Tag Archives: sacred space

April 18, 2025

Notes on Leviticus: By Michael Heiser. Part Three

By Clarke Morledge

Which parts of the Law of Moses found in the Book of Leviticus are still binding on the Christian today? Christians from diverse traditions debate this most controversial topic. Jonathan Edwards, perhaps America’s greatest theological mind, had this to say:

“There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as stating of the precise agreement and differences between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ.”1

Leviticus is essentially a law book, detailing the specifics of the Old Covenant, which defined the standards for the ancient Israelite community. But what exactly are the elements from that Old Covenant that have been brought forward into New Covenant? And even if particulars of certain Old Covenant regulations from Leviticus are not binding on New Covenant believers, might there still be lessons in Christian obedience to be learned from them today?

Protestant evangelicals are divided on such issues: Is tithing carried forward under the New Covenant?  Does the Bible allow Christians to get tattoos? What about Saturday Sabbath observance? Hebrew Roots Movement enthusiasts bring forward as much from the Old Covenant as they can, even without a standing temple in Jerusalem. Progressive Christians do just the opposite, and jettison as much of the Old Covenant as they can, when certain moral prescriptions are deemed out-of-date. The diversity of such practical applications in interpreting Leviticus can be bewildering.

I came across the teaching of the late Dr. Michael Heiser several years ago, through his Naked Bible Podcast. An expert in Semitic languages and the Old Testament, he did an audio series on the Book of Leviticus, which were transcribed to form the book Notes on Leviticus: From the Naked Bible Podcast. As the author of The Unseen Realm, one of the most groundbreaking books I have read in recent memory, having influence across multiple denominations and Christian traditions, Heiser walks the student of Leviticus through the text in ways that opened up the book for me, with a lens that helps to better understand so many other parts of the Bible. As I have noted at several points, I am not always convinced by Dr. Heiser’s thinking, but he is way far more right than wrong in what he says, and he challenges me to think more deeply on crucial issues concerning the Bible. The tens of thousands of thoughtful Christians who follow Heiser’s YouTube channel surely agree with me.

Heiser’s premise is that Christian readers have often read Leviticus through presuppositions they bring in from their understanding of the New Testament, often confusing things in the process. Alternatively, Heiser proposes that we should learn to read Leviticus from the perspective of an ancient Israelite. What did Leviticus mean to a follower of Yahweh centuries before Jesus came on the scene?

One of the major themes in Leviticus is the concept of atonement. I am publishing this post on Good Friday, which in the Christian calendar commemorates what Jesus accomplished on the cross for us. Many theologians link Good Friday to the concept of atonement, the focus of this final post in this series. But the exact meaning of atonement has stimulated a significant debate among scholars: What does it mean to say that Jesus died for our sins?

On the late Michael Heiser’s Naked Bible Podcast, this Old Testament scholar brings out important highlights, accessible to everyday Christians, who want to have a better grasp on Leviticus, one of the least studied, least understood, and least read books in the Old Testament.

Continue reading

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Topics

April 4, 2025

Notes on Leviticus: By Michael Heiser. Part Two

By Clarke Morledge

A popular online video makes the rounds every now and then with a clip from The West Wing, a political drama television series broadcast from 1999 to 2006. It features a scene where the President of the United States, played by the actor Martin Sheen, has an interaction with either a Jewish or Christian call-in show host, with a PhD, where they have some back and forth regarding the interpretation of the Book of Leviticus, and a few other passages describing particulars of Old Testament Law.

The scene dramatizes a heightened conflict, concerning the instruction in Leviticus 18:22 prohibiting same-sex relations. The President challenges the doctor by quoting select verses, such as Exodus 35:2, which prescribes the death penalty for those who violate the Sabbath. Then there is Leviticus 11:7-8, which forbids an Israelite from touching the dead skin of a pig. Would someone playing football be required to wear gloves to avoid becoming unclean? What about Leviticus 19:19, which forbids planting two different kinds of crops within the same field, and wearing different kinds of fabric in their clothing?

The message of The West Wing video connects with many in our culture today, appealing to both non-believers and progressive Christians alike, who find the regulations described in the Book of Leviticus to be baffling, to say the least, if not overly harsh and rigid. At least on an emotional level, it is difficult to parse out why a prohibition against same-sex relations would be mixed in with odd requirements about not wearing two types of clothing (Leviticus 19:19). If historically-orthodox Christians seem so adamant about defending a definition of marriage restricted to one man and one woman for one lifetime, why is it that they seem so casual about wearing clothing made up of both cotton and polyester, when Leviticus addresses both subjects with disapproval?

Such a posture comes across to many critics today as needlessly judgmental, hypocritical, and not very loving. As a result, many progressive Christians (though not all) would rather lump the Levitical prohibition against same-sex acts in with instructions about not planting two different kinds of crops within the same field: Dismiss both of them!

The non-believer would go further and dismiss the whole Bible as a muddle of contradictions, an outdated moral system stuck in the Late Bronze age. Either way, the conclusion drawn by such critics and skeptics is the same: the regulations in Leviticus as a whole are a bunch of nonsense and no longer apply in today’s world. Get your morality from somewhere else other than Leviticus.

On the late Michael Heiser’s Naked Bible Podcast, this Old Testament scholar brings out important highlights, accessible to everyday Christians, who want to have a better grasp on Leviticus, one of the least studied, least understood, and least read books in the Old Testament.

 

Leviticus: An Outdated Relic from the Late Bronze Age?

Frankly, there are many conservative Christians, who while not being persuaded by such an impactful rhetorical argument, simply would not know how to respond to this kind of message. Disagreements between such progressive Christians and non-believers on the one side, and conservative and even moderate Christians on the other, are indeed very difficult to resolve. Is there any way to make sense of Leviticus? What would it have meant to an ancient Israelite many hundreds of years ago? Is there any kind of sensible application to make today for Christians? Or to put it bluntly: Are historically orthodox Christians really hopeless bigots?

I took the time to listen to Dr. Michael Heiser‘s Naked Bible Podcast series, covering the Book of Leviticus. I was surprised to learn that there are indeed ways in which scholars have been able to parse through such difficult texts, and make sense of them. Heiser’s teaching, where the transcripts of these podcasts have been put into book form, Notes on Leviticus: from the Naked Bible Podcast, while not a full-blown verse-by-verse analysis of every sentence in Leviticus, it nevertheless is an in-depth treatment of the Levitical system, exploring the logic of what is what in Leviticus, and what continues to be applicable today (and how) in a New Testament context, and what does not. While not every question I had in mind was answered, I gained a much better perspective as to how the Bible can be read within its historical, cultural context.

 

The Difference Between Ritual Impurity and Moral Impurity, in the Old Testament Jewish Mindset

In the previous post in this series, I reflected on Heiser’s teaching regarding “sacred space,” and the distinction between ritual impurity and moral impurity, despite the fact that both concepts of impurity often share the same language of “clean versus unclean.” Ritual impurities are simply things that happen in the normal course of life, and therefore, are not sinful, whereas moral impurities do qualify as sin, in the New Testament sense. The tabernacle/temple idea in Old Testament Judaism is about defining an area of “sacred space,” where God dwells. For someone to enter this “sacred space,” one needs to be fit to enter it, cleansed from both ritual and moral impurity.

One may easily see that the prohibition against same-sex relations is an example of a moral purity regulation as it is associated with the language of “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). But it is difficult to understand how this relates to commands about mixtures in Leviticus 19:19, just one chapter later:

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”

A similar passage is found in Deuteronomy 22:9-11. The New Testament is silent about the Leviticus regulations on mixtures. Some scholars argue that since the prohibition against same-sex relations is repeated in the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-27), and that the commands against mixtures are not repeated in the New Testament, that the prohibition against same-sex relations is applicable for Christians today but that the commands against mixtures are not. While there is strength to this argument, it does not help us much in understanding why these commands are different from one another. If the commands against mixtures are not related to moral impurity, what about them makes them related to ritual impurity? What is the logic behind both of these regulations: the one concerning homosexual practice and the commands against mixtures?

With respect to homosexuality, it can be easily established that male same-sex relations can imply a role and power imbalance, where one sexual partner dominates and penetrates the other. Outside of ancient Israel, same-sex relations were allowed, with caveats. Heiser notes that same-sex relations were still looked down, but in general, they were not severely punished, in comparison with what is described in the Old Testament. Outside of Israel, homosexual rape was condemned in certain cultures. However, pederasty, where Greek adult men would have sexual relations with younger men, was used as a method of training in the art of war. In this context, homosexual activity was not condemned. Israel was the exception in that all same-sex relations were condemned (Heiser, p. 231ff).

In citing the Jewish Old Testament scholar, Jacob Milgrom, Heiser concludes that homosexual practice goes against the creation order, in that it removes the possibility for procreation. While procreation is not the sole purpose of sex, as texts like the Song of Solomon celebrate human sexuality without reference to procreation, homosexual practice takes the procreative act out of sexual expression. Since the God of Israel is a God of life, to deny procreation from an Old Testament standpoint runs against God’s purposes for human sexuality.

The omission of any reference to lesbianism in the Old Testament is curious. Nevertheless, Paul’s inclusion of a prohibition against lesbian sexual expression in Romans 1:26-27 shows a parallel to male-male sexual relations. As Heiser summarizes:

“These passages are not written so that space is devoted to being mean. They’re written to reinforce a worldview that elevated the production of and care for human life” (Heiser, p. 237).1

The commands which restrict mixtures in Leviticus,about wearing different types of clothing, planting different types of seed in a field, etc., are even more perplexing. Centuries later, in the time of David, the Bible mentions mules, which are bred with a mixture of horse and donkey (1 Kings 1:45-47). But the Bible never has anything negative to say about mules. So, how does a student of Scripture make sense of all of this? Thankfully, recent scholarship, particularly from the eminent Jewish scholar, Jacob Milgrom, which Michael Heiser relates to the reader/listener, can help to sort things out.

Continue reading

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Topics

March 21, 2025

Notes On Leviticus: By Michael Heiser, Part One

By Clarke Morledge

It is said that the Book of Leviticus is where Bible reading plans typically die. You start off reading Genesis and then Exodus, as they are filled with compelling narratives. True, reading the genealogies can be slow going and the precise details about the tabernacle in Exodus can drag along. But the next book in order, Leviticus, is where people often get stuck and give up: Page after page of offering procedures and bloody sacrifices with bulls and goats. Not only does it seem repetitive, it sounds downright gross to modern readers.

Let us be honest. Leviticus can be a real sleeper….. ZZZZZZZZZ……

I have read through Leviticus several times, but I must confess that I have tended to skim read it. As a Christian, it is very easy to be dismissive of Leviticus, with all of its gory details, and multiple uncomfortable references to blood and semen. After all, the atoning work of Jesus on the cross has made the Levitical sacrificial system unnecessary. Jesus took care of everything. Next topic, please!

On the late Michael Heiser’s Naked Bible Podcast, this Old Testament scholar brings out important highlights, accessible to everyday Christians, who want to have a better grasp on Leviticus, one of the least studied, least understood, and least read books in the Old Testament.

 

Diving Into Leviticus…. and Really Learning Something!

Unfortunately, this all too common attitude towards Leviticus robs us from having a better understanding as to what the Levitical system was all about, according to the late Dr. Michael Heiser, an evangelical Old Testament scholar who has been very popular on YouTube, who sadly died of cancer in 2023. For Michael Heiser, it is very tempting to simply read Leviticus through the New Testament lens of Jesus’ atoning work on the cross, and conclude that Leviticus has no more relevance for the New Testament Christian. This would be a mistake.

Michael Heiser, on the other hand, wants us to get the ancient Israelite way of thinking into our heads. By understanding what Leviticus meant in its original context, we get a better sense of how the death of Jesus on the cross actually works for the Christian believer. Early on in his Naked Bible Podcast series, Heiser did a detailed study of Leviticus where the book simply came alive to me for the first time (A YouTube audio version is found here, in three parts: #1, #2, #3). This Naked Bible Podcast book study was transcribed and released in book form as Notes on Leviticus: From the Naked Bible Podcast.

Wow. Was I missing a lot of powerful stuff when I basically did a skim read of Leviticus!!

There is so much here, that I added two additional blog posts (the second, and the third) to this current exploration of Leviticus, following Michael Heiser’s Notes on Leviticus: From the Naked Bible Podcast.

One mistake that Christians often make about Leviticus is in thinking that the Levitical system is all about the atonement for sin, for the ancient Israelites. Unfortunately, this assumption is simply not true. While there is quite a bit in Leviticus about atoning for sin, there are a lot of details about offerings and sacrifices that have nothing to do with dealing with sin.

 

Atonement: Clean Versus Unclean?

If you are a bit skeptical, as I was when I first read Heiser, then consider Leviticus 8:15. There we have the altar being cleansed and “atoned” for. But it would be really odd to conclude that the altar had somehow “sinned” and that this required the altar to be atoned for in some way. Human beings sin but inanimate objects do not.

Heiser observes that the Hebrew word for “atonement” has a broad range of possible meanings, but that in general, atonement had to do with “purging,” or “decontamination.” Sin can indeed contaminate something, but ritual impurity could also contaminate, creating a situation which required a purging and/or decontamination, without necessarily implying some moral quality to it. This explains why inanimate objects, like an altar, or even walls on a house becoming infected with some type of mold or mildew (see Leviticus 14:33-53), can become ritually unclean, thereby requiring atonement in order to decontaminate the object.

Another set of verses right next to one another illustrates how confusing this can be:

“You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her” (Leviticus 18:19-20 ESV)

 

The second verse seems pretty straight forward in condemning adultery as sin. But what about the first verse? If a husband has sexual relations with his wife, while she is having her period, is this really a sin? Both verses talk about being “unclean.” So, what on earth is going on here?

 

Unlocking Leviticus: The Concept of Sacred Space

Heiser brings out the best of modern scholarship to observe that Leviticus makes an important distinction between moral purity and ritual purity. The former addresses what we would call “sin.” The latter deals with what an Israelite needed to do before entering “sacred space.” But the latter was not meant to deal with any particular sin, or sin in general. The tabernacle in the wilderness, and later with the temple in Jerusalem, was considered to be the sacred space where God dwells with his people. Because God was a holy God, it would be a dangerous affair to try to enter sacred space if one possessed ritual impurity.

This concept of “sacred space” can be a difficult idea to grasp for many modern, evangelically-minded Christians. The idea that one needs to be fit in order to enter sacred space saturates the thought world presented in the Book of Leviticus. You can get a sense of this in certain liturgical, historically-conscious Christian traditions, such as when one visits some of the great Christian cathedrals in Europe. The awe inspiring architecture of these majestic buildings, which rise above the neighboring landscape in many European towns and cities, is meant to draw a distinction between that which is common, normal everyday space, and the sacred space of entering a house of prayer and worship. Men are encouraged to take off their hats when entering a great Christian cathedral and women are discouraged from wearing skirts that are too short. Why? Because entering a worship area like this was designed to mirror what it might have been like for an Israelite to approach the sacred space of the tabernacle or the temple.

This is quite a different feel from entering many contemporary evangelical churches today, where people typically think of a church building as not much different from any other ordinary building, where people feel the casual freedom to bring their mugs of coffee into the worship room, something which still seems awkward to do when entering a great European church cathedral. Granted, things like whether or not to wear shorts to a church worship service are more about cultural concerns and not Scriptural concerns.

Still, having a sense of how we present ourselves in a worship setting can help the Christian to somehow imagine how it might have felt for Moses to approach the burning bush, where a voice beckons from the bush: “Moses… Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Exodus 3:4-6). If someone can capture this idea of “sacred space” in their mind, it can greatly aid in one’s understanding of something so foreign as the Book of Leviticus.

Like the concept of “sacred space,” ritual impurity is a conceptually intricate category which seems very foreign to modern peoples today, having to do with such things as reproductive fluids, like blood, which symbolizes life. So if a woman gave birth to a child, she would become ritually impure. For another example, in certain cases if you touched a dead person, that would make you ritually impure. Back to Leviticus 18:19, a woman in menstruation, as explained in further detail in Leviticus 15:19-24 where there is a release of blood, is in a ritually impure condition. Because the Old Testament taught respect for life, you could not bring death into God’s sacred space. In all of these examples, Leviticus provides a way of cleansing so that a person can become pure again, in the ritual sense.

But what is important to emphasize is that ritual impurity per se has nothing to do with a person’s sin. Giving birth to a child (Leviticus 12:1-8), a menstrual cycle, or touching a dead person (Numbers 19:10-22) are simply things that are part of normal human experience. Furthermore, having a certain kind of skin disease (Leviticus 13:1-14:32) can also make someone ritually unclean, but having a skin disease does not necessarily imply sin. None of these events describe any particular sin committed by a person at all. Nevertheless, one can not enter sacred space where God dwells without becoming ritually clean.

The closest thing relevant to contemporary life might be the taboo against eating food inside a restroom. Even modern people think that such activity would be regarded as unclean. In my mind at least, that does sound a bit gross. Likewise, the Levitical system in ancient Israel had serious concerns about ritual uncleanliness when someone sought to enter God’s presence, his sacred space, in the tabernacle (or later on in the Jerusalem temple).

Continue reading

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Topics