Leviticus 17:10-16: The Linguistic Core

8/9/2019 Leviticus 17:10-16: The Linguistic Core

1/16

WHEATON COLLEGE

LEVITICUS 17:10-16THE LINGUISTIC CORE

SUBMITTED TO DR. JOHN WALTONIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

BITH 562-INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS

BYJUSTIN LANGLEY

FEBRUARY 16, 2010CPO: 4224


2/16

METHODOLOGY

Studying the Hebrew text of any passage of the Bible entails a variety of challenges that the

student must overcome in order to gain understanding. The student must grapple with broad

semantic ranges of individual words, idiomatic constructions that advance beyond the normal

semantic range of individual words, identifying special or technical uses of terminology by

individual authors, a complex verbal stem system, and the various ways an author may combine

words to convey his intended meaning. In addition, the English-speaking student must also

identify ways that he or she may communicate the authors intended meaning in English idiom,

so that other English-speakers may understand the message that the biblical author intended to

communicate. In order to face these challenges, the student must utilize a number of tools that

draw on scholars extensive work in biblical Hebrew.

First, the student should utilize a good Hebrew concordance or a software program that

provides advanced searching capabilities. This enables the student to identify every place in the

Hebrew Bible where a particular word, form of a word, or collocation of words occurs. Then, the

student may differentiate between the different ways authors in the Bible used a particular word

or collocation and may find some help in identifying what the author of the passage under

examination intended. Moreover, the student can also differentiate between the different verbal

stems of a particular Hebrew root, which authors may use to communicate significantly different

ideas.

2


3/16

3

Second, the student must consult various Hebrew dictionaries and lexica. These resources

will provide the student with information on cognates in other languages, suggestions for the

various ways authors have used the word under examination, and information on recurring

collocations that the student may find helpful. Moreover, some dictionaries provide some level

of reflection on the theological significance of certain words which often sheds light on what an

author desired to communicate by his linguistic choices. Now, one surely does not need to

research every word in a passage in order to understand the passage correctly. Commentaries,

monographs, and journal articles may also provide valuable assessments of individual words or

phrases. Also, Hebrew reference grammars and books on Hebrew syntax yield a plethora of

helpful information regarding collocations, verbal stems, preposition usage, and larger

syntactical issues. One should focus on words or collocations not immediately intelligible to the

student and words or collocations that seem to carry significant weight for what the author

intended to communicate. The student may identify what carried significant weight for the author

by noticing repetitions and emphatic constructions and by seeking to locate the main point of the

pericope.

Third, the student must pay continuous attention to the critical apparatus inBHS.

Students must analyze and attempt to evaluate significant textual variants. Sometimes one cannot

make sense of the passage under examination, and the critical apparatus may provide alternative

readings found in other manuscripts or translations that may have preserved a reading that

precedes the reading found in the text ofBHS. The student should expect the biblical text to

make sense, but one must take care before changing a reading inBHS. Critical commentaries

may provide some aid in evaluating textual variants, but the student must keep his wits; common

sense and the reasonableness of arguments will often shed the greatest light on the text.


4/16

4

For Lev 17:10-16, all of these issues will come to bear on the interpretation. In order to

determine the meaning of the idiom found in vv. 10 and 13, , we will examine all

occurrences of it in the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, the idiom in v. 10, , requires

illumination from other texts. We also will briefly examine the significance of in legal

contexts such as this. Verse 11 stands as the crux interpretum of this passage, and it contains

several linguistic challenges. First, we must elucidate the meaning of, particularly in the

Pielstem. Moreover, we will pay close attention to the collocations in which appears. Next,

we find that much in this verse depends on understanding the prepositions, so we will analyze

the prepositions and , particularly when they occur with . Also, we will identify some

structural elements of the pericope that point to v. 11 as the pivot point of the paragraph. Finally,

v. 14 contains several linguistic similarities with v. 11, so we will seek to identify how the two

verses relate within the context.

Accurately identifying the human authors intention in recording this pericope within the

book of Leviticus requires that readers pay close attention to the Hebrew words in the text.

Faithful interpretation also demands that we focus on the way the author has connected words to

make up a meaningful discourse. In order to do this successfully, we must utilize all of the

resources at our disposal, which includes other Hebrew biblical texts, other textual traditions,

lexica, critical commentaries, and other scholarly publications. Asking the right kinds of

questions as we study this particular text will yield the right kinds of answers that will enable us

to articulate clearly and confidently what the author of the text intended his original audience to

understand.


5/16

5

: A COMMON BEGINNING FOR CASUISTIC LAWS

The particular law Yahweh communicates to Moses recorded in this pericope begins with the

phrase (Lev 17:10). The author uses a similar phrase to introduce the

second law in this pericope in v. 13: . Translating literally would yield

something like: And a person, a person from the house of Israel, which makes little sense in

English. Looking through the legal sections of the Hebrew Bible we find this phrase beginning a

clause 15 times.1 Each of these occurrences introduces a casuistic law, which depicts a

hypothetical case, usually concerning something Yahweh forbids, and identifies the

consequences that Yawheh, the priests, or the community should effect if or when the

hypothetical case becomes a reality. Biblical Hebrew has several forms in which casuistic laws

appear, and we may render these laws into English with a conditional construction. When the

law begins with , either or will follow to introduce the action in view.2 The

entire construction then yields in English, Any person who or If any person. Therefore,

Lev 17:10 begins: If anyone of the house of Israel or of the sojourners who sojourn among them

eats any blood.

1 It occurs at the beginning of a clause 11 times in Lev, twice in Num, and twice in Ezek. It also occurs fivetimes in the middle of a clause where it seems to convey a distributive sense, meaning each one of a specifiedgroup. See Exod 36:4; Num 1:4, 44; 4:19, 49.

2 Some have argued for different Pentateuchal sources using each of these different constructions. See, e.g.,Jacob Milgrom,Leviticus II, 17-22 (AYB 3A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974; repr., New Haven, Conn.: YaleUniversity Press, 2008), 1331.


6/16

6

THE APODOSIS: AN EXPRESSION OF DIVINE REJECTION

The introduces what will happen if a person among the people of Israel eats blood.3 The phrase

occurs, with some variation, six times in the Hebrew Bible.4The first part of the

phrase we could translate literally as, And I will give my face. However, the result of this

action has entirely negative connotations: .5 The preposition could

indicate hostility toward a person.6 Thus, the idiom seems to reflect Yahwehs decision to turn

against a person or group of people in judgment for disobedience.7

The specific judgment noted in Lev 17:10 states that Yahweh will cut off anyone who

eats blood from among his people. The verb , both in theHifiland theNifalstems, often

occurs in judgment contexts; clearly, Yahweh intends some kind of separation or removal of the

person, but it remains unclear whether this separation consists simply of exile from the

community or execution.8 For example, Gen 9:11 uses this term to describe what happened to

humanity as a result of the Flood. Moreover, Lev 20:2-3 specifies execution for the person

Yahweh will cut off from the people for sacrificing a child to Molech. Without a specific

3 See Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick OConnor,An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (WinonaLake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 535-6.

4 Lev 17:10; 26:17; Ezek 14:8; with the def. direct object marker attached to , Lev 20:3, 6; Ezek 15:7.

5 In each of the other contexts this phrase is used, equally negative results follow this phrase.

6 See L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, ,HALOT104. Cf. Ren Pter-Contesse and John Ellington,AHandbook on Leviticus (UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1990), 266.

7 For the idea of judgment communicated by this phrase, see Allen P. Ross,Holiness to the Lord: A Guideto the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 336.

8 Cf. E. Smick, , TWOT457.


7/16

7

correlation in the text between cutting off and execution, perhaps the law intends merely

expulsion from the community, so that, even though the law identifies Yahweh as the one who

cuts off, the community probably actually carries out the persons expulsion.9 Therefore, in

Lev 17:10, Yahweh specifies expulsion from the people of Israel as the appropriate penalty due

to anyone who eats blood.

THE RATIONALE: THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BLOOD AND LIFE

The command not to eat blood frames v. 11, as it begins with , indicating the logical ground

for the law, and then v. 12 reiterates the command beginning with . The author makes use

of this structure in order to emphasize the rationale of v. 11.10 The first clause of v. 11 supplies

the first part of the reason the people of Israel must not eat blood: Because the life of the flesh is

in the blood. The personal pronoun, written as in the text, refers back to the feminine noun

, and serves to emphasize it.11

This clause includes the first difficult to interpret. Two

categories could fit this reading well: spatial, indicating that the life resides in the blood, or

circumstantial, indicating an equation of life with blood (beth essenti). The former seems quite

natural, but, in light of v. 14, Gen 9:4, and Deut 12:23, which each seem to equate and ,

without a , the latter understanding remains a possibility. The LXX seems to have interpreted

9 Cf. E. Carpenter, ,NIDOTTE2:729.

10 Milgrom,Leviticus II, 1469.

11 This is one of the unmarked perpetual Qere readings inBHS. See Page H. Kelley, Daniel S. Mynatt,and Timothy G. Crawford, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 42 n46.


8/16

8

the as beth essenti, or it has assimilated the reading of v. 11 to the reading of v. 14:

.12Either way, the author intends to draw a tight

connection between and , and the author goes on to explain the significance of thisconnection, which rounds out the rationale for why the people of Israel must not eat blood.

YAHWEH HAS ASSIGNED BLOOD WITH A SACRED PURPOSE:

The author now records Yahwehs emphatic direct address to the people identifying the only

appropriate usage of blood by the people. He says, I have assigned13 [the blood] to you on the

altar . Scholars continue to debate both the meaning of and how we

may translate it. It occurs 92 times in the Hebrew Bible in thePielstem, 7 times in thePual

stem, once each in theHitpael,Nitpael, and Qalstems.14Most frequently, it appears modified by

prepositional phrases introduced with

. However, prepositional phrases introduced with

,

, and also occasionally modify the verb. In Exod 30:12, the noun appears in close

proximity with thePielstem of (vv. 15-16). Yahweh declared to Moses that he should

accept a ransom ( ) to prevent a plague among the people when Moses numbers them. Verses

13-14 indicate that each person would pay this ransom in the form of a half-shekel. Verses 15-16

12 It is not necessary to posit that the LXX has preserved a superior reading, contra R.K. Harrison,Leviticus(TOTC 3; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1980), 184.

13 This construction is often used of the priests actually performing the sacrifices, and it seems clear thatYahweh is here providing an overarching rationale for the usage of blood in the sacrifices. Cf. Milgrom,Leviticus II,1473.

14 We will limit our analysis to thePielandPualstems.


9/16

9

explain that they paid this ransom . Num 31:50 describes a similar situation

to that of Exod 31:11-16. The people bring to Moses gold and various articles of jewelry

.

With these verbal parallels, perhaps Lev 17:11 intends to identify the blood of animals as

the payment of a ransom when the priests offer the blood on the altar.15 This correlation has led

some scholars to propose that we should render as to serve as a ransom.16 However, one

must examine the 80 other occurrences of in thePielstem to see if they shed any light on

these occurrences in Lev 17. When the verb takes a simple direct object, either with or without

the definite direct object marker, the direct object always refers to a non-personal object. These

objects usually consist of sacred space or sacred furniture or even of sin itself. In Lev 16:18-19,

the author makes a close connection between and . The idea in view may reflect a

connection with the Akk. Cognate which often means to wipe. Thus, in the cultic contexts in

the Hebrew Bible, perhaps the authors using thePielstem of desire to communicate the

idea of wiping something clean or purging pollution.17In Lev 16, the author records Yahwehs

instructions for the rituals the priests would perform on the Day of Atonement. The priests

utilized the blood of animals to cleanse the sanctuary and the furniture within the sanctuary.

Moreover, the author summarizes the significance of the day by saying

15 Cf. R.E. Averbeck, ,NIDOTTE2:697.

16 So, e.g., Baruch A. Levine,Leviticus, (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,1989), 115.

17 Cf. Averbeck,NIDOTTE2:696.


10/16

10

, which explicitly introduces the idea of cleansing in relation to the people as well as the

sanctuary.

The vast majority of occurrences of thePielstem of include a reference to the

beneficiaries of the action. Usually, an author indicates this by using the preposition . Some

ambiguity remains when an author uses this preposition to modify , for in many cases the

prepositional phrase indicates the location of the action, and in other cases it indicates the

beneficiary of the action. Lev 17:11 has an example of each. Yahweh has assigned that priests

should apply animal blood onto the altar in sacrificial rites on behalf of the people of Israel. If

the Day of Atonement rituals connection with cleansing applies more broadly to sacrifices in

general, and if the verbal connection between Lev 17:11 and Exod 30:15-16 implies that in

thePielstem may connote the idea of a ransom, perhaps Lev 17:11 has both purification and

ransom in view. Moreover, looking more broadly at the sacrificial system described in Leviticus,

it seems clear that the results of on behalf of people include consecration, purification, and

forgiveness of sins.18 Also, drawing on the parallel between Lev 17:11 and Exod 30:15-16, when

a situation involves , the person in view stands in genuine danger on account of

approaching the utterly pure and holy deity.19

Therefore, when the author of Leviticus speaks of the blood upon the altar in 17:11, he

refers to the system of blood sacrifices Yahweh has set up which serves to cleanse the people

(and/or sacred space and its accoutrements). When he refers to this action as on behalf of your

18 Averbeck,NIDOTTE2:704.

19 See Levine,Leviticus, 7 and 115. Cf. Jacob Milgrom,Leviticus I, 1-16(AYB 3; Garden City: Doubleday,1974; repr., New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 708.


11/16

11

lives, he indicates that the blood serves as a ransom paid in order to provide the appropriate

occasion for Yahweh to forgive sins and to protect the people from Yahwehs wrath.20 Therefore,

perhaps we could render the clause into English in an expanded paraphrase: I have given the

blood of animals to you as a sacrifice that effects purification and that Yahweh accepts in

exchange for your lives which are forfeit in his holy presence due to your uncleanness and sin. 21

HOW THE CLEANSING RANSOM WORKS

The final clause of v. 11 explains how the sacrifice works to accomplish consecration,

purification, and forgiveness for the worshiper. Normally, the priest serves as the subject of,

but here the blood itself stands in as the effective agent. Interpreters usually identify the

attached to here as the key interpretive issue to unlock the meaning of this verse.22 The

options to consider for how the functions here include: beth instrumentii, beth pretii, orbeth

essenti.23 Milgrom notes that every occurrence of thePiel(orPual) stem of modified by

functions as beth instrumentii, except for Lev 6:23; 16:17, 27, where the clearly indicates

20 Milgrom,Leviticus I, 708. Cf. Christopher J.H. Wright, Atonement in the Old Testament, in TheAtonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium of the Theology of Atonement(ed. Derek Tidball, DavidHilborn, and Justin Thacker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 75-6.

21 I remain aware of the possibility of falling into the so-called overload fallacy or illegitimate totality

transfer; nonetheless, because of the general summarizing quality of this statement, as it seems to apply to thesacrificial system at large, I think it may be legitimate in this place to ascribe both semantic ranges to this verb. Theconnection between the ideas of compensation and purification here is maintained by Emile Nicole, Atonement inthe Pentateuch, in The Glory of the Atonement(ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James, III; Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity, 2004), 48.

22 See, e.g., Nicole,Atonement, 35-40.

23 For the different uses of in the Hebrew Bible, see Waltke and OConnor, Syntax, 196-9.


12/16

12

location.24 By this reading, refers to the life of the animal, indicating that the animals life

(or, more probably, death, as the shedding of blood indicates)25stands as the means by which

consecration, purification, and forgiveness comes to the worshiper. However, since the author

just mentioned the of the worshipers in the previous clause, may here also refer to the

life of the worshiper. If so, then we should probably read the beth pretii here, which would bring

out the ransom idea communicated by the verb.26 Nicole argues vigorously for this understanding

in order to bolster the idea of substitution in this crucial verse for understanding Israelite blood

sacrifices. However, it seems that the idea of substitution does not disappear if we read beth

instrumentii here instead, for the idea of ransom by means of the life of the animal would imply

the substitution of the animals blood for the life of the worshiper, just as the payment of money

in Exod 30:15-16 served as a substitute for the lives of the Israelites. 27

THE LAW REITERATED; THE RATIONALE RESTATED

Verse 12 reiterates the law in a similar form as v. 10. Verse 13 introduces another law related to

that of vv. 10 and 12, in the casuistic form of v. 10. The law states that a person out hunting must

bury the blood of any animal that he kills. Verse 14 again provides the rationale in slightly

different terms from v. 11. In a verbless clause such as this, knowing where to supply the verb

can puzzle the interpreter. Milgrom seems mistaken to draw a parallel between the syntax here

and the syntax in Deut 12:23b, saying, Note that the same syntax prevails as in our verse: nepe


25 Cf. Levine,Leviticus, 116.

26 Cf. Nicole,Atonement, 38-41.

27 Cf. Wright, Atonement, 75-6.


13/16

13

connected to brby a preposition, but using im instead ofbe.28Perhaps we should read two

clauses at the beginning of this verse prior to the : Because the life of all flesh is its blood; it is

its life. Again, the presents multiple options; it could function as beth essenti, or it could

indicate location. The former seems more probable, particularly if we break this group of words

into two clauses.29As in v. 12, the author repeats the law, but here he also repeats the rationale

before he indicates the punishment. In the first statement of the rationale in v. 12, created

a difficulty in the syntax; this word does not appear in the repetition of the rationale .30 Finally,

the author notes the penalty due to one who eats the blood of animals he has killed by hunting:

everyone who eats it will be cut off, using theNifalstem of.

The section closes with a related law concerning eating an animal that one stumbles upon

without any awareness of how the animal died. Presumably, in relation to what has gone before

in this section, eating from these animals transmits uncleanness to the one who eats because no

one has drained the blood and buried it, as v. 13 stipulates. Thus, the law indicates a washing

ritual that will restore the eater to purity. Refusal to bathe according to the instructions will result

in the eater having to bear the full responsibility, and thus endure the penalty, for his deliberate

transgression.31


29 Levine,Leviticus, 116, keeps it together as one clause and translates, For the life of all fleshits blood

is its life, still ostensibly interpreting the as beth essenti.

30 Indeed, was omitted by the LXX, the Syriac tradition, and the Vulgate, probably to smoothen outthe difficulty and to assimilate the two forms in the verse. Another example of the perpetual Qere with regard to thepersonal pronoun appears in the second rationale in v. 14, making it clear that the pronoun refers back to the

feminine instead of the masculine as in the previous rationale statement.

31 John E. Hartley,Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992), 277-8. Cf. Levine,Leviticus, 26.


14/16

14

CONCLUSION

Lev 17:11 provides the only explanation for how blood sacrifices repair positive relations

between people and Yahweh, and it does so primarily by explaining why people must not eat the

blood of animals! The term will continue to challenge interpreters of the Bible to pin down

its precise meaning as the biblical authors have used it. In this foundational passage for

understanding biblical sacrifice, it seems to convey the idea of a ransom whereby blood,

representing the life of the animal, not only substitutes for the life of the worshiper who offers it

on the altar, but also accomplishes purification of the worshiper and averts Yahwehs wrath.32

Granted this significance that Yahweh has assigned to the blood of animals, Eating [blood]

made common or profane something that God had intended for the sanctuary.33 Thus, the good

news consistently proclaimed throughout Leviticus stands: Yahweh has provided a way for

sinners to maintain fellowship with him.

32 Cf. Stephen Finlan, Options on Atonement in Christian Thought(Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2007),11, who says, This is not just a restoration of propriety; it is an aversion of human or divine violence.

33 Ross,Holiness, 336.


15/16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Finlan, Stephen. Options on Atonement in Christian Thought. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical,2007.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of theOld Testament. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Harrison, R.K.Leviticus. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary 3. Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity, 1980.

Hartley, John E.Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas: Word, 1992.

Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia HebraicaStuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OldTestament.Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000.

Levine, Baruch A.Leviticus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,1989.

Milgrom, Jacob.Leviticus I, 1-16. Anchor Yale Bible 3. Garden City: Doubleday, 1974. Repr.,New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.

.Leviticus II, 17-22. Anchor Yale Bible 3A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1974. Repr., NewHaven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.

Nicole, Emile. Atonement in the Pentateuch. Pages 35-50 in The Glory of the Atonement.Edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James, III. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity,2004.

Pter-Contesse, Ren and John Ellington.A Handbook on Leviticus. UBS Handbook Series. NewYork: United Bible Societies, 1990.

Ross, Allen P.Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus. GrandRapids: Baker, 2002.

VanGemeren, Willem A., ed.New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

15


16/16

16

Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael Patrick OConnor.An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Wright, Christopher J.H. Atonement in the Old Testament. Pages 69-82 in The Atonement

Debate: Papers from the London Symposium of the Theology of Atonement. Edited byDerek Tidball, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

Leviticus 17:10-16: The Linguistic Core

Documents

Transcript of Leviticus 17:10-16: The Linguistic Core