is not a tangible, physical thing. Some things are naturally pure, and others are naturally impure. This is not necessarily a distinction of morality, though.
Because purity and impurity do not indicate morality or immorality, there is no priestly prohibition on becoming impure. Rather, it is accepted by the authors that sometimes people interact with or do impure things and will, in turn, need ritual cleansing. This is a fact of life.
“The problem is not being impure but remaining impure.”
Thus, the problem is not being impure but remaining impure. When a person remains impure without going through the proper cleansing rituals, the dirt-like sin on them can be brought into the sanctuary.
For priestly writers, it is ideal to get rid of impurities as soon as possible. However, it is understood that a person may unintentionally come across an impurity without realizing it. In turn, they unknowingly bring dirt into the sanctuary.
This is why the text is considered utopian. Although the rituals may read as though they are rigidly followed, mistakes can happen.
So, the issue here is that sacred things and impure things cannot be combined, and sin is impure. As sin collects in the sanctuary, the presence of the deity in that space is compromised.
Ancient readers would have believed that too much build-up of sin in the sanctuary would cause the deity to leave, since it does not make sense for a sacred deity to live in a space filled with impurities.
But the sanctuary itself always will be sacred because this status cannot be changed.
So, the Israelites regularly cleansed it of built-up dirt to avoid driving away the deity. This process is called “purgation.” It is like a ritual spring cleaning.
Leviticus 16 outlines this process, with verse 16 stating that the priest performing the ritual “shall make atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleannesses of the people” and that they should do this “for the tent of meeting, which remains in the midst of their uncleannesses.” Verse 19 then mentions the blood’s purpose in this ritual: to “cleanse” and “hallow” the sanctuary.
Verse 34 notes that this purgation process should be carried out once a year so the sins that have been collected in the sanctuary can be taken care of at once before they build up for another year.
“The notion that people come across sin and become impure throughout their daily lives is assumed and accepted by the text.”
Surprisingly, the priestly writers do not necessarily make a moral judgment upon the people of Israel for committing sins and making the sanctuary dirty. The notion that people come across sin and become impure throughout their daily lives is assumed and accepted by the text.
These processes of ritual sacrifice and annual purgation are not about the moralities of the individuals partaking in them. Rather, they are an expression of how the community of Israelites believed in a collective faith. These rules also exemplify their belief that God was, literally, living within their space and was thus being directly affected by the actions of believers.
Although we do not practice animal sacrifice or make blood offerings in churches today, modern readers can still look to Leviticus as an example of unity and interconnectedness. For readers of Leviticus, the well-being of the individual is essential to the well-being of the whole, and vice-versa.
The ancient Israelites were distinctly aware of the ways in which their actions, even accidental ones, impacted their community, made room for mistakes and built the imperfection of human life into tradition.
Mallory Challis is a senior at Wingate University and serves this semester at BNG’s Clemons Fellow.
Related articles:
In the gun violence debate, let’s stop scapegoating mental illness | Opinion by Curtis Ramsey-Lucas
Matter-of-fact statements about Scripture aren’t always the gospel truth | Opinion by Jordan Conley