The analysis and synthesis approach to biblical studies applied here to Leviticus is a methodology developed by the author (DeCanio, 2007) in conjunction with his doctoral studies at the University of South Africa. An abbreviated version of this work entitled, Biblical Hermeneutics and a Methodology for Studying the Bible, will be posted as an article on bible.org.

The bibliography for this study of Leviticus is presented at the end of the article, Introduction to the Pentateuch.

Analysis Of The Context

The aim of this analysis is to consider aspects of the context in which the book of Leviticus was written, such as its authorship, recipients, time period of historical events and composition, and its biblical context, which may be useful in understanding the book as a whole.

Authorship

The Book of Leviticus, like all the other books of the Pentateuch, is anonymous, having no explicit indication of authorship. While the text makes it abundantly clear that the Law was given to Israel through Moses (see, for example, the many statements “Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 4:1;5:14; 6:1, 8; etc.), nowhere does it ever state that Moses wrote down what he heard. In view of Scriptural support for Mosaic authorship for whole of the Pentateuch (see the Introduction to the Pentateuch for a discussion of this issue), and in view of the intimately close association of Leviticus with the Book of Exodus where it explicitly states that Moses wrote down all that Yahweh said (Exod 24:4), it is reasonable to assume Mosaic authorship of Leviticus.

Recipients

The Book of Leviticus is specifically addressed to the sons of Israel (see, for example, 1:2; 4:2; 7:23; and 11:2), and Aaron and his descendants (see, for example, 6:9; and 8:2). In view of the fact that the covenant Israel entered into was not just for the Exodus generation, but for all succeeding generations, Moses’ wider audience must necessarily include later generations of Israelites as well.

Time Period Of Historical Events And Composition

Date Of Events

There are no chronological indicators in the Book of Leviticus and so the date of the events in this book must be determined from chronological data given in other books of the Pentateuch. The Book of Leviticus begins with “Then Yahweh called to Moses and spoke to him from within the tent of meeting, saying, . . . “(1:1). This statement shows strong continuity with the Book of Exodus with then connecting the instructions of Leviticus with the closing of Exodus (see, for example, Exod 40:34-38). From this perspective, it is known from Exodus 40:17 that the Tabernacle was erected on the first day of the first month of the second year from the Exodus. Further, it is known from the Book of Numbers that Yahweh spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai from in the Tent of Meeting on the first day of the second month of the second year (Num 1:1). This would date the giving of the instructions recorded in Leviticus in the first month of the second year from the Exodus, or in the Spring of the year 1445 B.C. (assuming a date of 1446 B.C. for the Exodus as argued for in the Introduction to the Pentateuch). Thus it would seem, that the giving of the Law recorded in the Book Leviticus occurred over a one month period of time.

Date Of Composition

Assuming Mosaic authorship, the Book of Leviticus would have to have been written sometime between the beginning of the second year from the Exodus and the end of the fortieth year when Moses died (Deut 34:5-7)—sometime between 1445 and 1406 B.C. More likely, Moses would have immediately written down the instructions from Yahweh as he had received them, even as he did for the instructions recorded in the Book of Exodus (Exod 24:4). Assuming this to be the case, Leviticus could have been written as early as 1445 B.C.

Biblical Context

The biblical context consists of three components; the historical element, the socio–cultural element, and the theological element. Before discussing these elements, it is important to consider the relationship with the Book of Exodus.

Relationship With The Book Of Exodus

The close relationship between the books of Exodus and Leviticus is seen in terms of their historical and theological relationships.

Historical Relationship

The Book of Leviticus is, from a historical perspective, a sequel to, or, more likely, a continuation of, the Book of Exodus (Lindsey 1985:163). This evident in several ways. First, the Levitical sacrificial system was a divine revelation to Israel through Moses as a part of the covenant obligation given at Sinai. In this sense it completes the revelation given in Exodus which details the Tabernacle in terms of its component parts and its construction. Leviticus completes this revelation by informing Israel the function of the Tabernacle in their covenant-relationship with Yahweh. Further, the Book of Leviticus opens with Yahweh calling to Moses from within the now completed Tabernacle (1:1). Thus the laws of sacrifice, worship, and holiness contained in Leviticus follows the historical narrative concerning the construction of the Tabernacle (Exod 25-40), and the subsequent indwelling of Yahweh in the Tabernacle (Exod 40:34-35). A consideration of Exodus 40:2, 17, and Numbers 1:1 and 10:11 indicates that the events of the Book of Leviticus took place over a period of one month, during which time Israel remained at Sinai. Therefore, historically, chronologically, and, as next discussed, theologically, Leviticus correctly follows Exodus and precedes Numbers.

Theological Relationship

The Levitical sacrificial system was instituted by God for a people he had redeemed from Egypt at the time of the Passover and brought into covenant-relationship with himself at Sinai (Lindsey 1985:164). Thus to offer a sacrifice to Yahweh was not human effort seeking to obtain favor with a hostile God, but a response to Yahweh who had first given Himself to Israel in covenant-relationship. Rather the function of the Levitical sacrifices is to restore fellowship with Yahweh whenever sin or impurity, whether moral or ceremonial, disrupted this fellowship. The individual or the nation (whichever was the case) needed to renew covenant fellowship through sacrifice, the particular sacrifice depending on the exact circumstance of the disruption.

Further, while Israel was called to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to Yahweh (Exod 19:6), the people needed to be instructed on how to achieve this lofty goal. The Book of Leviticus informs Israel in practical terms what it means for them to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Thus Leviticus provides the practical theology that is missing in the Book of Exodus. For all practical purposes there should be no division between the Books of Exodus and Leviticus; they form one book.

Historical Element

The Book of Exodus ends with the erection of the Tabernacle which was constructed according to the pattern God gave to Moses. The question that now needed to be addressed was, “How was Israel to use the Tabernacle?” The instructions given to Moses during the one month and 20 days between the setting up of the Tabernacle (Exod 40:17) and the departure of Israel from Sinai (Num 10:11) and recorded in the Book of Leviticus answers that question. Thus, both historically and theologically, the Book of Leviticus completes the Book of Exodus and forms a historical and theological bridge to the Book of Numbers, and beyond that to the Book of Deuteronomy, for the historical and theological presuppositions found in the last two books of the Pentateuch are rooted in the Books of Exodus and Leviticus.

Historically, it is significant to note that at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus Moses is outside the Tabernacle (Lev 1:1), while at the beginning of the book of Numbers he is inside the Tabernacle (Num 1:1). It is important to note here that the “tent of meeting” referred to in Exodus 33:7-11 is not the Tabernacle which was constructed later. Further, only Moses was inside the tent, for the presence of Yahweh, localized in the pillar of cloud, would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent. The Book of Exodus ends with Yahweh on the inside of the Tabernacle/tent of meeting and Moses outside not able to enter because the glory of Yahweh filled the Tabernacle (Exod 40:35). The Book of Leviticus begins with Yahweh on the inside of the Tabernacle calling to Moses on the outside (Lev 1:1). One month later (see, for example, Exod 40:2, 17 and Num 10:11 for chronological data) Moses was on the inside speaking with Yahweh (Num 1:1). This is representative of the historical fact that there is progression in relationship as a result of the Law given in Leviticus.

Socio-Cultural Element

The socio-cultural aspect of the biblical context for Leviticus does not change from beginning to end as Israel is camped at Mount Sinai for the entire month that this book deals with chronologically. Thus, in effect, the socio-cultural context for Israel is the same as it was at the end of Exodus. However, it was now be recognized that the laws for worship and personal and national holiness revealed in Leviticus establishes a unique culture which serves to separate Israel to Yahweh to be for him a kingdom of priests and holy nation. From this point on, this is the dominant aspect Israel’s socio-cultural context by which all the other writings in the Old Testament as well as the Gospels must be understood.

Theological Element

The theological element for Leviticus looks back on Genesis and Exodus and subsumes all of their theological revelations as its context. However, major additions to this context must be made as Yahweh reveals Himself through the laws of what is acceptable for approaching him in the Tabernacle, and through the laws of personal and national holiness. These laws not only provide theological insight into the person and nature of God, but also establish the theological framework in terms of the Levitical sacrificial system and priesthood within which the Tabernacle is to function. Thus they add significantly to the theological context within which the rest of the Old Testament, and the Gospels as well, must be understood.

Analysis Of The Text

Broad Descriptive Overview

Chapter	Descriptive Summary
1	Instructions for the burnt offering
2	Instructions for the grain offering
3	Instructions for the peace offering
4	Instructions for the sin offering for priests
	Instructions for the sin offering for the whole congregation
	Instructions for the sin offering for a leader
	Instructions for the sin offering for a member of the community
5	Instructions for the sin offering for an individual
	Instructions for the trespass/Guilt offering
6	Instructions for the trespass/Guilt offering
	The law for the burnt offering
	The law for the grain offering
7	The law for the guilt offering
8	Consecration of priests
9	Inauguration of priesthood/priestly service
10	Failure of priests to obey the laws of offerings
11	Laws pertaining to clean and unclean food
12	Laws pertaining to the uncleanness of childbirth
13-14	Laws pertaining to skin diseases and mildew
15	Laws pertaining to bodily discharges
16	Laws pertaining to national cleansing on the Day of Atonement
17	Laws pertaining to the holiness of blood as the agent that effects atonement
18	Laws pertaining to the restriction of sexual relations
19	Laws pertaining to practical holiness before God and man
20	Laws pertaining to offenses which necessitate severe punishment
21	Laws pertaining to priestly holiness
22	Laws pertaining to sacrificial holiness
23	Laws pertaining to holy convocations/feasts
24	Laws pertaining to the holiness of the sanctuary and Yahweh’s name
25	Laws pertaining to special observances
26	Laws pertaining to covenant blessings and curses
27	Laws pertaining to things consecrated/set apart to Yahweh

Major Theological Themes

According to Wenham (1992:16), the theology of Leviticus cannot be discussed apart from the other books of the Pentateuch. This is particularly so for those most closely related to it, namely, the books of Exodus and Numbers which come, respectively, before and after Leviticus both in canonical and chronological order. For instance, Wenham says, Exodus describes the cutting of the Sinai Covenant and the erection of the Tabernacle, both of which are fundamental to the theology of Leviticus. In addition, some of the theological presuppositions of Leviticus and Numbers stand out clearly.

Thus it is that within the context of a covenant-relationship between Yahweh and His redeemed people, and with Yahweh dwelling among His people in the Tabernacle, that the details of worship, the worshipper’s approach to Yahweh, and the requirements of dwelling in the presence of the holy God are presented. From this perspective, the two most important themes in the Book of Leviticus are the demands of worship, involving the sacrificial offering system and the observance of the holy convocations administered by the Aaronic priesthood, and the demands of practical holiness.¹

Worship: The Sacrificial Offering System

The language of worship pervades the book, with the various components of worship expressed in key terms: the term sacrifice occurs about 42 times, priest about 189 times, blood about 86 times, holy about 87 times, and atonement about 45 times.

The very heart of the covenant-relationship—fellowship between Yahweh and His people—and the means of achieving it are spelled out in the opening statement of Leviticus where, with respect to the burnt offering, Yahweh says, “He must present it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting so that he will be acceptable to Yahweh” (Lev 1:3). The fact that the covenant between Yahweh and Israel was modeled after those of the ancient Near East in both form and function allows one to understand the many cultic details recorded in the Pentateuch. In the case of the Book of Leviticus, the sacrificial offerings were designed to demonstrate the subservience of Israel to her Sovereign, to atone for her offenses against Him, and to reflect the harmoniousness and peaceableness of the relationship thus established or reestablished. In this regard, the burnt offering (Lev 1) and the grain offering (Lev 2) serve to identify the offerer as a servant (vassal) of the King (Suzerain), and as one who dared not come before his king empty-handed. The sin offering (Lev 4) and the trespass, or guilt, offering (Lev 5) serve to restore a relationship that had become disrupted because of the servant’s disobedience. They were his recompense to an offended lord. The peace, or fellowship offerings (Lev 3) constituted an expression of thanksgiving by the vassal for a state of fellowship that currently existed. They were freewill, non-obligatory testimonies to a heart filled with thanksgiving and praise for the benevolence and goodness of Yahweh.

Important from the New Testament’s perspective is the fact that it describes Christ’s death in terms of Old Testament sacrifices. For example, 1 John 1:2 declares that Christ is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins,” and Hebrews 9:22 states that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Further, significant sections of the Book of Hebrews draws upon the ceremonies and rituals of Leviticus to explain the work of Christ, including specific reference to the sin offering (see, Heb 13:11-12).

The role of the priests in mediating these sacrificial offerings is also an integral part of the sacrificial system. The priest, though functioning as a mediator between the worshiper and Yahweh, was also a vassal and likewise subject to the same demands and even more so for he had to follow proper protocol in his ministry on behalf of the people. He carried out the prescribed ritual relative to the various offerings as a special servant of Yahweh, and as such he had special responsibilities as well as special privileges. As a special servant of Yahweh the priest enjoyed a portion of the tribute for himself (7:28-36). As a special servant of Yahweh, he was appointed and consecrated (Lev 8), instructed in the appropriate means of sacrificial intercession (Lev 9) and was held strictly accountable to the laws of the Levitical system (10:1-3). Though his office was privileged, his ministry required unique canons of integrity and conduct (10:8-15). The priest was to be a holy man serving a holy God on behalf of a holy people. The essence of the priestly ministry is articulated in Leviticus 10:10-11: “. . to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean, and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which Yahweh has spoken to them through Moses.”

The Concept Of Sacrifice

According to Harrison (1985:599), the general principle undergirding the concept of an offering appears to have been that of property (2 Sam 24:24). However, whereas it was legitimate to sacrifice domesticated animals and birds, which were in a sense the property of man through his own enterprise, it was not permissible for wild animals to be sacrificed, since they were regarded as already belonging to God (see, for example, Ps 50:10). The basic theme of property was more evident in the case of vegetable and grain offerings since they would have been produced as a result of human labor.

The concept of sacrifice, or offering is clearly important to understanding the Levitical system of worship and sacrifice. One of the basic terms found in the Old Testament which expresses the concept of “offering” is the Hebrew term qorban which is derived from the verb meaning “to bring near.” Qorban is a generic term for anything presented to God when one approaches (karav) His sanctuary. A qorban might consist of artifacts and vessels, votive objects, or sacrificial victims. When sacrifices were offered, the individual came to draw near to God, with the hope that the sacrifice would be accepted and that his sin would then be atoned for. Since it aroused the wrath of God, the sacrifice was presented to appease the wrath of a holy God. Thus the goal of the worshiper was to be reconciled with Yahweh through the offering of a sacrifice.

Sin must be judged, and God reckons that judgment on the sacrifice as a substitute for the sinner, and He accepts the death of the sacrifice as a ransom for sin. God introduced this idea of redemption in conjunction with the Exodus where the death of the Passover lamb served as a substitute to redeem the life of the first-born. Here in Leviticus, the concept of redemption from sin is made more clear through the blood sacrifice of the animal. The animal sacrifice serves as the type pointing to the anti-type, Christ, the ultimate and perfect sacrifice for sin. Isaiah 53 provides clear revelation that God poured out His wrath on this “sacrifice to come” because of the iniquity of His people. Thus the animal sacrifice typified the ultimate sacrifice that Christ would make on the cross, and while it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin, Christ, having offered Himself once as a sacrifice for sin, perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Heb 10:1-18).

The Role Of The Worshiper

With few exceptions (such as a sin offering for the whole congregation or the offering of small birds by a poor person), the ritual, as LaSor (1990:153) has observed, up to the point of placing the sacrifice on the altar, is the same for all offerings. The worshiper, he notes, was to present his offering personally at the altar or the door of the Tent of Meeting. In this context, the offering was to represent the worshiper’s own life—an animal he had raised or grain he had grown—and was to be of superior value (generally a male animal without blemish,² or fine flour, or the best of first fruits). In all situations, the economic status of the worshiper was taken into consideration.

In this exchange, the worshiper then placed his hands on the head of the sacrifice, likely indicating personal identification, a sign that the animal was dying in his place³ (1:4). Since the ritual of the Day of Atonement clearly stipulates that confession was to be made with the laying on of hands, it seems reasonable to conclude that this was a part of every ritual of sacrifice which involved the laying on of hands. In the cases of the sin and guilt sacrifices specific sins are mentioned, and it is reasonable to conclude here that the worshiper was required to confess the specific sin that he was aware of as he laid hands on the victim. It was then the responsibility of the offerer to slaughter the animal near the altar of burnt offering in the courtyard, and prepare the sacrifice by cutting it in pieces.

The Role Of The Priest

As the worshiper slaughtered the animal, the priest caught the blood in a basin, sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, and poured the rest around its base. Depending on the kind of sacrifice, the priest burned all or part of the animal, Yahweh’s portion, on the altar of burnt offering. The fat, which was considered the best part, was always burned (3:16). Except for the burnt offering and certain parts of the sin offering, part of the animal could be eaten by the priest, the offerer, or both.

The Significance Of The Blood

It is clear from the text of Leviticus that in all the laws of the offerings the blood of the sacrifice is emphasized. The physical significance of the blood is evident from the text; the shedding of the blood means the death of the victim—”the life of the flesh is in the blood” (17:11a). The theological significance of the blood is explicitly stated in the text; the blood was given to make atonement—”I (Yahweh) have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement” (17:11b). Since it is the blood of the sacrifice that effects atonement, the death of the animal becomes efficacious for the one offering the sacrifice. This transfer takes place as the one making the sacrifice identifies himself with the victim through the laying on of hands. Thus the death of the offering is understood as a substitute for the death of the worshiper—the penalty for sin is death, but the animal dies in the place of the sinner. The theological significance of the blood, then, is to effect atonement by substitution, a theological concept known as substitutionary atonement.

Significance Of Old Testament Sacrifice: The Concept Of Atonement

Lindsey (1985:164) has noted that under the Levitical law, sacrifice was given by God as the only sufficient means for the sons of Israel to approach Him and to remain in harmonious fellowship with Him.⁴ The effective means by which this was accomplished was through the principle of atonement through substitutionary sacrifice (see, for example, 1:3-5; 4:4-5:13; 5:14-18; 16:5-27). The traditional view that the sacrifices only “covered” sin fails to do justice to the real forgiveness that was granted by God (see, for example, 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7).

Lindsey (1985:174) adds that the purpose of the sacrificial enactment, as defined in Leviticus, was to effect “atonement” on behalf of the person offering the sacrifice. The Hebrew verb kipper, translated into English as meaning “to atone,” has been related to the comparatively late Arabic word kafara, “to cover”; to the Akkadian term kuppuru, “to wipe away,” and to the Hebrew noun kopher, “ransom.” The latter term best suits the specific purpose of Israelite sacrifice theory as elaborated in Leviticus 17:11, which identified the life with the blood and laid down the principle that the blood “makes atonement by reason of the life.” The animal victim thus constituted a substitute for the human sinner, and the offering of its life in sacrifice effected a vicarious atonement for sin. The Hebrew sacrificial system must, however, always be envisaged against a background of the Covenant principle of divine grace. In this context the emphasis upon the categories of personal relationship with God can only be properly understood within the theological framework of a theory of substitution where the chosen victim dies in the place of the human sinner.

It is not easy to decide from the text if the sacrificial offering was meant to be a propitiation of divine anger as well as an expiation for human sin, for while there are undoubtedly some instances where the verb signifies “propitiation” (Exod 32:30; Num 16:41 ff.), there are others where it simply means “to cleanse,” as, for example, with the furnishings of the Tabernacle (Exod 29:37; Ezek 43:20). Yet it seems that where it is used to refer to atonement with respect to man, there is always in the background the fact of divine wrath. Thus, it would seem that of necessity the atonement effected through substitutionary sacrifice involves not only expiation of the sin, but also the propitiation of the divine Lawgiver in order that the relationship between God and man be restored. It would seem, therefore, that expiation had the effect of making propitiation—turning away divine wrath by a satisfactory, substitutionary sacrifice. This understanding seems valid in light of Paul’s declaration that man is justified by God’s grace through faith in the redemption which is in Christ, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation (Rom 3:21-25).⁵ What is very clear from Leviticus is that man as a sinner incurs divine wrath, that God has provided the sacrificial system in order that human transgressors might return in penitence to fellowship with Him, and that God has graciously permitted the death of a sacrificial victim as a substitute for the death of the sinner.

Finally, it should be noted that the Hebrew sacrificial system was not by any means, Lindsey (1985:165) says, to be a complete and final scheme whereby all forms of sin could be removed. Much of the atonement procedure was concerned with sins accidentally committed, sins inadvertently committed, or sins of omission; there was no forgiveness for sins committed as a result of sheer human stubborn persistence in wrong doing (Num 15:30), which by definition placed a man outside the range of Covenant mercies (see, for example, Lev 20). In the main, it can be stated that for breaches of the Covenant agreement no form of sacrifice was of any avail. It is in the light of this latter consideration that the cultic denunciations of the prophets and their rejection of sacrifice need be interpreted (see, for example, Isa 1:11-14). Although the prophets sometimes gave the impression that sacrifices were useless, the purpose of such preaching was to shake the people out of their lethargy. Ritual for ritual sake was wrong (see, for example, 1 Sam 15:22). What was required was for the worshiper to bring a sacrifice with a repentant heart (Isa 1:16-18).

The Sacrificial Offerings

Five offerings were included in the so-called Levitical law which Yahweh revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. One of these, always referred to in the plural as the “peace offerings,” consisted of three somewhat different offerings; the thank offering, the votive offering, and the freewill offering. Hence, there were seven offerings in all. Since all but the “grain offering” involved the killing of an animal, these offerings are often referred to as (blood) “sacrifices.”⁶

The Burnt Offering

The burnt offering—the concept coming from the Hebrew verb ‘olah meaning “that which goes up” (probably so called because the whole sacrifice “went up” in smoke to God)—was distinct in that it was totally consumed on the altar except for the hide or the crop of the bird (Lindsey 1985:173). This seems to be the oldest designated sacrifice (see, for example, Gen 8:20) and the most frequent form of Israel’s sacrifices. Lindsey has noted that, like all the Levitical sacrifices, the underlying purpose of the burnt offering was to secure atonement for sins (1:4; see also, for example, Num 15:24-25), though its more immediate purpose was to express total dedication to Yahweh. The verbal picture of a “sweet aroma” ascending to God’s nostrils is figurative language describing God’s pleasure with the offering and His acceptance of the individual approaching Him (1:9). Although burnt offerings were prescribed for regular daily, weekly, and monthly occasions (see, for example, Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:9-10, 11-15), and as part of the sacrifices offered on the occasion of annual festivals (see, for example, Lev 23), they could also be brought voluntarily by an individual (see, for example, Lev 14:19-20; 15:14-15; 22:17-20).

The Grain Offering

The grain offering— the minhah, which outside of the Levitical system could refer to any gift or offering; see, for example, Gen 4:3-5; Judges 6:18; 1 Sam 2:17, 29; Mal 2:13), was normally a coarsely ground grain, either wheat or barley, mixed with olive oil and topped with frankincense (Lindsey 1985:176). This offering was to be free of leaven and honey (2:11), but was to be salted like all offerings for the altar (2:13). While a grain offering could be offered by itself as a distinct sacrifice (e.g., 2:14-16; 6:14; Num 5:15), its more common use was as an accompaniment to either a burnt or a peace offering. In particular, it always accompanied peace offerings (7:12-14; see, for example, Num 15:4) and normally accompanied burnt offerings, especially the calendrical offerings (Num 28-29). Behind the idea of the grain offering was the recognition that as grain was the primary food for maintaining life, so God was the true source of life and substance and therefore everything the worshiper had belonged to God. From this concept comes the idea that the grain offering was the worshiper’s dedication offering, dedicating everything he had to Yahweh from whom it all had come.

The Peace Offerings

The peace offerings— generally described in Leviticus collectively by the Hebrew term shelamim—a derivative of the term shalom meaning “completeness,” “soundness,” “welfare,” “peace”—always appears in the plural and has been traditionally translated “peace offerings.” These offerings are further quantified in Leviticus by the Hebrew term zevah which in English means a “sacrifice.” Zevah is the common and most ancient sacrifice whose essential rite was eating the flesh of the victim at a feast in which the god of the clan shared by receiving the blood and fat pieces. Thus, zevah, the general name for all sacrifices which are eaten at feasts, qualifies the peace offerings as including a communal meal as part of the rite.

Since the Hebrew concept of peace includes health, prosperity, and peace with God, some translate it as a sacrifice of “well-being,” while others understand it as a “fellowship” offering because of its distinctive feature of the communal meal after the sacrifice. The peace offering parallels the burnt offering in form but, apparently, not in function as no mention is made of the peace offering effecting atonement, although this might be implied in the normal laying on of hands, the slaying of the animal, the manipulation of the blood, and the burning of the fat portions on the altar, which is virtually identical with the ritual of the sin offering which is the most explicit atoning sacrifice.

Lindsey (1985:178) observes that the proper classification of the peace offerings (and its sub-categories discussed below) is that of communal offering because of the communal meal which climaxed the sacrifice. The peace offering was a time of great rejoicing before Yahweh (Deut 12:12, 18-19; 27:7; 1 Kings 8:64-65). It was a time in which the worshipers, their families, and a Levite from their community (and also the poor during the Feast of Weeks, Deut 16:11) shared a major portion of the sacrificial meal together before Yahweh (7:11-36).

While the peace offering was primarily an optional sacrifice. It had its function in other aspects of the Levitical system (Lindsey 1985:178). For example, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) was the only annual festival for which peace offerings were prescribed (23:19-20). But this offering was also prescribed for certain special ceremonies of covenant initiation (Exod 24:5) or renewal (Deut 27:7), consecration (see, for example, Exod 29:19-34; Lev 8:22-32; 9:8-21; 1 Kings 8:63) or de-consecration (fulfillment of a Nazarite vow, Num 6:14, 17), as well as for other occasions such as a successful military campaign (1 Sam 11:15).

Three subcategories of the peace offering (Lev 7:11-16) suggest occasions or motivations for bringing this sacrifice (Lindsey 1985:178). One is a thanksgiving offering—in Hebrew, the todah, meaning “confession” or “acknowledgment”—was the most common type (7:12-15; 22:9), almost synonymous with the peace offering itself (see, for example, 2 Chron 29:31; 33:16; Jer 17:26). This offering was brought as an acknowledgment to other individuals of God’s deliverance or blessing bestowed in answer to prayer (see, for example, Pss 56:12-13; 107:22; 116:17-19; Jer 33:11). Another type is the votive (vow) offering—in Hebrew, the neder—was a ritual expression of a vow (7:16; see, for example, 27:9-10), or the fulfillment of a vow (see, for example, Num 6:17-20). A third type is the freewill offering—in Hebrew, the nedavah—was brought to express devotion or thankfulness to God for some unexpected blessing (7:16; 22:18-23).

The Sin Offering

It is important to recognize, as Lindsey (1985:180) points out, that although the sin offering and the guilt offering, subsequently discussed, are distinguishable, they clearly have some definite similarities. This is especially the case with regards to their primary function as both can best be described as expiatory offerings.

Not all sins could be atoned for by means of a sin offering. Only sins committed unintentionally (these could be sins of omission as well as sins of commission; see, for example, Num 15:22-23) could be atoned for with a sin offering. The sin offering, however, did not cover were sins committed with a defiant attitude (see, for example, Num 15:30 which literally means “with a high hand”)—that is, sin with a purpose of being disobedient to God. For such cases as these, no sin offering could be brought by an individual (Lindsey 1985:180). The only hope for cleansing from such sins lay in the Day of Atonement ritual which provided yearly cleansing from “all their sins” (16:20), “so that they will be clean from all [their] sins” (16:30). The sin offering, therefore, was applicable only for sin not done in a spirit of rebellion against Yahweh and His covenant stipulations, whether they were sins of ignorance (Lev 4), sins without conscious intent (Lev 5), or intentional but non-defiant sins (such as for manslaughter where the act is committed without premeditation).

The Guilt Offering

The guilt or trespass offering— (‘asham), observes Lindsey (1985:183), was required whenever someone committed a “violation”—an act of misappropriation or denial to another (whether God or man) of his rightful due (see, for example, Num 5:12, 19; Josh 7:1; 22:20; 2 Chron 26:16, 18; 28:22-23). This offering covered violations such as defrauding someone, or trespassing upon another’s rights. When such acts came to light and were confessed, the wrong had to be made right with appropriate compensation. For example, if the violation could be assessed for monetary compensation, then the offender was required to bring the ram for the guilt offering as well as compensation in property or silver plus a 20 percent fine (5:16; 6:5). The violations covered by the laws of the guilt offering, pertain, Lindsey (1985:183) writes, to intentional misappropriation of sacred property (5:14-16) and service (see, for example, 14:12, 24), suspected transgressions of divine commands (5:17-19), and the violation of the property rights of others (6:1-7; see also, for example, 19:20-22; Num 5:6-10). The common denominator of the guilt offering, therefore, was an offense that caused damage or loss whether unintentional or deliberate, and either against God or man. The guilt offering, however, is also usually involved with ceremonial defilement and is associated with such ceremonies as the cleansing of a leper (14:1 ff.) or the purification of a women after childbirth (12:1 ff.).

The Summary Of The Offering

A tabular summary of the sacrificial offerings is presented below in Charts 1a and 1b in terms of their theological significance, nature, and disposition, and in terms of the actions of the worshiper and priest. (These charts are derived from Lindsey 1985:168-171; Harrison 1980:38; LaSor 1990:154-155; Hill & Walton 1991:125; and Archer 1985:250.)

Chart 1a. Summary of Levitical Sacrifices

Chart 1b Summary of Levitical Sacrifices

Typological Significance Of The Sacrificial Offerings

As has been previously noted, the animal sacrifice served as a type pointing to Christ, the antitype. The following summarizes the typological significance that some see in the various sacrificial offerings. A tabular summation of the typological relationship of the sacrifices is presented in Chart 2.

Chart 2. Typological relationship of the Levitical sacrifices to Christ

Typological Significance Of The Burnt Offering

While all of the animal offerings pointed to the death of Christ, the burnt offering typified Christ’s death not so much as bearing sin as accomplishing the will of God (Lindsey 1985:176). Christ was the Lamb of God (John 1:29) who gave himself in complete dedication to accomplishing God’s will. This is indicated in Hebrews 9:14: “Christ . . . offered Himself unblemished to God” (see also, for example, Eph 5:1-2; Phil 2:8; Heb 10:5-7).

Typological Significance Of The Grain Offering

The grain offering is normally found in conjunction with the burnt or peace/fellowship offerings. The typology of the grain may be understood, therefore, as being complimentary to these blood sacrifices, which typify the substitutionary value of Christ’s death on the cross, in the sense that they typify the person of Christ. For example, it may be that the fine flour speaks of His perfect, well-balanced humanity, the oil pictures the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Him at the Incarnation, the frankincense points to the moral fragrance of His person, and the absence of leaven illustrates His separateness from sin (Lindsey 1985:177).

Typological Significance Of The Peace Offering

The typology of the peace offering, Lindsey (1985:180) offers, pictures the fellowship that the New Testament believer has with God and with other believers on the basis of Christ’s death on the cross (1 John 1:3). This, Lindsey says, is one aspect of Christ’s “making peace through His blood which he shed on the cross” (Col 1:20). Clearly, as Paul reveals, “He Himself is our peace” (Eph 2:14).

Typological Significance Of The Sin Offering

The typology of the sin offering, according to Lindsey (1985:182), emphasizes the death of Christ as a satisfactory substitutionary sacrifice, a ransom, to provide for the forgiveness of sins (2 Cor 5:21; Eph 1:7).

Typological Significance Of The Guilt Offering

The typology of the guilt offering, Lindsey (1985:184) writes, stresses that aspect of Christ’s death which atones for the damage or injury done by sin. Isaiah foresaw the death of Christ as a “guilt offering” (Isa 53:10).

Summary Statement On The Levitical Sacrificial System

By way of summary, the Levitical sacrifices had a number of limitations.⁷ To begin with, it must be understood that the sacrifices were limited in their moral efficacy. Furthermore, it must be recognized that empty ritualism was never an acceptable option to God. Thus a truly acceptable sacrifice must be prompted by genuine faith and moral obedience to the revealed will of God (26:14-45, see especially 26:31; see also Pss 40:6-8; 51:16-17; Amos 5:21-24; Heb 10:5-10; 11:4, 6).

Second, it is important to understand that, with the possible exception of the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrifices were limited in scope to certain kinds of personal sins. Further, they did not atone for the sin nature, for the imputed sin of Adam, nor did they include willful acts of sin committed in defiance of God. Therefore, the Levitical sacrificial system did not provide for a complete and final scheme whereby all forms of sin could be removed.

Third, the sacrifices were limited in purpose to the covenant preservation and renewal of a redeemed people. The Levitical sacrifices were a part of the worship of a redeemed people in covenant-relationship with their God. While members of the Exodus generation experienced regeneration and justification through faith in the blood of the Passover lamb, each new generation needed to likewise express faith (likely through their faithful celebration of the Passover and Day of Atonement festivals) before their worship of God would be acceptable and truly maintain fellowship with Him.

Fourth, except for the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrifices were limited in scope and duration to one sin per sacrifice.. Although the forgiveness was temporary in the sense that each sin required another sacrifice, the forgiveness was real in the sense that God truly forgave the individual. This is consistent with Genesis 15:6 which reveals that God counted Abraham’s faith as righteousness.

Lastly, it must be noted that the efficacy of sacrifice was not inherent in the animals sacrificed or in any or all parts of the sacrificial ritual. Rather God provided atonement and forgiveness on the basis of the all-sufficient sacrifice that Jesus Christ would offer on the cross. His death was “a sacrifice of atonement” which God accepted as paid in full for the forgiveness which He had extended before the Cross (Rom 3:25). It is on the basis of Christ’s death alone as the one truly efficacious sacrifice for all sin that the Levitical sacrifices were validated, as it were, in the mind of God—Christ is the Lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8; see, for example, 1 Pet 1:19-20). It is evident from this that the efficacious value of the sacrifices was derivative rather than original. It is in this sense that the author of Hebrews asserts, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb 10:4). Nevertheless, the spiritual benefits experienced by the Old Testament believers were just as real as the benefits experienced by New Testament believers.

In the final analysis, the Levitical sacrifices were efficacious for restoring the covenant-relationship. However, when offered in faith, it was also efficacious for the actual forgiveness of particular sins,. But this efficacy was derivative, needing to be validated by the one all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Worship: The Holy Convocations

The demands of holiness in approach to Yahweh also require strict adherence to the times of holy convocations appointed by Yahweh. These included the weekly Sabbath (23:3), and the yearly festivals of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (23:4-8), the Feast of First Fruits (23:9-14), the Feast of Pentecost (23:15-22), the Feast of Trumpets (23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (23:26-32), and the Feast of Tabernacles (23:33-44). In the context of the need to be a holy nation to Yahweh in covenant-relationship, Israel needed to be reminded of the unique set of circumstances by which they were called to that relationship. While the purpose of these convocations was multidimensional, it would seem that a major reason for them was to remind Israel of the historical basis for their worship, and to provide a context within which worship could be expressed to Yahweh for what He had done, was doing, and was yet going to do for Israel.

All of these festivals were associated with the agricultural season. To properly appreciate the importance of the seasonal associations of these festivals it is necessary to know at least the essentials of the climatic conditions of the Land of Israel. The wet season began late in the seventh month of Tishri with the early rains. Plowing began in the eighth month followed in the ninth month of Kislev by the planting of the grain crops (wheat and barley). The winter season was therefore a time of crop growth. The latter rains occur in about the first month of Abib/Nisan and end in the second month which begins the dry season. Harvesting began during the dry season–first barley and then wheat. The summer crops—grapes, olives, and fruits—ripened during the rain-less summer months and were gathered in before the early rains in the fall, which began the agricultural cycle all over again. A tabular summary, derived in part from Hannah (1985:127), is presented below in Chart 3 showing the relationship between the Hebrew calendar months, festivals, and agricultural seasons.

Chart 3. Summary of Hebrew Calendar Months, Festivals, and Seasons

The Passover

The Passover (pesah) was the first of three annual pilgrimage festivals and was celebrated on the 14th of Nisan (post-Exilic; formerly Abib, Exod 13:4), thereafter continuing as the Feast of Unleavened Bread from the 15th to the 21st. Nisan marked the beginning of the religious or sacred new year (Exod 12:2). The Hebrew term pesah is from a root meaning “to pass (or spring) over,” and signifies the passing over (sparing) of the house of Israel when the firstborn of Egypt were slain (Exod 12). The Passover itself refers only to the paschal supper on the evening of the 14th, whereas the following period, 15th to the 21st, is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exod 12; 13:1-10; Lev 23:5-8; Num 28:16-25; Deut 16:1-8).

Institution And Celebration

The purpose for its institution was to commemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage and the sparing of Israel’s firstborn when God smote the firstborn of Egypt. In observance of the first Passover, on the 10th of Nisan the head of each family sets apart a lamb without blemish. On the evening of the 14th the lamb was slain and some of its blood sprinkled on the door posts and lintel of the house in which they ate the Passover as a seal against the coming judgment upon Egypt. The lamb was then roasted whole and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Any portion remaining was to be burned the next morning. Each was to eat in haste with loins girded, shoes on the feet, and staff in hand.

Later Observance

After the establishment of the priesthood and Tabernacle, the celebration of the Passover differed in some particulars from the Egyptian Passover. These distinctions were:

(a) the Passover lamb was to be slain at the sanctuary rather than at home (Deut 16:5-6);

(b) the blood was sprinkled upon the altar instead of the door posts;

(c) besides the family sacrifice for the Passover meal, there were public and national sacrifices offered each of the seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Num 28:16-24);

(d) the meaning of the Passover was recited at the feast each year (Exod 12;24-27);

(e) the singing of the Hallel (Pss. 113-118) during the meal was later instituted;

(f) a second Passover on the 14th day of the second month was to be kept by those who were ceremonially unclean or away on a journey at the time of its regular celebration on the 14th of Nisan (Num 9:9-12).

The Passover was one of the three feasts in which all males were required to come to the sanctuary. They were not to appear empty-handed, but were to bring offerings as the Lord had prospered them (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16-17). It was unlawful to eat leavened food after midday of the 14th, and all labor, with few exceptions, ceased. After appropriate blessings a first cup of wine was served, followed by the eating of a portion of the bitter herbs. Before the lamb and the unleavened bread were eaten, a second cup of wine was provided at which time the son, in compliance with Exodus 12:26, asked the father the meaning and significance of the Passover feast. An account of the Egyptian bondage and deliverance was recited in reply. The first portion of the Hallel (Pss. 113-114) was then sung and the paschal supper eaten, followed by the third and fourth cups of wine and the second part of the Hallel (Pss. 115-118).

The Feast Of Unleavened Bread

Both the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which imme­diately followed, commemorated the Exodus, the former in remem­brance of God’s “passing over” the Israelites when He slew the firstborn of Egypt, and the latter, to keep alive the memory of their afflictions and God’s bringing them out in haste from Egypt (“bread of affliction” Deut 16:3). The first and last days of this feast were Sabbaths in which no servile work could be done, except the necessary preparation of food. The Passover season marked the beginning of the grain harvest in Palestine.

The Feast Of First Fruits

On the second day of Unleavened Bread (16th Nisan), a sheaf of the first fruits of the barley harvest was to be presented as a wave offering (23:9-11). The ceremony came to be called “the omer ceremony” from the Hebrew for sheaf, omer.

The Feast Of Weeks (Pentecost)

The Feast of Weeks was to be observed fifty days (seven weeks) after the Passover (Exod 34:22; Lev 23:15-22; Deut 16:9-10) and for this reason came to be known in New Testament times as “Pentecost” (see, for example, Acts 2:1). It is also called the “Feast of Harvest” (Exod 23:16) and the “Day of First-fruits” (Num 28:26).

The Feast of Weeks was a one-day festival in which all males were to appear at the sanctuary, and a Sabbath in which all servile labor was suspended. The central feature of the day was the offering of two loaves of bread for the people from the first fruits of the wheat harvest (23:17). As the omer ceremony signified the harvest season had begun, the presentation of the two loaves indicated its close. It was a day of thanksgiving in which freewill offerings were made (Deut 16:10-12). The festival day signified the dedication of the harvest to God as the provider of all blessings. Although it was a day of “sacred assembly” (23:21) in which there were an assortment of blood sacrifices, the Feast of Weeks was also a time to “rejoice before Yahweh” and to share with family members and with the poor the abundant provisions of food (Deut 16:10-12) that Yahweh had provided.

The Old Testament does not specifically give any historical significance for the day, the Feast of Weeks being the only one of the three great agricultural feasts which does not commemorate some event in Jewish history. Later tradition, on the basis of Exodus 19:1, taught that the giving of the law at Sinai was fifty days after the Exodus and Passover, and as a result shabu’ot has also become known as the Torah festival. The Book of Ruth, which describes the harvest season, is read at the observance of the Feast of Weeks. The significance of this day for the New Testament is set forth in Acts 2, when on the day of Pentecost the Church had its beginning with the pouring out of the Spirit on the believers gathered in Jerusalem.

The Feast Of Trumpets

The new moon of the seventh month (1st of Tishri) constituted the beginning of the civil new year and was designated as ro’sh hashshana, “the first of the year,” or yom teru’a, “day of sounding” (the trumpet). The blowing of the shofar, or ram’s horn, occupied a significant place on several other occasions, such as the monthly new moon and the Year of Jubilee, but especially so at the beginning of the new year, hence its name—Feast of Trumpets. The Hebrew calendar actually began with the moon of Nisan in the spring at the beginning of the month (Exod 12:2), but since the end of the seventh month, Tishri, usually marked the beginning of the rainy season in Palestine when the year’s work of plowing and planting began, Tishri was constituted as the beginning of the economic and civil year. Business transactions, sabbatical years and jubilee years were all determined from the first of the seventh month.

The day was observed as a sabbatical feast day with special sacri­fices, and looked forward to the solemn Day of Atonement ten days later.

The Day Of Atonement

The annual Day of Atonement (yom hakkippurim) is set forth in Leviticus 16; 23:27-32 as the supreme act of national atonement for sin. It took place on the 10th day of the seventh month, Tishri, and fasting was commanded from the evening of the 9th day until the evening of the 10th day, in keeping with the unusual sanctity of the day. On this day an atonement was effected for the people, the priesthood, and for the sanctuary itself because it “dwelled with them in the midst of their uncleanness” (16:16).

This ritual was divided into two acts, one performed on behalf of the priesthood, and one on behalf of the nation Israel. The high priest, who had moved a week previous to this day from his own dwelling to the sanctuary, arose on the Day of Atonement, and having bathed and laid aside his regular high priestly attire, dressed himself in holy white linen garments, and brought forward a young bullock for a sin offering for himself and for his house. The other priests who on other occasions served in the sanctuary on this day took their place with the sinful congregation for whom atonement was to be made (16:17). The high priest slew the sin offering for himself and entered the holy of holies with a censor of incense, so that a cloud of incense might fill the room and cover the ark in order that he would not die. Then he returned with the blood of the sin offering and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat on the east, and seven times before the mercy seat for the symbolic cleansing of the holy of holies which was defiled by its presence among the sinful people. Having made atonement for himself, he returned to the court of the sanctuary.

The high priest next presented the two goats, which had been secured as the sin offering for the people, to the Lord at the door of the Tabernacle and cast lots over them; one lot marked to Yahweh, and the other for the scapegoat. The goat upon which the lot had fallen for Yahweh was slain, and the high priest repeated the ritual of sprinkling the blood as before. In addition, he cleansed the holy place by a seven-fold sprinkling, and lastly, cleansed the altar of burnt offering.

The high priest then took the live goat, the scapegoat, which had been left standing at the altar, and, laying hands upon it, confessed over it all the sins of the people. After that, the scapegoat was sent into an uninhabited wilderness bearing the iniquity of the nation of Israel, thus symbolizing the removal of Israel’s sins.

The Feast Of Tabernacles

The Feast of Tabernacles (hag hassukkot), the third of the pilgrimage feasts, was celebrated for seven days from the 15th to 21st day of Tishri, the seven month. It was followed by an eighth day of holy convocation with appropriate sacrifices (Lev 23:33 ff.; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-15). It was also called “the Feast of Ingathering” (Exod 23:16) for the autumn harvest of the fruits and olives, with the ingathering of the threshing floor and the wine press, which occurred at this time (Lev 23:39; Deut 16:13). It was the outstanding feast of rejoicing in the year, in which the Israelites, during the seven day period, lived in booths or huts made of boughs in commemoration of their wilderness wanderings when their fathers dwelt in temporary shelters. The whole family was to recall the hardships of the past and to give thanks for the abundance of Canaan, the land in which their joy could “be complete” (Deut 16:25). According to Numbers 29:12-34, a large number of burnt offerings and one sin offering were sacrificed each day. Sacrifices were more numerous during this feast than at any other, consisting of the offering of 189 animals for the seven day period.

When the feast coincided with a sabbatical year, the law was read publicly to the entire congregation at the sanctuary (Deut 31:10-13). As Josephus and the Talmud indicate, new ceremonies were gradually added to the festival, chief of which was the simhat bet hasho’ebah, “the festival of the drawing of water.” In this ceremony a golden pitcher was filled from the pool of Siloam and returned to the priest at the Temple amid the joyful shouts of the celebrants, after which the water was poured into a basin at the altar (see, for example, John 7:37-38). At night the streets and temple court were illuminated by innumerable torches carried by the singing, dancing pilgrims. The booths were dismantled on the last day, and the eighth day which followed was observed as a sabbath day of holy convocation. The feast is mentioned by Zechariah as a joyous celebration in the Millennium (Zech 14:16).

On the twenty-second of the month a holy convocation brought to an end not only the Feast of Tabernacles but the whole cycle of feasts starting with the Passover. God had blessed His people both materially and spiritually, and they were never to forget all of His benefits (see, for example, Deut 8:10-14).

A Summary Of Israel’s Festivals

A tabular summary of the festivals (derived in part from Hill & Walton 1991:127; and Johnson 1987:12) is presented below in Chart 4 in terms of their occasion, theological significance, and correlation with Israel’s calendar.

Chart 4. Summary of Israel’s Festivals

Eschatological Significance Of The Feasts⁸

The eschatological significance of the Feasts is considered in the typological nature of the Feasts and typological significance of the Feasts.

Typological Nature Of The Feasts

That the feasts of Leviticus 23 are types which prophesied God’s redemptive program for Israel are well argued for by dispensationalists. More accurately translated as “appointed times,” these celebrations were integral, essential, and interdependent components of an annual cycle of worship which traced the progressive steps by which God would redeem a sinful and rebellious Israel and ultimately bring His covenant people into the blessings and joy of the Messianic (Millennial) Kingdom.

The typology of the first four feasts has historically been fulfilled; Passover predicted the death of Christ as Redeemer, Unleavened Bread the separated life of the redeemed, First Fruits the resurrection of Christ, and Weeks (or Pentecost) the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is important to note here that the church was not foreshadowed by the Feast of Pentecost, for it is not revealed in the typology of any of the feasts. Rather, the church benefits from God’s fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham concerning the blessing of the nations, which blessing is fulfilled through the Seed of Abraham, namely, Christ (see Gal 3:16).

It is also important to recognize that leaven in the feasts expressed the idea of continuity, not sin. Thus, in the Feast of Unleavened Bread its absence pictured the break from dependence upon life in Egypt. Its presence in the loaves of Pentecost connected the first fruits of the barley crop with the end of the wheat harvest fifty days later, thus, typologically demonstrating the continuity between the resurrection of Christ and the pouring out of the Spirit. Because each feast was an essential part of the annual cycle, the historical typological fulfillment of the first four makes necessary an equally literal, future historical fulfillment for the last three.

Typological Significance Of The Feasts

While the historical significance of each feast is important in the religious and social life of the nation of Israel, it is their relation to the future that is most important—the feast as a type finds its fulfillment in the antitype, which for the most part has salvific and/or eschatological significance which is centered in Christ.

Feast of Passover: Scripture clearly indicates that the typology of this feast was fulfilled in Christ’s death on the cross. There He satisfied every requirement of the Passover lamb in His person and work. The prior identification of Christ as the Lamb of God by John the Baptist (John 1:29) and the later reference by Paul (1 Cor 5:7) to the sacrificial death of Christ as the typical fulfillment of the Passover, establish the identity of this antitype beyond controversy.

Feast of Unleavened Bread: The key to identifying the anti-type of this feast lies in its connection with the Passover, in particular, in noting the causal relationship between the two and the parallel in their antitypes, and in understanding the meaning of the type. In the context of the original Passover the leaven basically and historically represented a continuity between the old life in relation to Egypt and the new life in relation to Yahweh. Its domestic use assured a link from the daily bread of one day to the next. For a people who customarily used a piece of old dough to cause the new dough to rise, the prohibition of this substance for seven days, without further theological instruction, could only indicate a break in the continuity of their baking. In effect, this meant that as each day’s dough was kneaded without any old dough, or “leaven,” further separation occurred between the past and the present. Beginning immediately after the eating of the Passover lamb, the seven-day period coincided with the start of the Exodus and therefore made a complete break between the food prepared in Egypt and the food to be supplied by Yahweh. Redeemed people could not depend on their former masters for sustenance, even for the leavening effect of the old dough, for this constituted a clear continuity between the old life and the new. Thus, in this context, leaven, or more correctly, the lack of using it, symbolizes separation from the old life. Paul (1 Cor 5:6-8) related the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Passover in exhorting the Corinthian church to separate themselves from all that was of the old life. Therefore, the antitype of the type of the Feast of Leavened Bread is seen in the separation of the redeemed person from all association with the old life so that he may enter into the full supply of the new life.

Feast of First Fruits: The Apostle Paul strongly implies that the fulfillment of the festal type of First Fruits is found in the resurrection of Christ—”But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor 15:20-22). Although Paul does not here, or elsewhere, specifically state that the resurrection of Christ fulfilled this type, there can be little doubt concerning this conclusion.

Feast of Pentecost: There is no explicit New Testament indication that the festal type of the Feast of Weeks is fulfilled in the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, but the context in which His coming is portrayed strongly suggests that the Spirit is the antitype. Much of the Upper Room Discourse of John 13-17 involved Christ’s teaching concerning His own departure and the Spirit’s coming. In John 16:7 He linked the two acts—”But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go I will send Him to you.” The correct order of this sequence, in which Christ fulfilled the first three feasts before the Holy Spirit came, was understood by John as he later commented, “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39). Thus, according to the understanding of the Apostle John, the coming of the Spirit followed the glorification of Christ which occurred when He was resurrected, and which itself was the fulfillment of the festal type encoded in the Feast of First Fruits.

Not only was the link between the resurrection of Christ and the coming of the Spirit prophesied before these events took place, but it was also recognized afterwards as it becomes the basis of Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost. There can be no mistaking of the Apostle’s understanding of the meaning of the antitype of Pentecost and its organic link with the antitype of First Fruits as he proclaimed to the Jews that, “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear” (Acts 2:32-33). As the predicted resurrection of Christ had occurred seven weeks earlier on the very day the Jews celebrated the Feast of First Fruits, so the predicted coming of the Holy Spirit had occurred on the very day of the Feast of Pentecost.

Feast of Trumpets: Historically the Feast of Trumpets represented God’s call to the nation of Israel to prepare for the soul-searching, or repentance, of the Day of Atonement in anticipation of the Feast of Tabernacles. Typologically, the Feast of Trumpets will be fulfilled, in broad terms, in God’s call of His covenant people for their day of national repentance and receiving of Messiah. The Book of Zechariah indicates that in the day of Christ’s return the house of Israel will mourn His coming because He will enable them to understand that they killed Him at His first coming (Zech 12:10-11). Thus, associated with Christ’s return there will be repentance on the part of the remnant of Israel surviving the Tribulation. Further, the Book of Matthew indicates that in association with Christ’s return there will be the sounding of a great trumpet (Matt 24:29-31). On this basis it would seem that the typological fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets is seen in the coming again of Christ and the repentance of Israel’s remnant which will immediately follow.

Feast of the Day of Atonement: The historical concepts involved with the Day of Atonement include the idea of a national cleansing from sin, a complete cleansing from sin (16:30, 34), and a confession of sin (16:21) and the humbling of self before Yahweh (16:29; 23:27, 29, 32). Although historically it provided the means for cleansing the people of the last vestiges of the sins of the year, the Day of Atonement foreshadowed a far more significant cleansing to take place in Israel’s future. In view of the typical significance of all the feasts and the stress placed upon national cleansing on the Day of Atonement, this feast must find its fulfillment in a future repentance, humbling, and cleansing of Israel as a nation as a prerequisite for entrance into the messianic kingdom of which the Feast of Tabernacles is the festal type. It is just such a fulfillment which is described by the prophet Zechariah in his survey of Israel’s eschatological future (Zech 12:10-13:1). In this passage the basic elements of a national repentance together with its resultant cleansing from sin is quite evident. Thus, it would seem the antitype corresponds to the essential features of the type noted above.

Feast of Tabernacles: It has been noted that the cycle of feasts is typical, and that it foreshadows God’s entire program of redemption and blessing for Israel. In view of this, it is not surprising to understand the typological fulfillment of the last of Israel’s great feasts from the perspective of the prophesied messianic Davidic kingdom since this is the one component of the program not yet involved in that fulfillment. Historically, the Feast of Tabernacles was to be a celebration remembering the time when Yahweh had His people live in booths in the wilderness prior to bringing them into the Land of Promise. The celebration was to last seven days and it was to be a time of rejoicing before Yahweh (23:40). The eschatological significance, and thus typological fulfillment of this feast, is found in the Book of Zechariah where it is stated that after Christ returns to earth and the remnant of Israel repents, the Feast of Booths will be celebrated from year to year, not only by Israel, but as well by the nations which will be required to come to Jerusalem for the observance (Zech 14:16-19). Thus, the typological fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles is linked to worship in the Millennial kingdom which will the time of joy, par excellence. This age will see the realization of the protection foreshadowed in the ceremonial booths and in the great abundance of provision that will characterize that age and which will bring great joy to the people of the kingdom as they partake of the great blessings of those days.

Summary Of The Typological Significance Of The Feasts

A tabular summary of the typological significance of the feasts is presented below in Chart 5. This chart shows the correlation between the historical purpose of each feast and its typological significance and fulfillment.

Chart 5. Summary of Typological Significance of the Festivals

Special Observances

In addition to the holy convocations Israel was to observe two other periodical festivals, the Sabbatical Year, and the Year of Jubilee

Sabbatical Year

The shenat shabbaton, “year of rest” or sabbatical year, like the weekly sabbath, was designed by God with a benevolent purpose in view. Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow, the uncultivated increase to be left to the poor Israelite. Further, as noted in Deuteronomy 15:1, all debts were to be canceled in the sabbatical year.

According to II Chronicles 36:21, observance of the sabbatical year had been neglected for about 500 years. As a consequence the captivity of Judah in Babylon was decreed to be seventy years long allowing the land to enjoy its neglected Sabbaths—”for as long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill threescore and ten years”. After the period of captivity, the people under Nehemiah bound themselves to the faithful observance of the seventh year, covenanting that “we would forego the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt” (Neh 10:31).

Year Of Jubilee

Seven sabbatical cycles of years (i.e., 49 years) terminated in the Year of Jubilee. The fiftieth year is called “the year of liberty” (deror) in Ezekiel 46:17 (see, for example, Jer 34:8, 15, 17) on the basis of Leviticus 25:10—”and you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land . . . it shall be a jubilee unto you.”

According to Leviticus 25:9, the Year of Jubilee was announced by the sounding of rams’ horns throughout the land on the tenth day of the seventh month, which was also the great Day of Atonement. The Year of Jubilee was not, as some have thought, the forty-ninth year, and thus simplify a seventh sabbatical year, but was, as Leviticus 25:10 states, the fiftieth year, thus providing two successive sabbatical years in which land would have rest. Certain regulations were issued to take effect during the Year of Jubilee. They are:

(a) Rest for the land (25:11-12). As in the preceding sabbatical year, the land was to remain uncultivated and the people were to eat of the natural increase. To compensate for this, God promised: “I will command my blessings upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years” (25:21).

(b) Hereditary lands and property were to be restored to the original family without compensation in the Year of Jubilee (25:24-34). In this manner all land and its improvements would eventually be restored to the original holders to whom God had given it, for He said, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine” (25:23).

(c) Freedom of bond-servants was to be effected in the Year of Jubilee. Every Israelite who had, because of poverty, subjected himself to bondage was to be set free (25:29 ff.).

Holiness

The whole of the Book of Leviticus is dominated by the outworking, or actualization, of Exodus 19:6—”and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Thus, central to an understanding of Leviticus is an understanding of what it means to be holy.

The Biblical Concept Of Holiness

Basic Meaning

The Hebrew term most commonly used in Leviticus to express the concept of holiness is qados (see Wenham 1992:18-25 for an informative discussion on holiness). Originally this term simply meant “separation”, “set apart,” specifically for religious purposes. In this sense, anything could be set apart for religious or cultic purposes—a piece of ground, a building, or furniture could be “holy.” Certain persons were “holy”—set apart for religious purposes–whether priests in the service of Yahweh or the temple prostitutes of the Canaanite Baal cult. In contrast to what is “holy” there is the profane, or “common.” Something is considered profane if it has a common use in the sense that it is not set apart for religious use. Profanity, then, is the taking of a holy thing (such as the name the Lord) and using it in a profane, or common, way.

Biblical Meaning

The biblical concept of holiness, says LaSor (1990:152), is not limited to separation as repeated use is made of the words “Yahweh is holy” or “I (i.e., Yahweh) am holy.” According to the basic sense of holy as noted above, this would mean that Yahweh is set apart. The question, however, is, what is He set apart from? The answer seems to be that God is set apart from sin, impurity, and sinful humanity. From the text of Genesis 1 & 2 it would seem that in part God created man in his likeness and image in order that man might have a personal relationship with God and enjoy fellowship with him. However sin broke that relationship and fellowship, and Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden (Gen 3). In the aftermath of the Fall, man was barred from the presence of God because of sin. It is not difficult to see from this that Yahweh’s moral excellence became part of the biblical concept of His holiness, and thus Biblical holiness came to have the derived meaning of moral excellence.

The Laws Of Practical Holiness

As discussed above, the underlying basis for Israel’s need to be holy is found in the inherent nature of God as a holy being, that is, as a being of moral perfection. Fundamentally, therefore, those whom He calls to serve Him must be holy because He is holy (19:2). It is important here to recognize that Israel was not commanded to be holy as Yahweh is holy, but to be holy because He is holy. Thus, while God is the standard of holiness by which all others are measured, Israel was not called to walk in absolute holiness; the mere finiteness of the laws of holiness gives witness to that.

While individual Israelites could approach Yahweh on the basis of the merits of the sacrifices (Lev 1-7), and the nation as a whole could be cleansed by means of the corporate act of repentance and forgiveness expressed in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16), the people called to be a holy nation had to maintain that state in conduct as well as in decree. To effect this continual state of purity in covenant-relationship, the sons of Israel were to live out every day within the framework of a code of personal and national holiness—the so-called “Holiness Code” of Leviticus 17-26.

The call to holiness involved regulations concerning the sanctity of the Tabernacle and blood (Lev 17), the prohibition of incest (18:1-18) and other sexual perversions (18:19-23), the keeping of the Ten Commandments (19:1-18) and related laws (19:19-20:27), and the proper behavior of the priests in private and public life (Lev 21-22). The people of Israel, as a holy nation, also had to understand that holiness required strict adherence to the holy convocations appointed by Yahweh (Lev 23-25), and to all the laws of the covenant (Lev 26), as well as faithfulness in keeping vows of consecration to Yahweh (Lev 27).

Literary Characteristics

Literary Form

The Book of Leviticus records the laws and instructions having to do with the worship of Yahweh—its sacrifices, priesthood, laws rendering a person unclean and so disqualifying him from worship, and various special times and seasons of worship—in covenant-relationship (Lindsey 1985:164). Furthermore, because Yahweh who is holy is now dwelling among his covenant people, Leviticus necessarily contains many regulations pertaining to daily living and practical holiness, both moral and ceremonial. For the most part then, the literary genre of Leviticus is legal literature. This includes both apodictic law (laws expressing necessary conduct: “You shall/shall not . . . “e.g., 26: 1-2) and casuistic laws (laws expressing case decisions: “If [such and such is done] . . . then [such and such will result] . . .” e.g., 4:3).

Although the primary language of the Book of Leviticus is legal, all the laws are set within a narrative framework. This is seen in the fact that at the beginning of nearly every chapter, and often several times within a chapter, the text says, “Yahweh spoke to Moses.” Thus it would seem that the more basic genre of the Book of Leviticus is narrative, and that it is not a stand-alone legal document. Rather, the legal stipulations recorded in it were given in the context of historical circumstances which form the framework for the giving of the Levitical law.

Literary Structure

Under the Sinai Covenant Israel had been called to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod 19:6). The first ten chapters of Leviticus focus almost exclusively on Israel’s priestly responsibilities as laws pertaining to the offering of sacrifices are prescribed for both the lay person and the priesthood. Primarily, these laws are prescribed so that the worshiper may be acceptable when he approaches Yahweh (1:3).

Different kinds of sacrifices are explained in chapters 1-7 which are presumed in the rituals described in the chapters that follow. The instructions that follow here deal with guidelines for bringing “an offering” to Yahweh at the Tabernacle. The instructions do not introduce the practice of offerings but provide regulations for them in light of the newly established worship of God at the Tabernacle. The narrative assumes that several types of offerings were already known and practiced by the Israelites (Exod 18:12). Moreover, according to the earlier narratives in the Pentateuch, the earliest patriarchs had already made various kinds of offerings (see, for example, Gen 4:3-4; 8:20; 46:1). Thus these chapters in Leviticus present regulations which Moses had given for the existing practices of sacrifices and offerings among the Israelites. Furthermore, in order to offer sacrifice a priesthood is necessary. Therefore the installation of the Aaronic priesthood, involving the ordination of Aaron and his sons, is described in chapters 8-10.

While the first ten chapters of Leviticus focus on Israel’s priestly responsibilities, the remaining chapters focus on the demand for personal and national holiness: “You must be holy, for I, Yahweh your God, am holy” (19:2). This and similar formulas are used repeatedly throughout chapters 18-27 to emphasize that Israel has been redeemed to be God’s holy people. Here, the demands of holiness for living in the presence of Yahweh are stated in specific terms, as laws are presented for Israel to remain ceremonially and morally pure, to become cleansed from defilement through a national day of atonement, and to worship Yahweh through observing holy convocations and special seasons.

This establishes a broad natural structural division of the text of Leviticus:

chapters 1-10 a kingdom of priests

chapters 11-27 a holy nation

Relationship Between Legal And Narrative Sections

The Book of Leviticus is composed largely of ritual ordinances specified in legal terms, with some, but not much, interspersing of narrative. Indeed, at first glance Leviticus appears to be an endless list of rules and regulations put together in rather haphazard fashion, but a closer examination reveals a greater coherence. The Book of Leviticus may seem a confused and disorderly collection of unrelated materials, but the work can only be understood as part of a much larger whole, namely, as a part of the Pentateuch, as part of the great narrative history of Israel’s journey from Egypt to the Land of Promise. Although the narrative material in Leviticus is not extensive, what is presented in chapters 8-10 and in 24:10-16 is important to the overall structure of the book, and to the Pentateuch as a whole.

The kernel of Leviticus is chapters 8-10 which are in narrative form and which continue the narrative of the Tabernacle recorded at the end of the Book of Exodus. One would expect the narrative account of the building of the Tabernacle (Exod 35-40) to be followed by the narrative account of its dedication (Lev 8). Yet in between these two narrative accounts stands Leviticus 1-7 which presents the laws pertaining to sacrifices, and which seems an insertion because it breaks the continuity in the narrative about the Tabernacle. But the insertion of Leviticus 1-7 makes sense from a structural perspective because the dedicatory and inaugural sacrifices that follow (8:14-29; 9:1-21) cannot be understood without it.

Thus, the laws about sacrifices are given in chapters 1-7 to provide a framework within which the various offerings presented at the ordination of Aaron and his sons may be understood. Furthermore, the death of Aaron’s two eldest sons in chapter 10 must be seen from the perspective of this framework since the root cause of their deaths was a clear violation of the laws presented in chapters 1-7.

Likewise, the narrative section in chapter 24 about the death of the blasphemer, who profaned the name of the Lord (24:11), must be understood from the perspective of the intervening chapters which present the regulations dealing with Israel’s need to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the clean and the unclean (10:10).

Synthesis Of The Text As A Unified And Coherent Whole

The analyses discussed above have been used, implicitly and explicitly, to obtain an understanding of Leviticus as a unified and coherent whole. This understanding is expressed here in the form the statement of its message, its synthetic structure, and the synthesis of the text which follows from that message and structure.

Development And Statement Of The Message

The message of the Book of Leviticus is developed in direct relationship to the major goal of the Mosaic Covenant as expressed in Exodus 19:5-6;

Now then if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exod 19:5-6)

While the Book of Exodus records the redemption of the sons of Israel out of bondage in Egypt and their entering into covenant-relationship with Yahweh at Sinai, the Book of Leviticus records what is required of Israel to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to Yahweh. Indeed, the whole of Leviticus is dominated by the actualization of the goal stated in Exodus 19:5-6. This is seen first of all in Leviticus 1:3 where in conjunction with the laws pertaining to the burnt offering, Yahweh informs Israel that such an offering is required in approaching Him in order that they may be accepted before Him. The implication is clear; no man can approach God as he is, rather atonement for sin must first be made. In calling Israel to Himself, Yahweh gave His covenant people the right to approach Him as priests making sacrifice to atone for their sin that they might draw near to Him. While the administration of the sacrificial offering system is under the Aaronic priesthood, the individual worshiper is not passive in the ritual, but actively participates as chapters 1-7 clearly show.

Approach to Yahweh is only one aspect of the covenant-relationship instituted at Sinai; the other aspect involves Yahweh’s dwelling among His people. This dimension of the covenant-relationship requires Israel to be holy for Yahweh is holy. In this regard chapters 11-27 are seen to be dominated by Yahweh’s command to Israel to be holy:

For I am Yahweh your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm the earth. For I am Yahweh who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy for I am holy. (11:44-45)

This command is repeated in Leviticus 19:2 and again in 20:7 and 20:26. Further, such passages as 15:31; 18:1-5; 20:22-25 make it clear that Israel is to separate itself from whatever is unclean, profane, and immoral, while such passages as 18:21; 19:12; 20:3; 21:6; and 22:2 demonstrate that the sons of Israel are not to profane the name or sanctuary of Yahweh through their actions.

The emphasis of the Book of Leviticus upon sacrificial offerings and the separation from all that is unclean and evil demonstrates the need for holiness in approaching Yahweh and for holiness in living in the presence of Yahweh. In this regard, Leviticus says that defilement must be dealt with in order to approach God and that holiness must be manifested in daily living in order to dwell in the presence of God.

The message of the Book of Leviticus may be determined on the basis of the previous considerations discussed up to this point. The analysis of the text of Leviticus suggests that a possible subject for this book is the obligation for Israel to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. When viewed from this perspective, the text of Leviticus may be understood as making the following theological judgment/evaluation about this subject:

This understanding of Leviticus leads to the following synthetic structure and synthesis of its text as a unified and coherent whole

Synthetic Structure Of The Text

Broad Synthetic Structure

I. The demands of worship necessary for approaching Yahweh as a kingdom of priests (chs. 1-10)

A. The demands of worship expressed through the laws of the sacrificial offering system for worshiper and priest (chs. 1-7)

B. The demands of worship expressed through the laws for consecrating and instituting priestly service through the Aaronic priesthood (chs. 8-10)

II. The demands of personal and national holiness necessary for living as a holy nation in the presence of Yahweh Who is holy (chs. 11-27)

A. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of body cleanliness as pertaining to food, childbirth, leprosy, and bodily discharges (chs. 11-15)

B. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of national cleansing on the Day of Atonement, and through the laws maintaining the sanctity of blood which is given to make atonement for sin (chs. 16-17)

C. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws for people generally and for priests specifically (18-22)

D. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of the annual feasts, Sabbatical year, and the Year of Jubilee (chs. 23-25)

E. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of covenant blessings and curses which are the consequences of living or not living in holiness (ch. 26)

F. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws pertaining to things consecrated to Yahweh (ch. 27)

Detailed Synthetic Structure

I. The demands of worship necessary for approaching Yahweh as a kingdom of priests (chs. 1-10)

A. The demands of worship expressed through the laws of the sacrificial offering system for worshiper and priest (chs. 1-7)

1. Laws regulating the burnt offering (1:1-17)

2. Laws regulating the grain offering (2:1-16)

3. Law s regulating the peace offering (3:1-17)

4. Laws regulating the sin offering (4:1-5:13)

a. The scope of applicability: unintentional sins only (4:1-2)

b. Laws regulating the sin offering for the sins of a priest (4:3-12)

c. Laws regulating the sin offering for the sins of the nation (4:13-21)

d. Laws regulating the sin offering for the sins of a leader (4:22-26)

e. Laws regulating the sin offering for sins of a common person (4:27-35)

f. Sins for which a person will be accounted guilty (5:1-4)

g. Atonement as the basis for cleansing from sin (5:5-6)

h. The sin offerings of the poor. (5:7-13)

5. Laws regulating the guilt (reparation) offering (5:14-6:7)

6. Laws pertaining to the priestly administration of the disposition of the sacrificial offerings (6:8-7:38)

a. The law of the burnt offering (6:8-13)

b. The law of the grain offering (6:14-23)

c. The law of the sin offering (6:24-30)

d. The law of the guilt offering (7:1-10)

e. The law of the peace offering (7:11-38)

B. The demands of worship expressed through the laws for consecrating and instituting priestly service through the Aaronic priesthood (chs. 8-10)

1. The ordination of the Aaronic priesthood through the action of Moses (8:1-36)

a. Moses’ assembling of the congregation at the doorway of the tent of meeting (8:1-5)

b. Moses’ dressing of Aaron and his sons in their priestly garments (8:6-9)

c. Moses’ consecration of the Tabernacle and Aaron and his sons with anointing oil (8:10-13)

d. Moses’ sacrificing of offerings to Yahweh to make atonement for Aaron and his sons (8:14-29)

e. Summary of the consecration ceremony (8:30-36)

2. The inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood through the action of Moses (9:1-24)

a. Moses’ instructions to Aaron and his sons concerning the commence-ment of their priestly duties (9:1-7)

b. The inauguration of priestly duties in the Tabernacle (9:8-21)

c. Yahweh’s acceptance of the sacrificial offerings by fire (9:22-24)

3. The failure of the Aaronic priesthood to obey the laws of the sacrificial offering system in approach to Yahweh (10:1-20)

II. The demands of personal and national holiness necessary for living as a holy nation in the presence of Yahweh Who is holy (chs. 11-27)

A. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of body cleanliness as pertaining to food, childbirth, leprosy, and bodily discharges (chs. 11-15)

1. The laws of purity pertaining to clean and unclean food (11:1-47)

2. The laws of purity pertaining to the uncleanness of childbirth (12:1-8)

3. The laws of purity pertaining to skin diseases and mildew (13:1-14:53)

a. The laws of uncleanness due to skin diseases and mildew (13:1-59)

b. The laws of cleansing necessitated by skin diseases and mildew (14:1-57)

c. The purpose for the laws pertaining to uncleanness due to skin diseases and mildew: to teach the people when they are unclean and when they are clean (14:54-57)

4. The laws of purity pertaining to bodily discharges (15:1-33)

B. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of national cleansing on the Day of Atonement, and through the laws maintaining the sanctity of blood which is given to make atonement for sin (chs. 16-17)

1. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of cleansing for national defilement on the Day of Atonement (ch. 16)

a. Laws for the Day of Atonement (16:1-28)

b. Institution of the Day of Atonement as a permanent statue (16:29-34)

2. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of priority of the Tabernacle as the one and only place of sacrifice, and of the sanctity of the blood (ch. 17)

3. Laws pertaining to animals which die other than by slaughtering (17:15-16)

C. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws for people generally and for priests specifically (18-22)

1. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws for people generally as relating to sexual relationships, love of neighbor, heinous offenses such as sacrificing children, cursing parents, and having sexual intercourse with animals (chs. 18-20)

a. Laws pertaining to the restriction of sexual relations (18:1-30)

b. Laws pertaining to practical holiness before God and man (19:1-37)

c. Laws pertaining to offenses which necessitate severe punishment–sins for which no atonement can be made (20:1-27)

2. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws pertaining to priestly and sacrificial holiness (chs. 21-22)

a. Laws pertaining to priestly holiness (21:1-24)

b. Laws pertaining to sacrificial holiness (22:1-34)

c. The purpose for the laws pertaining to priestly and sacrificial holiness: that the holy name of Yahweh would not be profaned (22:31-34)

D. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of the annual feasts, Sabbatical year, and the Year of Jubilee (chs. 23-25)

1. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of the annual feasts (ch. 23)

a. Laws pertaining to the weekly convocation, the Sabbath (23:1-3)

b. Laws pertaining to annual convocations (23:4-44)

2. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws pertaining to the holiness of Yahweh’s sanctuary and name (ch. 24)

3. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of the Sabbatical year and Year of Jubilee (ch. 25)

E. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws of covenant blessings and curses which are the consequences of living or not living in holiness (ch. 26)

1. The blessings for obedience (26:1-13)

2. The curses for disobedience (26:14-39)

3. The promise of restoration in response to repentance (26:40-46)

F. The demands of holiness expressed through the laws pertaining to things consecrated to Yahweh (ch. 27)

1. Laws pertaining to things which may be consecrated to Yahweh yet redeemed (27:1-25)

2. Laws pertaining to things excluded from consecration (27:26-34)

Synthesis Of The Text

Based on the message statement and synthetic structure developed above the synthesis of the text of Leviticus may be constructed as:

I. The demands of worship necessary for serving Yahweh as a kingdom of priests are satisfied in the sacrificial offering system administered under the Aaronic priesthood. (chs. 1-10)

A. The sacrificial offerings establish a means of approach to Yahweh which permit the worshiper to express devotion of self and possessions to Yahweh, to express thanksgiving for blessings, and to obtain forgiveness for specific unintentional sin. (chs. 1-7)

1. The sacrifice of the burnt offering renders the worshiper’s approach to Yahweh acceptable through the substitutionary death of the sacrifice which effects atonement for sin in general and signifies the worshiper’s act of total dedication to Yahweh. (1:1-17)

2. The sacrifice of the grain offering, consisting of salted unleavened cakes or grains, renders the worshiper’s thanksgiving to Yahweh acceptable through the total consumption of the offering which signifies the worshiper’s dedication of everyday life to God in recognition of His covenant mercies. (2:1-16)

3. The sacrifice of the peace offering renders the worshiper’s approach to Yahweh for communion and fellowship acceptable through the death of the sacrificial offering. (3:1-17)

4. The sacrifice of the sin offering, offered for specific sins committed unintentionally, effects atonement and forgiveness through the substitutionary death of the sacrifice. (4:1-5:13)

5. The sacrifice of the guilt offering, for specific sins for which payment of restitution to the wronged party is required, effects atonement and forgiveness through the substitutionary death of the sacrifice. (5:14-6:7)

6. The disposition of the sacrifices between Yahweh, the priests, and the offerer are regulated for each sacrifice and to be administered by the Aaronic priesthood. (6:8-7:38)

B. The ordination and inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood establish the acceptable approach to Yahweh, yet that approach is approved only as long as the laws of the sacrificial offering system are precisely obeyed. (chs. 8-10)

1. The ordination of the Aaronic priesthood prepares both priests and sanctuary for the inauguration of sacrificial offerings as Moses consecrates the Tabernacle and Aaron and his sons, and offers sacrifices to atone for the sins of the priests. (8:1-36)

2. The inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood through the action of Moses demonstrates the acceptability of approaching Yahweh through the sacrificial offering system as Yahweh manifests His approval of Aaron’s sacrifice by consuming it with fire coming out from His presence. (9:1-24)

3. The failure of the Aaronic priesthood to obey the laws of the sacrificial offering system in approaching Yahweh demonstrates the necessity of not violating Yahweh’s holiness, as fire which had previously manifested Yahweh’s approval is now used in righteous indignation to execute judgment, yet atonement for sin is still available when the laws of sacrifice are precisely followed. (10:1-20)

II. The demands of personal and national holiness necessary for living as a holy nation in the presence of Yahweh are satisfied in the laws of separation from the clean and profane, the laws of national cleansing from defilement, and the laws of morality, all of which establish unique cultural patterns in Israel. (chs. 11-27)⁹

A. The demands of holiness for living in the presence of Yahweh establish cultural patterns, based on the laws of purity, which effect a separation of the unclean from the clean. (chs. 11-15)

1. The laws of purity establish cultural patterns which demand that Israel make a distinction between clean and unclean food and separate itself from the unclean, for Israel is to be holy because Yahweh is holy. (11:1-47)

2. The laws of purity establish a cultural pattern which demands that all women giving birth are to be considered unclean until the days of their purification are passed and sacrifice has been offered to make atonement for their cleansing. (12:1-8)

3. The laws of purity establish cultural patterns which demand that all manner of skin diseases and corruption due to mildew be diagnosed and that separation from the unclean occur unless and until cleansing has been obtained. (13:1-14:57)

4. The laws of purity establish cultural patterns which demand that all individuals with bodily discharges be declared unclean unless and until cleansing occurs, in order that Yahweh’s tabernacle would not be defiled. (15:1-33)

B. The demands of holiness for living in the presence of Yahweh establish cultural patterns which effect national cleansing on the Day of Atonement, and which recognize the sacredness of the blood which has been given to make atonement for sin. (ch. 16-17)

1. The laws of personal and national holiness satisfy the demand for holiness required to live in the presence of Yahweh by establishing cultural patterns which effect national cleansing from defilement through the ministry of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. (16:1-34)

a. The restriction of the high priest from entering the holy place except on the Day of Atonement under penalty of death attests to the holiness of Yahweh who dwells in a cloud over the mercy seat. (16:1-4)

b. The high priest effects national cleansing for Israel on the Day of Atonement by making atonement for himself, the holy place, and all the people through the sacrifice of the sin offerings and the sprinkling of its blood on the mercy seat before Yahweh. (16:5-28)

(1) Atonement for the defilement of Israel as a nation requires that the high priest first make atonement for himself and his household through the sacrifice of his sin offering whose blood he must sprinkle on the mercy seat seven times. (16:5-14)

(2) Atonement for the defilement of Israel as a nation requires that the high priest make atonement for the holy place, the tent of meeting, and the altar through the sacrifice of the people’s sin offering whose blood he must sprinkle on the mercy seat seven times, and then on the horns of the altar. (16:15-19)

(3) Atonement for the defilement of Israel as a nation requires that the high priest sacrifice the goat for the sin offering, and then transfer Israel’s sins to the scapegoat by laying his hands on the head of the goat and confessing the sins of the nation over it and then releasing it in the wilderness. (16:20-28)

c. The institution of the Day of Atonement as a permanent statute to be observed yearly enables the high priest to make atonement for all the sins of the sons of Israel once every year. (16:29-34)

2. The laws of personal and national holiness satisfy the demand for holiness required to live in the presence of Yahweh by establishing cultural patterns which recognize the Tabernacle as the one and only place that sacrifice to Yahweh is to be made, and recognize the sacredness of the blood which has been given to make atonement for sin. (17:1-16)

C. The demands of holiness for people generally and for priests specifically are expressed through the laws which establish cultural patterns for living that are unique for Israel. (chs.18-22)

1. The laws of personal and national holiness satisfy the demand for holiness required to live in the presence of Yahweh by establishing cultural patterns which demand personal holiness through obedience to laws which restrict sexual relations, require the practical outworking of love for God and man, and which require severe punishment for grievous offenses for which no atonement can be made. (chs. 18-20)

a. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands the sanctity of marriage, and purity in sexual relations which are prohibited between blood and legal relatives, between men, and between man and beast. (18:1-30)

b. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands a life that manifests the practical outworking of love for God and love for man. (19:1-37)

c. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh requires that severe punishment be executed upon any who sacrifice their children, turn to mediums, are disrespectful to parents, or commit adultery. (20:1-27)

2. The laws of personal and national holiness satisfy the demand for holiness required to live in the presence of Yahweh by establishing cultural patterns of worship which require holiness of the priests in carrying out their duties in the Tabernacle. (chs. 21-22)

a. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands that priests not defile themselves in any way nor have any physical defect, for Yahweh who sanctifies them is holy. (21:1-24)

b. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands that the priests treat everything dedicated to Yahweh as holy so as not to profane the name of Yahweh by touching the holy offerings while unclean or by accepting imperfect offerings. (22:1-30)

c. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands that the priests keep the laws pertaining to priestly and sacrificial holiness so that the holy name of Yahweh would not be profaned, for He is to be sanctified among His people. (22:31-34)

D. The demands of holiness for the nation are expressed through the laws of the annual feasts, Sabbatical year, and the Year of Jubilee (chs. 23-25)

1. The demands of holiness for living in the presence of Yahweh establish cultural patterns of worship which observe the holy convocations appointed by Yahweh. (ch. 23)

a. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands obedience to the laws of the Sabbath. (23:1-3)

b. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands obedience to the laws of the annual convocations which include the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of First Fruits, the Feast of Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. (23:4-44)

2. The demands of holiness for living in the presence of Yahweh establish culture patterns that recognize the holiness of Yahweh’s sanctuary and name. (ch. 24)

a. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands treating the oil used to light the lamp before Yahweh and the twelve cakes set before Him as holy. (24:1-9)

b. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands holding fast to the sanctity of His name, while those who blaspheme His name are to be put to death. (24:10-23)

3. The demands of holiness for living in the presence of Yahweh establish culture patterns that abide by the laws pertaining to the Sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee. (ch. 25)

E. The demands of holiness for living in the presence of Yahweh establish cultural patterns that take into consideration covenant blessings and curses, and the promise of restoration in response to repentance. (ch. 26)

1. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh demands obedience to all the commands of the Law which is rewarded with great blessings as Yahweh promises to bless His people and dwell among them. (26:1-13)

2. Not living in holiness before Yahweh incurs His wrath manifested in increasing degrees of punishment (the curses) which culminate in the destruction of the nation and the expulsion of the survivors out of the Land and into exile among the nations, yet restoration to the Land and to living in Yahweh’s presence experiencing covenantal blessings is promised in response to repentance. (26:14-46)

F. The demands of holiness for living in the presence of Yahweh establish cultural patterns that recognize the sacredness of all things consecrated to Yahweh. (ch. 27)

1. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh expresses itself in consecrating family, animals, houses, and fields to Yahweh by special vow, while mercy and grace permits them to be redeemed even though they are accounted by Yahweh as being holy and belonging to Him. (27:1-25)

2. Living in holiness in the presence of Yahweh does not express itself in the consecration of first-born clean animals, things devoted to destruction, and things that are part of the tithe, for all such things belong to Yahweh by law. (27:26-34)

© The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)               Spring 2010

---

¹ It is clear from the text that the primary function of the Levitical worship system, including the Aaronic Priesthood, is to effect atonement for sin through the offering of sacrifices. For a discussion on the theological aspects of atonement see, Davidson 1904:306-338. For a discussion on the priesthood, the temple, and the sacrifices, see de Vaux 1965 Vol. 2. And see Kurtz 1863, for a discussion of sacrifice in worship.

²Peter referred to Christ as “a lamb without blemish or defect,” the sinless Son of God (1 Pet 1:19, 22; see, for example, Heb 9:14).

³The substitutionary nature of sacrifice was most clearly seen in the offering of Isaac (Gen 22:13).

⁴Here, Lindsey (1985:164) states, it is important to recognize the distinction between two relationships which an Israelite had/could have with God: (1) a corporate relationship with God as a member of the theocratic nation (see, for example, Exod 19-20); and (2) a personal relationship with God based on individual regeneration and justification by faith (as in the case of Abraham, Gen 15:6). While ideally these two relationships should have been coextensive, nevertheless it appears that throughout Israel’s history there was only a remnant of true believers, and that a large number of the people were merely going through the form of worshipping Yahweh without genuine faith in Him.

⁵Although the Greek text could support the idea of “place of propitiation” (that is the mercy seat as in Heb 9:5) instead of “propitiation,” support for the stated view still stands since Christ is the substitute sacrifice which effects reconciliation.

⁶ Much has been written on the Levitical system of sacrifices. Of these, Milgrom (1991:131-489) has an extensive commentary on the sacrifices/sacrificial system. See also, Harrison 1980:39-88.

⁷ What follows in this section summarizes Lindsey (1985:164-166) in his discussion of the significance of Old Testament sacrifices.

⁸This discussion is excerpted from, The Eschatological Significance of Israel’s Annual Feasts, Hulbert, Terry C., Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965.

⁹Leviticus presents the requirements for approaching Yahweh and for living with Him dwelling in the midst of His people Israel, and, in so doing, it establishes a culture that manifests Yahweh’s holiness, a culture that is unique to Israel.

The analysis and synthesis approach to biblical studies applied here to Deuteronomy is a methodology developed by the author (DeCanio, 2007) in conjunction with his doctoral studies at the University of South Africa. An abbreviated version of this work entitled, Biblical Hermeneutics and a Methodology for Studying the Bible, will be posted as an article on bible.org.

The bibliography for this study of Deuteronomy is presented at the end of the article, Introduction to the Pentateuch.

Analysis of the context

Authorship

Arguments supporting Mosaic authorship are presented in the Introduction to the Pentateuch. In addition to the many statements in the rest of Scripture which support Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, there are statements made within the Book of Deuteronomy which indicate that Moses was the author of the words written here at Yahweh's direction (see, for example, 1:6, 9; 5:1; 27:1, 9; 31:1, 30; 33:1, etc.). Of particular importance is 31:9, 24 which refer explicitly to Moses' writing—"And Moses wrote this law, and gave it to the priests the sons of Levi . . . When Moses had finished writing the words of the law in a book, . . " Thus, although the work is essentially anonymous, when all the evidence is objectively considered, Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy is hard to deny.

Recipients

It is clear from the text of Deuteronomy that Moses is addressing the second generation from the Exodus; those who, in obedience to, and trust in, Yahweh, will enter the land of Canaan and take possession of it by conquest. Thus, it would seem that Moses' original recipients of Deuteronomy was the generation of the Conquest. Furthermore, since Deuteronomy deals with the renewal of the covenant by the second generation, a written record of the covenant stipulations would be necessary for that generation as well as for succeeding generations.

Time period of historical events and composition

Date of events

Events recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy occurred while Israel was encamped on the Plains of Moab and poised to cross the River Jordan in order to enter and take possession of the Land of Promise. These events took place over about a two month period of time (see, for example, 1:3; 34:5, 8; Josh 4:19; and see Introduction to the Pentateuch for a discussion of the chronology of the Pentateuch in general), ending with the death of Moses and a 30 day period of mourning for him. Assuming a date for the Exodus of 1446 B.C. (see Introduction to the Pentateuch for arguments supporting this date), that would place the events of Deuteronomy in the year 1406 B.C.

Date of composition

Dating of the composition of the Book of Deuteronomy has been disputed by critical scholars who assert that Moses did not write the book. Instead, they attribute Deuteronomy to other writers who lived at a later date—either to Samuel in the eleventh century B.C. or religious leaders during the seventh century B.C., and even possibly to the postexilic period by the so-called "Deuteronomist."

However, in addition to the evidence already presented for Mosaic authorship, support also comes from the similarities between the structure of Deuteronomy and the Middle Eastern suzerainty treaties. It has been suggested by some (Craigie 1983:25) that Deuteronomy is a covenant renewal document which in its total structure exhibits the classical legal form of the suzerainty treaties of the Mosaic age. The contention is that when one recognizes that a biblical document reflects the historical and cultural context of a specific period, it is reasonable to date it where it will not be out of harmony with the age in which it is purported to have been written. It is reasonable, therefore, to assign a date of composition to the Book of Deuteronomy to the time period just prior to Israel's crossing of the Jordan. Since Moses died before Israel crossed the Jordan, the composition of Deuteronomy could not have taken place any later than 1406 B.C.

Biblical context

The biblical context consists of three components; the historical element, the socio–cultural element, and the theological element.

Historical element

The events which form the historical context for Deuteronomy take place on the Plains of Moab which is situated on the East Bank of the Jordan opposite the Canaanite city of Jericho. The Exodus generation had finally died off and Moses had led the new generation from wandering in the wilderness to the Plains of Moab. Encamped there, they were waiting for the word from Yahweh to cross the Jordan and enter the Land of Promise. But before that could take place certain other events must happen. The covenant, which had been broken by the Exodus generation, must first be renewed by the new generation. Thus Moses leads the sons of Israel through a covenant renewal ceremony which is not fully realized until Israel crosses the Jordan and declares the covenant curses from atop Mount Ebal (chs. 27-30). Secondly, since God did not permit Moses to enter the Land of Promise with Israel, his death must take place (34:1-7) along with the orderly transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua (31:1-8,14-21; 34:9), Yahweh's appointed replacement for Moses. All of this takes place over the course of one month, after which all Israel mourns the death of Moses for 30 days (34:8).

Socio-cultural element

The socio-cultural context in which the events of Deuteronomy are played out has not changed significantly from that of Numbers. In the former book, the Israelites were living a nomadic life for some 38 years while wandering about in the wilderness. Although the covenant-relationship between Yahweh and Israel had been disrupted as a result of Israel’s refusal to obey Yahweh’s command to enter the land promised to Abraham and take possession of it, the Mosaic Covenant had not been terminated. A fact that is well documents by Moses in Numbers. Israelite society, therefore, is yet bound by the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. As significant and complex is the socio-cultural context established by this covenant, it has little affect on understanding the theological message developed by Moses in Deuteronomy.

Theological element

The theological context for Deuteronomy looks back on the previous four books of the Pentateuch and subsumes all of their theological revelations as foundational to its framework. Most significant of this now extensive context is the covenant Yahweh has entered into with the nation as whole at Sinai, and which has been broken by the Exodus generation through their refusal to obey Yahweh and enter the Promised Land. Consequently, as the new generation is poised to enter and take possession of the land of Canaan, Israel’s covenant-relationship with Yahweh is disrupted and must be restored through a renewal of the covenant. Yahweh’s basis for not terminating the covenant and destroying Israel for their disobedience to the covenant stipulations is his unconditional covenant with Abraham. Yahweh’s faithfulness to the conditional Mosaic Covenant is, as noted in Numbers, founded on the unconditional covenant He made with Abraham. This is significant because it demonstrates that God will fulfill all the promises He made with Abraham independent of Israel’s faithfulness to Him. Thus the disruption of Israel’s covenant-relationship with Yahweh sets the theological stage for Deuteronomy in that Israel cannot enter into the Land and take possession of it without Yahweh’s blessings which are conditioned on the nation walking in covenant-relationship with him. Thus a major addition to the theological context of Deuteronomy is the concept of covenant renewal.

Analysis of the text

Broad descriptive overview of the text

Chapter	Descriptive Summary
3-Jan	review of Israel’s history from Mount Sinai to the Plains of Moab;
4	call to obedience;
10-May	review/reiteration and expansion of the Law;
11-Oct	call to commitment with promise of blessings and cursings;
12	laws concerning central sanctuary;
13	laws concerning false prophets and worship of other gods;
14	laws concerning clean and unclean food;
	laws concerning tithes;
15	laws concerning Sabbatical year;
16	laws concerning festivals;
	laws concerning judges;
17	laws concerning worship of the Lord;
	laws concerning court cases;
	laws concerning Kings;
18	laws concerning Levites;
	laws concerning separation from practices of the people living in the Land;
	laws concerning the Prophet like Moses;
19	laws concerning cities of refuge;
	laws concerning witnesses;
20	laws concerning going to war;
21	laws concerning manslaughter;
	laws concerning marriage and family;
22	laws concerning  moral and ethical issues;
23	laws concerning the congregation;
	laws concerning society;
24-25	laws concerning society;
26	laws concerning first fruits and tithes;
27	charge to keep all the commands;
	curses to be recited from Mount Ebal after entering the Land;
28	promises of blessings for obedience;
	promises of curses for disobedience;
29-30	renewal of the Covenant;
31	Moses' personal charge to Israel and to Joshua;
	command for public reading of the Law every seven years during
	Feast of Tabernacle;
32	Song of Moses;
33	Moses' blessings of the tribes of Israel;
34	death of Moses;

Major theological theme

The literary shape of Deuteronomy, as discussed below, makes evident the theological emphasis of the Book of Deuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant, which Israel entered into with Yahweh at Mount Sinai, is reiterated, expounded on, and expanded by Moses as he leads the new generation in renewing the covenant prior to their entering the Land of Promise to possess it. The continual rebelling of the Exodus generation, culminating in their defiant refusal to obey Yahweh and enter the land of Canaan and take possession of it, led to their breaking of the covenant. Hence the necessity for renewing the covenant by the new generation.

What is significant in Deuteronomy, and different from the presentation of the covenant stipulations recorded in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, is Moses' expounding of the Law and expansion of it, and his inclusion of promises of blessing for obedience to the Law and threats of curses for disobedience to the Law. Because of Israel's passed history of continual rebellion against Yahweh, and the severity of the curses promised for disobedience, Moses, again and again, exhorts the new generation to obey the covenant stipulations.

Significantly, the curses enumerated far outweigh the blessings. Further, there is a progression in the degree of severity of the curses, with the worst of all possible curses culminating in the violent expulsion of Israel out of the Land of their inheritance and into exile where they will once again serve their enemies under the yoke of oppression (28:15-68). In view in this worst case scenario are the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities (28:36), as well as a horrific description of the devastation that will result from the invading army God will send against His people in response to their disobedience (28:45-68).

Yet Yahweh is ever faithful to His elect people whom He promised Abraham He would bless. Thus along with the threat of destruction of the nation due to disobedience to the Law of the Covenant, a promise is given for restoration in response to repentance. Even in the worst case with Israel expelled from the land and scattered among the nations in exile, if the remnant of Israel will return to Yahweh and obey Him with all their heart and with all their soul according to all that is written in the Law, then Yahweh will gather His people from the lands that He scattered them and have compassion on them and restore them to the Land of Promise and bless them abundantly (30:1-10).

Literary characteristics

Literarily, as Kalland (1992:3-4) has noted, the Book of Deuteronomy may be approached from several different directions:

1. as a “Book of the Law”

2. as a series of addresses—an exposition of the Law—given by Moses with materials that are repetitive of formerly given content in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and with additions to it;

The major divisions for such a structuring of Deuteronomy are:

Introduction (1:1-5)

Moses' First Message (1:6-4:49)

Moses' Second Message (chs. 5-26)

Moses' Third Message (chs. 27-30)

Epilogue (chs. 31-34)

3. as a covenant-treaty in both form and content (see, for example, 29:1; 31:9-13, 24-26), including the narratives of the adoption of that agreement and the exhortations to adopt the covenant-treaty and to adhere to its stipulations;

4. as a compendium of the directives of Yahweh given through Moses to prepare the second generation for the conquest, occupation, and settlement to the land of Canaan;

It becomes clear, however, from a comparison of suzerainty-vassal treaties of the second millennium B.C. with the form and content of Deuteronomy that the whole of this last book of the Pentateuch is in the covenant–treaty form of that age (see the Introduction to the Pentateuch for a discussion of this similarity). The procedure for the establishment and continuity of these treaties, as well as their literary structure, lends itself strikingly to the covenant which defines the relationship between Yahweh and His chosen people.

The main components of the Near Eastern treaties of this era include:

1. preamble;

2. historical prologue;

3. stipulations, laws, and regulations;

4. arrangements for depositing treaty copies;

5. arrangements for the regular reading of the treaty before the people;

6. witnesses to the covenant agreement;

7. curses for violating the covenant stipulations, and blessings for obedience to them;

Collectively, the Deuteronomic address of Moses follow this order, although in addition to the historical prologue, historical allusions are intermixed along with exhortations to Israel to give heed to Yahweh their God and to obey the covenant–treaty stipulations, which Moses not only states but also expounds on. This structure, which does not strictly follow the development of the Deuteronomy text, is summarized as:

1. preamble—Deut 1:1-5;

2. historical prologue— Deut 1:6-4:43;

3. stipulations, laws, and regulations—Deut 4:44-26:15;

4. arrangements for depositing treaty copies— Deut 31:24-26;

5. arrangements for regular reading of the treaty—Deut 30:9-12;

6. witnesses of the covenant agreement—Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28;

7. curses and blessings—Deut 28:1-68;

Additionally, the Book of Deuteronomy calls for the renewal of the covenant, first entered into at Mount Sinai with the Exodus generation, as preparation for the new, or second, generation's entrance into Canaan—its conquest and occupation—and presents the way of life that the sons of Israel were to follow in the Land of Promise. Further, Deuteronomy makes provision for the transition of the covenant mediatorship through the commissioning of Joshua to replace Moses at his death.

Unlike the Book of Exodus, which records the proposal, ratification, and foundational stipulations of the covenant, the Book of Deuteronomy is structured in the form of the suzerainty-vassal treaty. Thus, an appropriate outline of Deuteronomy, and one that correctly portrays the development of the message, has the following major divisions (a discussion of these divisions can be found in Craigie 1976:36-45):

1. preamble to the renewed covenant—Deut 1:1-5;

2. historical prologue to the renewed covenant—Deut 1:6-4:43;

3. stipulations and responsibilities of the renewed covenant—Deut 4:44-26:15;

4. renewal, ratification, and sanctions (blessings and curses) of the covenant—Deut 26:16-30:20;

5. provisions for the continuance of the covenant—Deut 31:1-34:12;

Synthesis of the text as a unified and coherent whole

The analyses discussed above have been used, implicitly and explicitly, to obtain an understanding of Deuteronomy as a unified and coherent whole. This understanding is expressed here in the form of the statement of its message, its synthetic structure, and a synthesis of the text which follows from that message and structure.

Development and statement of the message

The reiteration of the covenant stipulations recorded in Deuteronomy most likely were necessitated by the need to renew the covenant with the new generation after it had been effectively broken by the Exodus generation. Further, there was a need to expound the fundamental statutes and judgments previously given in order to better inform the new, and soon to be Conquest, generation on more of the specific stipulations brought into focus because Israel was about to transition from a nomadic way of living to a more sedentary lifestyle. And because of this, there was a need to expand these stipulations to take into account Israel’s new community lifestyle.

The message of Deuteronomy is focused on the book’s strong emphasis of covenant renewal to which Moses led the new generation as they were poised on the Plains of Moab to enter the Land of Promise (see, for example, 26:16-19; 29:1; chs. 27-29). The issue of Deuteronomy seems not to be so much the need for covenant renewal as the Israelites were apparently willing to do that. Rather it seems to be the degree to which they were willing to commit themselves in obedience to Yahweh. The foundational principle on which the whole of the covenant stood required Israel obey Yahweh wholeheartedly. Thus throughout this book Moses places a major stress on obedience to Yahweh and His commandments (see, 4:5, 13, 14, 40; 5:1, 29, 32; 6:1, 24, 25; 7:11, 12; 8:1, 6:11:1, 8, 13, 22, 26, 32; 12:1, 32; 13:4, 18; 15:5; 17:19; 19:9; 26: 16, 17; 27:2, 10; 28:1, 13, 15, 45, 58, 62; 29:9; 30:8, 10, 15-17, 20; 31:12). The point that Moses is making is that what is required is absolute obedience. Nothing short of total commitment to Yahweh will do as Moses calls for the sons of Israel to love Yahweh with all their heart and soul (4:29; 30:2, 10) and to fear Him and obey all His commandments (see, 4:10; 14:23; 17:19; 31:12, 13)

Another important factor that drives the development of the message of Deuteronomy is the fact that this is now Moses speaking. No longer does the text say "And Yahweh spoke to Moses" as it so often does in the Books of Exodus (see, for example, 5:1; 6:1; 7:1, 14; 8:1, 16, 20; etc.), Leviticus (1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 6:1, 8; etc.), and Numbers (1:1; 2:1; 4:1, 21; 5:1, 11; 6:1; 8:1; etc.). Further, Moses is not just reiterating what Yahweh had revealed to him, but is expounding the word of God given to him. Here it is important to recognize that the word Moses is expounding is the Ten Commandments (ch. 5). The foundation of the covenant law is the Ten Commandments. That is what Yahweh gave to Moses on the top of Mount Sinai, what Yahweh told to the sons of Israel when He spoke to them from Mount Sinai, what Yahweh inscribed on tablets of stone and which was deposited in the Ark of the Covenant (4:10-13; 9:10; 10:1-5), and that is what Moses expounded before the sons of Israel (ch. 5) to give them covenant stipulations which were to be obeyed (chs. 6-7, and 12-26).

One other factor that is important for the message of the Book of Deuteronomy, and that differs from the covenant law presented in the Book of Exodus, is the strong emphasis placed on the covenant sanctions of blessings and curses (Deut chs. 27-29), particularly on the curses where there are approximately five times more verses dealing with curses than are dealing with blessings.

The  message of the Book of Deuteronomy may be determined on the basis of these considerations and the analyses discussed above. The analysis of the text of Deuteronomy suggests that a possible subject for this book is Yahweh's terms of covenant renewal. When viewed from this perspective, the text of Deuteronomy may be understood as making the following theological judgment/evaluation about this subject:

This understanding of Deuteronomy leads to the following synthetic structure and synthesis of its text as a unified and coherent whole.

Synthetic structure of the text

Broad synthetic structure

I Identification of the covenant mediator, and the time and place of covenant renewal—preamble to the renewed covenant (1:1-5)

II Covenant history as a basis for covenant renewal in preparation for entering and possessing the Land—historical prologue to the renewed covenant (1:6–4:43)

A. Covenant history from Mount Sinai to the Plains of Moab (1:6–3:29)

1. covenant history from Mount Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea (1:6–46)

2. covenant history from Kadesh-Barnea to the Plains of Moab (2:1-25)

3. covenant history of the conquest of the Transjordan (2:26–3:29)

B. Covenant history at Mount Sinai—review of Israel's entrance into covenant-relationship (4:1-40)

C. Appointment of the cities of refuge in the Transjordan (4:41-43)

III Stipulations of the renewed covenant reiterated, expanded, expounded, and exhorted for living in the Land (4:44–26:15)

A. Historical setting for the recapitulation and explication of the Law (4:44-49)

B. Reiteration, explication, and exhortation of the Ten Commandments (5:1–11:32)

1. reiteration of the Ten Commandments (5:1-33)

2. explication exhortation of the First Commandment (6:1-25)

3. explication and exhortation of the Second Commandment (7:1-26)

4. exhortation to remember Yahweh's covenant faithfulness and Israel's unfaithfulness (8:1–10:10)

5. call to covenant faithfulness through obedience to the covenant stipulations (10:12–11:32)

C. Specific covenant stipulations required for living in the Land (12:1–26:15)

1. stipulations pertaining to cultic and ceremonial order (12:1–16:17)

2. stipulations pertaining to civil order (16:18–20:20)

3. stipulations pertaining to social order (21:1–26:15)

IV Renewal, ratification, and sanctions of the covenant (26:16–30:20)

A. Declaration of covenant renewal (26:16-19)

B. Ratification of the renewed covenant (27:1–30:20)

1. ratification ceremony to be observed upon entering the Land (27:1-26)

2. declaration of the renewed covenant sanctions (28:1-68)

3. oath of covenant renewal (29:1–30:20)

V Provision for the continuance of the covenant—transition of covenant mediator from Moses to Joshua (chs. 31–34)

A. Final charges to Israel and the commissioning of Joshua (31:1-29)

B Conclusion of Moses' mediatorial role (31:30–33:29)

C Transfer of responsibility of covenant mediator from Moses to Joshua (ch. 34)

Detailed Synthetic Structure

I Identification of the covenant mediator, and the time and place of covenant renewal—preamble to the renewed covenant (1:1-5)

II Covenant history as a basis for covenant renewal—historical prologue to the renewed covenant (1:6–4:43)

A. Covenant history from Mount Sinai to the Plains of Moab (1:6–3:29)

1. The covenant history from Mount Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea (1:6-46)

a. departure from Sinai (1:6-8)

b. appointment of leaders (1:9-18)

c. rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea (1:19-46)

2. covenant history from Kadesh-Barnea to the Plains of Moab (2:1-25)

a. wandering in the wilderness for 40 years (2:1-3)

b. journey around Edom by way of the wilderness of Moab (2:4-25)

3. covenant history of the conquest of the Transjordan (2:26–3:29)

a. defeat of Sihon and the Amorites (2:26-37)

b. defeat of Og and the taking of the land of Gilead and Bashan (3:1-11)

c. division of the Transjordan between Reuben, Gad, and half-tribe of Manasseh (3:12-20)

d. Yahweh's refusal to permit Moses to enter the Land and His directive to replace Moses with Joshua (3:21-29)

B. Covenant history at Mount Sinai—review of Israel's entering into covenant-relationship (4:1-40)

1. call to obedience in keeping the Ten Commandments (4:1-8) 

2. historical constituting of Israel under the covenant—call to remember the day Israel agreed to the covenant at Horeb/Mount Sinai (4:9-14)

3. warning to be careful to obey the first of the Ten Commandments (4:15-31)

a. warning against idolatry which is a clear violation of the First Commandment (4:15-24)

b. prophetic warning of Israel's falling away from Yahweh in the latter days for violating the First Commandment (4:25-31)

4. Israel's unique relationship with Yahweh as His chosen people to whom He revealed Himself and of whom He demands covenantal obedience (4:32-40)

C. appointment of the cities of refuge in the Transjordan (4:41-43)

III Stipulations of the renewed covenant reiterated, expanded, expounded, and exhorted for living in the Land (4:44–26:15)

A. Historical setting for the reiteration and explication of the Law (4:44-49)

B. Reiteration, explication, and exhortation of the Ten Commandments (5:1–11:32)

1. reiteration of the Ten Commandments (5:1-33) 

a. historical circumstances of the covenant agreement entered into at Sinai (5:1-5)

b. reiteration of the Ten Commandments (5:6-21)

c. appointment of Moses as covenant mediator (5:22-33)

2. explication and exhortation of the First Commandment (6:1-25)

a. intent of the Ten Commandments—teach Israel to fear God, keep His commandments and so be blessed (6:1-3)

b. greatest aspect of the commandment—love God wholeheartedly (6:4-5)

c. provision for propagating obedience to the commandments from generation to generation (6:6-9)

c. exhortation to remember in the time of prosperity that it was Yahweh who gave Israel all the good things of life (6:10-15)

d. reason for Israel's need to obey the commandments—to fear Yahweh and so be blessed (6:16-25)

3. explication and exhortation of the Second Commandment (7:1-26)

a. commandment to utterly destroy the Canaanites and their instruments of idolatry (7:1-5)

b. reason for such a radical command—Israel was chosen to be a holy people separated to Yahweh their God for His own possession (7:6-11)

c. result of obedience to the commandments—Yahweh will keep His covenant and bless Israel (7:12-16)

d. exhortation not to fear the people of Canaan (7:17-24)

e. exhortation to destroy all the idols of the Canaanites (7:25-26)

4. exhortation to remember Yahweh's covenant faithfulness in spite of Israel's unfaithfulness (8:1–10:11)

a. exhortation to remember Yahweh's covenant faithfulness (8:1–9:6)

(1) exhortation to remember it was Yahweh who provided for Israel for 40 years in the wilderness (8:1-6)

(2) exhortation to remember in time of prosperity it was Yahweh, who gave Israel the blessings of good land, and an abundance of water, food, houses, and herds (8:7-17)

(3) exhortation to remember Yahweh who blesses Israel to confirm His covenant with the Patriarchs (8:18-20)

(4) exhortation to know it is Yahweh who is going before Israel to bring His people safely into the Land (9:1-6)

b. exhortation to remember Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant (9:7–10:11)

(1) exhortation to remember Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant at Horeb when they rebelled against Yahweh by worshiping the golden calf (9:7-21) 

(2) exhortation to remember Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant at Taberah and Kibroth Hattaavah where they provoked Yahweh to anger (9:22)

(3) exhortation to remember Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant at Kadesh-Barnea where they rebelled against Yahweh by defiantly refusing to enter the Land (9:23–10:11)

5. call to covenant faithfulness through wholehearted obedience to the covenant stipulations (10:12–11:32)

a. requirement of allegiance to Yahweh—to fear, love and obey Him—who chose Israel's forefathers and them as well, to set His affection on them to love them (10:12-22)

b. call to love Yahweh and obey His commandments (11:1-32)

C. Specific covenant stipulations required for living in the Land (12:1–26:15)

1. stipulations pertaining to cultic and ceremonial order (12:1–16:17)

a. stipulations pertaining to the central sanctuary (12:1-28)

b. stipulations pertaining to idolatry (12:29–13:18)

c. stipulations pertaining to clean and unclean food (14:1-21)

d stipulations pertaining to tithes (14:22-29)

e. stipulations pertaining to the Sabbatical year (15:1-11)

f. stipulations pertaining to the freeing of Hebrew slaves (15:12-18)

g. stipulations pertaining to the consecration of first-born domestic animals (15:19-23)

h. stipulations pertaining to the appointed feasts (16:1-17)

2. stipulations pertaining to civil order (16:18–20:20)

a. stipulations pertaining to national leadership (16:18–18:22)

(1) stipulations pertaining to judges (16:18–17:13)

(2) stipulations pertaining to kings (17:14-20)

(3) stipulations pertaining to priests and prophets (18:1-22)

b. stipulations pertaining to cities of refuge (19:1-13)

c. stipulations pertaining to boundary markers (19:14)

d. stipulations pertaining to witnesses for criminal cases (19:15-21)

e. stipulations pertaining to warfare and military service (20:1-20)

3. stipulations pertaining to social order (21:1–26:15)

a. stipulations pertaining to manslaughter (21:1-9)

b. stipulations pertaining to the family (21:10-23)

c. stipulations pertaining to a countryman's property (22:1-4)

d. stipulations pertaining to the confusion of the sexes, and to the mingling of seeds or of diverse animals (22:5-12)

e. stipulations pertaining to marriage violations (22:13-30)

f. stipulations pertaining to exclusion some from the assembly of Yahweh (23:1-14)

g. stipulations pertaining to miscellaneous social issues (23:15–25:19)

h. stipulations pertaining to the offering of first fruits and tithes to Yahweh (26:1-15)

IV  Renewal, ratification and sanctions of the covenant (26:16–30:20)

A. Declaration of covenant renewal (26:16-19)

1. Israel's declaration of acceptance of Yahweh as their God and obedience to all His commandments (26:16-17)

2. Yahweh's declaration of acceptance of Israel as His people, a treasured possession which He shall set above all other nations (26:18-19)

B. Ratification of the renewed covenant (27:1–30:20)

1. ratification ceremony to be observed upon entering the Land (27:1-26)

a. Moses' charge to keep all the commandments of the covenant (27:1)

b. Moses' charge to observe a ratification ceremony in the Land (27:2-26)

(1) Moses' charge to write out the all the words of the Law on stones and set them on Mount Ebal (27:2-8)

(2) Moses' declaration that Israel had "this day" renewed the covenant and become a people for Yahweh (27:9-10)

(3) Moses' charge for recitation of the covenant blessings on Mount Gerizim and covenant curses from Mount Ebal (27:11-26)

2. declaration of the renewed covenant sanctions (28:1-68)

a. declaration of covenantal blessings which will result in response to obedience to the commandments (28:1-14)

b. declaration of covenantal curses which will result in response to disobedience to the commandments (28:15-68)

3. oath of covenant renewal (29:1–30:20)

a. Moses' call to Israel to take an oath of allegiance to Yahweh and His covenant (29:1-15)

b. consequences of going back on the oath of covenant allegiance (29:16-29)

c. promise of restoration to a state of blessing after repenting from going back on the oath of covenant allegiance (30:1-20)

V Provision for the continuance of the covenant—transition of covenant mediator from Moses to Joshua (31:1–34:12)

A. Final charges to Israel and the commissioning of Joshua (31:1-30)

1. Moses' final charge (31:1-13)

a. Moses' final charge to all Israel (31:1-6)

b. Moses' final charge to Joshua (31:7-8)

c. Moses' final charge to the priests to read the Law in the hearing of the people in every Sabbath year at the Feast of Booths (31:9-13)

2. Yahweh's commissioning of Joshua (31:14-23)

a. Yahweh's command to Moses to bring Joshua before Him that He might commission him (31:14-15)

b. Yahweh's revelation to Moses that Israel will forsake Him for other gods and break the covenant for which He will severely punish them (31:16-18)

c. Yahweh's command to Moses to write a song and teach it to the sons of Israel that it might be a witness for Him against His people (31:19-22)

d. commissioning of Joshua with the charge to be strong and courageous (31:23)

3. Moses' charge to the Levites to deposit the book of the Law in the Ark of the Covenant as a witness against Israel (31:24-29)

B Conclusion of Moses' mediatorial role (31:30-33:29)

1. The Song of Moses: Israel's responsibilities to the covenant (31:30-32:47)

2. Yahweh's directives to Moses concerning his death (32: 48-52)

3. Moses' final (prophetic) blessing upon Israel, tribe by tribe (33:1-29)

C Transfer of responsibility of covenant mediator from Moses to Joshua (34:1-12)

1. death of Moses (34:1-8)

2. succession of Joshua (34:9)

3. priority of Moses as a prophet in Israel (34:10-12)

Synthesis of the text

Based on the message statement and synthetic structure developed above the synthesis of the text of Deuteronomy may be constructed as:

I Yahweh’s terms of covenant renewal are expressed through Moses, the mediator of the covenant, as he reiterates, expands, and expounds the Law to Israel on the Plains of Moab where the new generation is poised to enter and take possession of the Land. (1:1-5)

II Yahweh’s terms of covenant renewal must be understood in the context of Israel's covenant history. (1:6–4:49)

A. Moses' review of Israel's covenant history from Mount Sinai to the Plains of Moab demonstrates Yahweh's faithfulness to the covenant in spite of Israel's repeated unfaithfulness to it. (1:6–3:29)

1. Moses' review of Israel's covenant history from Mount Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea demonstrates Yahweh's faithfulness to the covenant in spite of Israel's defiant refusal to enter and take possession of the Land, for although He executed judgment upon the Exodus generation He extended the promise of inheriting the Land to the next generation. (1:6-46)

2. Moses' review of Israel's covenant history from Kadesh-Barnea to the Transjordan demonstrates Yahweh's faithfulness to the covenant for although the Exodus generation was under condemnation, yet for the sake of the new generation He provided for all of Israel's needs for 40 years in the wilderness and brought His people safely to the Plains of Moab. (2:1-25)

3. Moses' review of Israel's covenant history in the region of the Transjordan demonstrates Yahweh's continued faithfulness to the covenant by showing that He gave Israel victory over Sihon and Og, kings of the Amorites, and gave Israel all their land which was then apportioned to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh as an inheritance. (2:26–3:29)

B. Moses' review of Israel's entrance into covenant-relationship at Sinai provides the context for his call to obedience to the Ten Commandments and for his issuing a warning against idolatry which will cause Israel to be exiled from the Land, yet Yahweh's faithfulness to the covenant holds out a promise of restoration in response to a wholehearted return to Him. (4:1-40)

C. Moses' appointment of cities of refuge in the Transjordan extends the jurisdiction of the Law to the land east of the Jordan thus establishing that the sons of Israel living there are subject to the statutes and judgments of the covenant just as are the sons of Israel living in the land promised to Abraham. (4:41-43)

III Yahweh's terms of covenant renewal must be met in wholehearted obedience to the covenant stipulations which are reiterated, expanded, expounded, and exhorted on by Moses. (4:44–26:15)

A. Moses' reiteration and explication of the Law occurs on the east side of the Jordan in the region of the Transjordan where the new generation is poised to enter the Land. (4:44-49)

B. Moses' reiteration, explication, and exhortation of the Ten Commandments demands wholehearted obedience. (5:1–11:22)

1. Moses’ reiteration of the covenant stipulations to the new generation  begins with the Ten Commandments which were given directly by Yahweh at Sinai to the Exodus generation. (5:1-33)

2. Moses' explication of the First Commandment reveals that the greatest aspect of the foundational stipulation of the covenant is to love Yahweh wholeheartedly. (6:1-25)

3. Moses' explication and exhortation of the Second Commandment demands that Israel separate themselves from the people and gods of the nations they are displacing by utterly destroying them. (7:1-26)

4. Moses' exhortation to remember Yahweh's covenant faithfulness, in spite of Israel's continual rebellion against Him, serves as a warning to remember Yahweh in the time of prosperity because He is the one who is blessing them and therefore they ought not to forget Him or His commandments. (8:1–10:11)

a. Moses exhortation to remember in the time of pros­perity that it is not because Israel is righteous or mighty that they are prospering, serves to warn Israel they ought to remain faithful to Yahweh by obeying His commandments for it is because of His covenant faithfulness that they are blessed, just as they were blessed for 40 years in the wilderness. (8:1–9:6)

b. Moses exhortation to remember Israel's history of continual rebellion against Yahweh, beginning at Horeb where they worshiped the golden calf, and then at Taberah, Massah, and Kibroth Hattaavah where they provoked Yahweh to anger, and again at Kadesh-Barnea where they defiantly refused to enter the Land, confronts the new generation with Israel's propensity to rebel and therefore the need to obey His commandments wholeheartedly. (9:7-10:11)

5. Moses' call for wholehearted love for Yahweh and obedience to His commandments constitutes Israel's necessary response to Him because He is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great and mighty God to whom belongs the whole world yet He chose their fathers and them above all the people of the earth to set His affection on them to love them. (10:12–11:32)

C. Moses' exposition and expansion of the renewed terms of the covenant focuses on specific stipulations which demand wholehearted obedience for living in the Land in a state of blessing. (12:1­2–6:15)

1. Moses' exposition of the renewed terms of the covenant pertaining to cultic and ceremonial order demands wholehearted obedience on the part of the covenant community to specific stipulations concerned with such issues as the priority of the central sanctuary, idolatry, clean and unclean food, tithes, the Sabbatical year, and the keeping of the three appointed festivals. (12:1–16:17)

2. Moses' exposition of the renewed terms of the covenant pertaining to civil order in the covenant community demands wholehearted obedience on the part of the national leadership—judges, kings, priests, and prophets—to specific stipulations governing their leadership, and on the part of the people to specific statutes and judgments concerned with cities of refuge, boundary markers, witnesses, and warfare and military service. (16:18–20:20)

Moses' exposition of the renewed terms of the covenant pertaining to social order in the covenant community demands wholehearted obedience on the part of the people to specific stipulations concerned with such social issues as manslaughter, family relationships, property rights, confusion of the sexes, and the exclusion of those who are unclean from the assembly of Yahweh. (21:1–26:15)

IV Yahweh’s terms of covenant renewal requires the new generation to ratify the covenant and take an oath of allegiance to Him and His covenant. (26:16–30:20)

A. The renewed terms of the covenant obliges Israel to ratify the covenant by declaring Yahweh to be their God whom they will obey, and for Yahweh to declare Israel to be His people whom He will set high above all other nations. (26:16-19)

B. The renewed terms of the covenant necessitates Israel conduct a ceremony declaring the covenant curses and blessings, and take an oath of allegiance to Yahweh and His commandments. (27:1–30:20)

1. Finalization of the ratification of covenant renewal requires Israel to conduct a ceremony from atop Mounts Gerizim and Ebal on the day they enter the Land, where they are to declare the commandments of Yahweh and denounce as cursed the one who breaks anyone of the Ten Commandments. (27:1-26)

2. The renewed terms of the covenant include the promise of great blessings in return for obedience to Yahweh's commandments, and sanctions involving cruel curses, the ultimate of which is destruction of the nation and exile from the Land, in response to defiant disobedience. (28:1-68)

3. The renewed terms of the covenant call for an oath of allegiance to Yahweh and His commandments, which if turned away from will eventually result in destruction of the nation and exile from the Land, yet a promise is offered for restoration to the Land and for spiritual renewal in response to wholehearted repentance and a return to Yahweh. (29:1–30:20)

a. Moses' call to take an oath of allegiance to the covenant points to the historical witness as confirming Yahweh's oath to the covenant, and to the new generation as witnesses confirming Israel's oath, yet the extent of the oath of covenant allegiance extends to not just the present generation, but future generations as well. (29:1-15)

b. The consequences to Israel for going back on the oath of covenant allegiance foresee the destruction of the nation and exile of the people from the Land as the full extent of the curses of the covenant falls upon people and land, for although chosen people are privileged to possess the revelation of God, they also have the responsibility of obedience to that revelation. (29:16-29)

c. A promise of physical restoration to the Land and to a state of material blessing and spiritual renewal is offered in response to wholehearted repentance. (30:1-20)

(1) The promise of a gathering of the exiles and restoration from captivity to a state of blessing in the Land is offered in response to wholehearted repentance. (30:1-5)

(2) The promise of spiritual renewal through Yahweh's circumcising of the hearts of the sons of Israel, making it disposed to love Yahweh and obey Him, is offered in response to wholehearted repentance. (30:6-10)

(3) Moses' concluding charge to Israel to choose life and prosperity through obedience to the commandments of the covenant, rather than death and adversity through disobedience, places the burden of responsibility upon the sons of Israel for true covenant renewal. (30:11-20)

V. Yahweh’s terms of covenant renewal, established through the mediatorial work of Moses, requires a continuity in covenant mediators which is provided through Yahweh's commissioning of Joshua to replace Moses. (31:1–34:12)

A. The transition of covenant mediator from Moses to Joshua entails Moses' final charges to Israel, to Joshua, and to the priests, and continues with Yahweh's commissioning of Joshua. (31:1-29)

B The conclusion to Moses' mediatorial work is marked by the Song of Moses, by Yahweh's directives concerning his imminent death, and by Moses’ final blessing which he conferred on Israel tribe by tribe. (31:30–33:29)

C The completion of the transfer of covenant mediator from Moses to Joshua occurs as Moses dies and Joshua succeeds him, yet neither Joshua nor any mediator following him had the stature of Moses for no prophet has risen in Israel whom Yahweh knew face to face. (34:1-12)

© The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)               Spring 2010

One: Authority

Introduction

Behavior among the people of God is defined by doctrinal beliefs, and doctrinal beliefs are rooted in some source of authority. The question of authority is basic, it is the foundation of any religious system. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism initially and fundamentally divide around the question of authority. The doctrinal differences that form the expanse that separates the two arise from the distinctively different voices of authority which underpin them.

Authority in Protestantism

Protestantism contends that the Scriptures are the sole source of authority for the believer--hence, sola scriptura, or, Scripture alone as authoritative. sola scriptura (along with sola fide--faith alone) was the rallying cry of the Reformers. They realized anew that the Bible alone is vested with absolute authority. It alone is the guide for the believer’s faith and life. Protestant belief in the Bible as the single source of authority results in the subordination of all beliefs and practices to the Bible. Those beliefs and practices which are counter to the Scriptures are expected to be discarded and replaced by those which are clearly biblical.

Every religious movement that develops some unity and continues to live has its traditions. These traditions gather up the beliefs, thinking, practices and rules of the group, particularly as these are expressed in its doctrinal standards and forms of government. In this manner the movement gives stability to and regulates its own manner of life, and hands that stability and manner of life on to the next generation.

We do not reject all tradition, but rather make judicious use of it in so far as it accords with Scripture and is founded on truth. We should, for instance, treat with respect and study with care the confessions and council pronouncements of the various churches, particularly those of the ancient church and of Reformation days. We should also give careful attention to the confessions and council decisions of the present day churches, scrutinizing most carefully of course those of the denomination to which we belong. But we do not give any church the right to formulate new doctrine or to make decisions contrary to the teaching of Scripture. The history of the church at large shows all too clearly that church leaders and church councils can and do make mistakes, some of them serious. Consequently their decisions should have no authority except as they are based on Scripture.

Protestants...keep these standards strictly subordinate to Scripture, and in that they are ever ready to re-examine them for that purpose. In other words they insist that in the life of the church Scripture is primary and the denominational standards are subordinate or secondary. Thus they use their traditions with one controlling caution: they continually ask if this or that aspect of their belief and practice is true to the Bible. They subject every statement of tradition to that test, and they are willing to change any element that fails to meet that test.²

Faithfulness to the Bible is the believer’s weapon against costly spiritual compromise and error. Faithfulness to Scripture translates into faithfulness to God in the life of the believer.

Authority in Roman Catholicism

In contrast to the Protestant position of sola scriptura, Roman Catholicism finds its source of authority in three areas: the Bible, Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church, or the Magisterium. Roman Catholic documents state:

Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out of the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move toward the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and by the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.

Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. By adhering to it the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (cf. Acts 2:42 Greek). So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.

But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.

It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.³

Roman authority resides, then, in the “Word of God” as the source and the teaching office of the Church as interpreter.

For Discussion:

1. Identify some traditions that are present in the Protestant sub-culture today. Where do these traditions come from? How do our traditions benefit us? How do they hurt us? What power do traditions hold over us?

2. What traditions have influenced your spiritual nurturing? Have you ever challenged a tradition that you have grown up with and changed it after discovering that it lacked compelling biblical support? Are you open to such personal challenge? Are there elements of your personal faith that need to be challenged by Scripture?

3. How does the usage of “The Word of God” differ between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism?

The Bible

Inspiration

Roman Catholicism embraces the inspiration of the Scriptures.

In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God.” [Note the lower case “w” in “the word of God.”] “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”⁴

God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.⁵

The Text

Roman Catholicism’s Bible differs, however, from the Protestant Bible. The Roman Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha--books contained in the LXX (Greek Old Testament or Septuagint) but not contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. The early church and the Reformers questioned the authority of the Apocryphal books on the basis of their absence from the Hebrew Canon. “Jerome (d. A.D. 420) declared as apocryphal all those writings which stood outside the Hebrew Canon, but in his Vulgate Version he included them according to church practice, though not without some reservations.”⁶ Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was declared Rome’s official Bible at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing so, it was therefore canonized by the Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate Version alone was recognized as authentic by the Catholic Church.

The Vatican Council of 1870 [Vatican I] reaffirmed the declaration of the Council of Trent that “these books of the Old Testament and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate.”

In the year 1590 Sixtus V issued an edition of the Vulgate which he declared to be final, and prohibited under an anathema the publication of any new editions thereafter unless they should be exactly like that one. However, he died soon after, and scholars found numerous errors in his edition. Two years later a new edition was published under pope Clement VIII, and that is the one in general use today.

The Roman Catholic Douay version of the Bible (New Testament, 1582, and Old Testament, 1609) was made from the Latin Vulgate, as are the Roman Catholic translations into modern languages.⁷

Rome’s reverence for the Vulgate over the centuries meant that Catholic translations of the Bible were only translations of translations rather than translations of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Advances in the quality of the original texts gained by the process of textual criticism did not benefit Rome.

The Church seems to have shifted in its position toward the Vulgate according to Vatican II documents.

...suitable and correct translations are [to be] made into various languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.⁸

Sola Scriptura, Indeed!

The Reformers’ commitment to sola scriptura was, no doubt, met with many assaults by the Roman Church. Certainly they were sometimes over zealous in protecting their theology from potential incursions of tradition. The following illustrates the unusual extremes to which they were willing to go to defend sola scriptura.

The Hebrew alphabet originally consisted of consonants only. Few of the vowels had any written notation prior to the age of the Masoretes (who began their work about A.D. 520). At that time, Hebrew was falling into disuse so that people were increasingly less conversant with it. Visible representations of the vowel sounds in the Hebrew Old Testament had become a necessary crutch. The Masoretes did not invent the vowel sounds, but “received” them as part of their tradition: what they did was add signs or “points” to the text as visible representations of the traditional vowel sounds. This pointed Masoretic Hebrew text became the text that the Reformers relied on, and is still the text on which virtually all modern Protestant translations are based.

Some of the Reformers’ successors found themselves embarrassed by these Hebrew points. The points were simply tradition--something that had been handed down. sola scriptura, indeed! The Catholics had their “ancient and vulgate edition,” which was translated from the Hebrew prior to the addition of the vowel points and certified as authentic by the magisterium of the church. The reformed churches, the Catholics insisted, had no comparable certainty.

Some of the Reformers were uncomfortable with this seeming dilemma, and undertook to argue that the points, far from being of recent, man-made origin, had always existed alongside the consonantal letters and were equally inspired by God. The climax of this was reached in 1675 when the Helvetic Consensus Formula provided that no man should be licensed to preach the Gospel without first professing his belief in the divine inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points!!⁹

Use of the Bible

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has forbidden the free use of the Bible by the laity. The Council of Trent reaffirmed the earlier Council of Valencia (1229) with the following:

In as much as it is manifest, from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to everyone, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it; it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety, they apprehend, will be augmented, and not injured by it; and this permission they must have in writing.¹⁰

Boettner adds,

Such was the teaching and practice of the Roman Church for centuries. For one to possess or read the Bible in his native tongue without permission in writing from his superior and under the watchful eye of the bishop was a mortal sin, for which absolution could not be granted until the book was delivered to the priest.¹¹

The Church has recently shifted its position regarding the use of the Bible. Vatican II encourages Bible study among the laity.

Access to sacred Scripture ought to be wide open to the Christian faithful.¹²

and later,

...all clerics, particularly priests of Christ and others who, as deacons or catechists, are officially engaged in the ministry of the Word, should immerse themselves in the Scriptures by constant sacred reading and diligent study.

Likewise, the sacred Synod forcefully and specifically exorts all the Christian faithful, especially those who live the religious life, to learn “the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” Therefore, let them go gladly to the sacred text itself....¹³

For Discussion:

1. Working with 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, and 1 Corinthians 2:13, compose a statement regarding the inspiration of the Bible. Does the usage of Bible passages to validate the inspiration of the Bible constitute circular reasoning?

2. Protestant doctrine rests on the foundation of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. Upon what basis do we recognize these 66 books as inspired and therefore authoritative?

3. Irenaeus (d. c. A.D. 200) is said to have identified tradition and Scripture as one and the same. Is it reasonable to assume that tradition (that which was given by the apostles), once inscripturated, was replaced by the written documents?

4. Why did the Roman Church prohibit the common use of the Scriptures?

5. What might be the potential result of free access to the Bible for Roman Catholics?

6. How does the Catholic Church’s post-Vatican II position on access to the Bible concern Protestant evangelism of Roman Catholics? How might the Bible be utilized in evangelizing them?

Tradition

What is Tradition?

Webster defines tradition as “the process of handing down information, opinions, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example....” Tradition in Catholic theology is that which has been handed down from the apostles.

Christ the Lord...commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel.... This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. This was faithhfully done: it was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received--whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit....

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them “their own position of teaching authority.”

Thus, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. Hence, the apostles, in handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to maintain the traditions which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letter....¹⁴

The Catechism adds,

This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”¹⁵

Tradition is Living

Roman Catholic Tradition then is the apostles’ preaching, example, and institutions passed down through their successor bishops and expressed in the life of the Church. This Tradition is said to be living in that the Holy Spirit maintains the continuity of the unwritten, apostolic Gospel in the Church, and provides growth in insight into the Tradition through its expression in the lives and worship of the faithful.

Catholic theologian Avery Dulles explains,

It had become common, especially since the Counter-Reformation, to think of tradition objectively, as a collection of truths communicated to the apostles and preserved in the church. Without rejecting this notion, contemporary Catholicism shows a deeper awareness that tradition cannot be adequately understood as a body of explicit teaching. Many doctrines are contained in a merely implicit way in tradition considered as an activity or process whereby faith is expressed and transmitted.¹⁶

So, Tradition is not simply a body of truths, but is a “process whereby faith is expressed and transmitted.” The expression of the Roman Catholic faith collectively by the faithful continually elucidates the Tradition in such a way that previously unseen elements of its content become unobscured. In this way, insight into the Tradition grows,

The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth. Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her.¹⁷

McCarthy comments about this growth in insight,

Since what the Church does reflects what the Church believes, the universal practice of the Church is also considered a reliable witness to the Roman Catholic faith.¹⁸

The Sensus Fidei

“The sensus fidei refers to the instinctive sensitivity and discrimination which the members of the Church possess in matters of faith.”¹⁹

The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office: It spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name. The whole body of the faithful who have an annointing that comes from the holy one cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when “from the bishops to the last of the faithful” they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God, the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.²⁰

Further Revelation

Catholic theology holds that no further revelation is to be expected prior to the return of Christ. The sacred deposit is complete, though not yet fully understood. The significance of the Word of God will be increasingly understood over the course of time.

...no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.²¹

Boettner adds,

...the Roman Church...denies that it formulates any new doctrines at all. Rather it insists that in ex cathedra pronouncements the Holy Spirit enables the pope to draw out and proclaim what belonged to the original revelation.²²

For Discussion:

1. What is meant by the concept of “objective truth?” What are the dangers of defining doctrine on the basis of truth that is not objective?

2. How accessable is the Catholic “Word of God?”

3. How is “growth in insight” validated in the case of non-objective truth?

4. Based on the Roman Catholic understanding of Tradition, would it be true that the practice of the Church at any given time accurately reflects the Gospel of Christ? Can the Church become heretical?

5. Which of the two, Tradition and the Bible, would seem to be more encompassing? What could this imply about the authority of Tradition versus that of the Bible?

Church Hierarchy

The sacred deposit, Scripture and Tradition, were entrusted by the apostles to the whole Church. The responsibility for interpreting the sacred deposit, however, lies with the Magisterium--the bishops headed by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. The bishops and the Pope are formally considered to be the apostles’ successors.

Apostolic Succession

This sacred synod [Vatican II], following in the steps of the First Vatican Council, teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20:21). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God.²³

That divine mission [the spread of the Gospel], which was committed by Christ to the apostles, is destined to last until the end of the world (cf. Mt. 28:20), since the Gospel, which they were charged to hand on, is, for the Church, the principle of all its life for all time. For that very reason the apostles were careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted society.²⁴

In order to fulfill such exalted functions [those ecclesiastical functions of the bishops], the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming from them (cf. Acts 1:8; 2:4; Jn. 20:22-23), and, by the imposition of hands (cf. 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6-7), they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration.²⁵

Hence, the Roman Catholic Church is said to be apostolic “because she is founded on the apostles,” and “continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles...through their successors.”²⁶

The Magisterium

...the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.²⁷

This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.²⁸

Avery Dulles adds,

Since revelation is public, the church requires a way of publicly proclaiming the doctrine that expresses or safeguards that revelation. Catholics find evidence in the New Testament that Christ commissioned Peter and the apostles with the responsibility of overseeing the life and witness of the church. The pope and the other bishops are regarded as successors, respectively, of Peter and the other apostles. One of their most important tasks is to keep the church in the truth of the Gospel by proclaiming sound doctrine and condemning doctrinal deviations. In this function the hierarchy constitutes the church’s official teaching body, or magisterium.²⁹

The Papacy

The Pope, a word which comes from a Latin term meaning father, is the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Roman Catholic Church. According to Boettner, at his coronation, the Pope is triple crowned as the Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, and Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ.³⁰ Later documents (i.e. Vatican II) emphasize the Pope’s title as Vicar of Christ and his supreme ecclesiastical authority.

...the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

The Lord made Peter alone the rock-foundation and the holder of the keys of the Church (cf. Mt. 16:18-19), and constituted him shepherd of his whole flock (cf. Jn. 21:15 ff.). It is clear, however, that the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter (Mt. 16:19), was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head (Mt. 18:18; 28:16-20).³¹

According to the Catechism,

The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.³²

Papal Infallibility

The infallibility of the Pope has already been mentioned above. Vatican II addresses papal infallibility, which extends to the college of bishops when they exercise the supreme Magisterium.

The Roman Pontiff...enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful...he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism of infallibility is present in a singular way.³³

Dulles further explains,

When Catholics speak of the infallibility of the Magisterium they mean that in certain specified acts the popes and bishops, teaching doctrine concerning faith and morals in a way that binds the whole church, are divinely protected from falling into error. ...the pope can teach infallibly when, in his capacity as successor of Peter (ex cathedra), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine to be held by all the faithful on the basis of divine revelation.³⁴

For Discussion:

1. What biblical support exists for the concept of apostolic succession? How does Hebrews 5:4-6 and 1 Peter 2:9 inform this?

2. How important is the concept of apostolic succession to the structure, continuity and claim to authority of the Roman Catholic Church?

3. Vatican II articulates the subservience of the Magisterium to the Word of God. At the same time, the Magisterium is vested with the sole authority to interpret it. What are the potential dangers of the Magisterium’s authority?

4. How would you respond to Roman Catholicism’s usage of Mt. 16:18-19 and John 21:15ff to support the primacy of Peter? Provide an alternative interpretation of these passages.

5. What conditions would be required for infallibility to apply to a statement from the Vatican? Would documents such as Vatican II and the Catechism be considered infallible?

Two: The Church

The Catholic Church

There was a time when every Christian was pleased to identify with the catholic church--catholic with a small “c,” that is. Following Pentecost, the gospel spread rapidly. Despite seasons of intense and violent persecution, pockets of believers emerged throughout the Roman Empire. These early Christians held to a common faith and enjoyed a God-given affinity wherever they met. Paul’s teaching of the church as one body made up of all true believers provided a theological understanding of this new relationship (1 Corinthians 12:12-31).

Early Christians used the term catholic, a Greek word meaning concerning the whole, to describe this worldwide nature of the church. When early Christians referred to the catholic faith, they were speaking of the faith of the whole or universal church. The oldest document containing the term is a letter by Ignatius from the early second century. He wrote, “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” In the first three centuries, “the catholic church” referred to all believers holding to the same faith throughout the world.

With such a noble heritage, it is not surprising that today not only the Roman Catholic Church but most Christian denominations claim to hold to the catholic faith--that is, the faith of the whole church in apostolic times. The distinguishing mark of those identified as Roman Catholics is submission to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as Christ’s representative on earth. Nevertheless, the Church rarely refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Church. It prefers to call itself the Catholic Church so as not to limit in any way its claim to universal jurisdiction as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.³⁵

The Catholic Church is referred to as Mother.

It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes, and sustains my faith.³⁶

Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.” Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.³⁷

She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation.³⁸

Entrance into the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation since “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his body.”³⁹ Though salvation is administered through the Church, Roman Catholic theology would not think of the Church as a mediator between man and God. Instead, the Church is regarded as “a visible organization through which [Christ] communicates truth and grace to all men.”⁴⁰

For Discussion:

1. How do you understand the phrase, “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth”?

2. Is the church prescriptive to or descriptive of our salvation? What role does the church play in our conversion?

3. Catholic theology rejects the concept of Church as mediator for that of Church as communicator of truth and grace. Is there a measurable difference? What is a mediator? Does the concept of Church as sacrament [life-giving power from Christ (Catechism, 1110)] in Post-Vatican II theology imply mediation?

Three States of the Church

Protestant theology recognizes the visible church (the church on earth at a point in time) and the universal church (all New Testament saints for all of time, inclusive of those in heaven and on earth). Saints presently residing in heaven are understood as distinct from those presently residing on earth in terms of activity and relationship. Catholic theology, however, recognizes a continuity between the faithful of all time regardless of their state of being. “All, indeed, who are of Christ and who have his Spirit form one Church and in Christ cleave together.”⁴¹ Some Christians are presently on earth, some are being purified in Purgatory, and others are in heaven. Regardless of their state of being, they continue to contribute to or benefit from one another.

The Pilgrim Faithful

The Church faithful are those who embrace the doctrine of the Church, submit to the hierarchy, and enter into the sacramental system.

Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who--by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion--are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.⁴²

The Saints

The popular and theological use of the term saint in Catholic theology refers to those people who have lived their earthly life, died, and are now enjoying heaven.

...the union of the wayfarers [those who remain on earth] with the brethren who sleep in the peace of Christ is in no way interrupted, but on the contrary, according to the constant faith of the Church, this union is reinforced by an exchange of spiritual goods. Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness, add to the nobility of the worship that the Church offers to God here on earth, and in many ways help in a broader building up of the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27). Once received into their heavenly home and being present to the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8), through him and with him and in him they do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5), serving God in all things and completing in their flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church (cf. Col. 1:24). So by their brotherly concern is our weakness greatly helped.⁴³

The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom, especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were “put in charge of many things.” Their intercession is their most exalted service to God’s plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world.⁴⁴

In the veneration of the saints, Roman Catholicism sees a way to draw the faithful toward ever greater exercise of charity and closeness to Christ.

The Church has always believed that the apostles and Christ’s martyrs, who gave the supreme witness of faith and charity by the shedding of their blood, are closely united with us in Christ; she has always venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with a special love and has asked piously for the help of their intercession. Soon there were added to these others who had chosen to imitate more closely the virginity and poverty of Christ, and still others whom the outstanding practice of the Christian virtues and the wonderful graces of God recommended to the pious devotion and imitation of the faithful.⁴⁵

Catholicism distinguishes veneration from worship.

The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone: ⁴⁶

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

Those Suffering in Purgatory

Purgatory is the place of final purification, and is a logically essential doctrine to Roman Catholicism. Heaven is the place for only those who have died in God’s grace and friendship and who have been perfectly purified. Yet, many of the Faithful die in God’s grace, but are not completely purified at the moment of their death. Because they have died in God’s grace they are assured of eventual entrance into heaven, but they must be completely purified first. Purgatory provides the place of purification between life on earth and life in heaven for the faithful who have died in grace. Purgatory is distinct from the punishment of those who are destined for hell.

In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and, “because it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins” (2 Mac. 12:46) she offers her suffrages for them.⁴⁷

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.⁴⁸

The Treasury of the Church

In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.” In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits the others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the Communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church’s treasury, which is “not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the ‘treasury of the Church’ is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy.”

“This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.”⁴⁹

For Discussion:

1. In Protestant theology, are the saints in heaven acting in any way in behalf of those on earth?

2. What biblical evidence exists to support the Catholic concept of communion of the saints? Does Hebrews 12:1 support this? If not, how would you interpret Hebrews 12:1?

3. What would be a Protestant description of a faithful believer? Provide scriptural support.

4. To what do Catholic documents refer when they use the term charity?

5. To whom does the New Testament refer when it uses the term saint? What are the implications of this New Testament use of saint with respect to eternal security?

6. How do you understand the phrase “they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through...Christ”?

7. What biblical evidence exists to explain the activity of the heavenly church at the present time? Is there any biblical evidence to suggest that the heavenly saints can hear the prayers of the earthly pilgrims?

8. Explain the concept of veneration. How exactly does it differ from worship? How might veneration and worship become indistinguishable in the minds of Church-goers?

9. How do you think “perfect purity” would be quantified? Is it possible from a biblical point of view for a person to die in a perfectly purified state and therefore escape Purgatory?

10. If Christ’s redemption is truly efficacious, what benefit are the contributions of Mary and the saints to the treasury?

11. How do you understand the phrase “they attained their own salvation”? To what does this refer?

Mary

Mariology has its beginnings with the angel Gabriel’s statements to Mary recorded in Luke 1:26-38. There Mary was greeted as “you who are highly favored” (NIV), and was told that she would bear the Son of God. Mary responded with great faith, “I am the Lord’s servant, may it be done to me as you have said.” Because of her special position and her faith, Mary is reverenced first among the saints. She is also hailed as a type of the redeemed and purified Church. Over the centuries an extensive theology has grown up around Mary.

The Immaculate Conception

To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace.” In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.⁵⁰

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:⁵¹

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtues of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

Mother of God

Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, The second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).⁵²

Perpetual Virginity

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as...the “Ever-Virgin.”⁵³

Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to the Old Testament expression.⁵⁴

Assumption

Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.⁵⁵

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians....⁵⁶

Mother of the Church

Mary...devoted herself totally, as a handmaid of the Lord, to the person and work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of redemption.... Therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of Man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”⁵⁷

In the public life of Jesus Mary appears prominently; at the very beginning when at the marriage feast of Cana, moved with pity, she brought about by her intercession the beginning of miracles of Jesus the Messiah. ...the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully preserved in her union with her son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which was born of her.⁵⁸

After her Son’s Ascension, Mary “aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers.” In her association with the apostles and several women, “we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit....⁵⁹

Mother in the Order of Grace

In the words of the apostle there is but one mediator: “for there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all” (1 Tim. 2:5-6). But Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power.⁶⁰

She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented him to the Father in the temple, shared her Son’s sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.⁶¹

Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.⁶²

In dealing with the concept of Mediatrix, S. Lewis Johnson provides the following background and application which augments the Vatican II statements above:

Since the practice of praying to the saints increased during the Middle Ages, it is not surprising that Mary became especially popular. Jesus came to stand for the the stern, forbidding and unapproachable judge. The faithful were pointed to Mary, the compassionate mother who would act as mediator for them. The period of time from Trent to the French Revolution was preeminently the time of the defining of the compassionate mediation of Mary, principally in reaction against the Reformation, Jansenism, and eighteenth-century rationalism. A leader in the development of the sense of Mary as the compassionate Mediatrix was Alphonsus Liguori, a leading Italian moral theologian, who wrote many devotional and mystical works in praise of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and of Mary as “semi-divine mediatrix.” In his work on the glories of Mary he said, “God wants all graces to come by the hand of Mary.”

Leo XIII in an encyclical in 1891 strongly affirmed Mary’s mediation: “Nothing is bestowed on us except through Mary, as God himself wills. Therefore as no one can draw near to the supreme Father except through the Son, so also one can scarcely draw near to the Son except through his mother.” Vatican II reaffirmed Mary’s role as mediatrix, although warning against in any way limiting the dignity and efficacy of Christ as the one mediator.⁶³

A Type of the Redeemed and Purified Church

But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27), the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Devoutly meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church reverently penetrates more deeply into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her spouse.⁶⁴

Veneration of Mary

Mary is venerated in the Church with a degree of devotion which is greater than that given to the saints, but which is less than that reserved for divinity. This degree of honor, known as hyperdulia is reserved for Mary alone. McCarthy explains,

The most common way in which Catholics venerate Mary is by saying the Rosary. Considered by the Church an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” it is a series of prayers counted on a string of beads. These are arranged in groups of ten small beads separated by one large bead. There are five sets of these decades. On the large bead, the Our Father or Lord’s Prayer is said. On each of the ten small beads, Catholics pray the Hail Mary:⁶⁵

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

For Discussion:

1. Using a concordance, trace the life of Mary, the mother of Jesus, through the New Testament. Compare and contrast your understanding of the life and significance of Mary from the New Testament with Roman Catholic theology.

2. How would you interpret Luke 1:28? Does this verse imply that the angel recognized Mary as possessing some unique grace?

3. How do you explain Mary’s gracious response and faithfulness to the unique revelation she received and the unique task which she was elected to undertake? Was Mary given the opportunity to refuse cooperation?

4. Explain in your own words the meaning of Immaculate Conception. Is there any scriptural support for this doctrine? Is this doctrine a reasonable and necessary theological conclusion?

5. What potential theological difficulties result from the doctrine of Mary as mother of God?

6. Hw do you understand the Bible’s references to brothers and sisters of Jesus? What is the value to the Church in dogmatizing perpetual virginity?

7. Would you consider the dogma of the Assumption a significant advance in Catholic theological development or simply a reasonable result of the Immaculate Conception? Explain.

8. How well does the concept of Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation square with the New Testament?

9. In your opinion, do the Vatican II statements (footnoted as 26, 27, 28) dispel the mediation of Mary?

10. Provide illustrations of Mary perceived as “Mother in the Order of Grace” from the contemporary Catholic scene.

Religious Liberty

Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae articulated the Church’s position regarding the social and civil liberty of individuals and communities in religious matters. The purpose of the document was to affirm constitutional religious liberty on the basis of human dignity. Freedom of religious practice in society is viewed as a God-endowed right, and should therefore be exempt from civil restriction.

It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore bearing personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth. But men cannot satisfy this obligation in a way that is in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy both psychological freedom and immunity from external coercion.⁶⁶

In an atmosphere that is free from coercion, men are obligated to “seek the truth.”

The search for truth, however, must be carried out in a manner that is appropriate to the dignity of the human person and his social nature, namely, by free enquiry with the help of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue. It is by these means that men share with each other the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in such a way that they help one another in the search for truth.⁶⁷

But, “seeking the truth” is in no way to be understood as license to religious pluralism.

...while the religious freedom which men demand in fullfilling their obligation to worship God has to do with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ.⁶⁸

Religious liberty proposed for individuals is similarly proposed for communities.

The freedom or immunity from coercion in religious matters which is the right of individuals must also be accorded to men when they act in community.

...these groups have a right to immunity so that they may organize themselves according to their own principles. They must be allowed to honor the supreme Godhead with public worship, help their members to practice their religion and strengthen them with religious instruction, and promote institutions in which members may work together to organize their own lives according to their religious principles.

Religious communities have the further right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word.⁶⁹

Religious liberty produces an atmosphere in which humans are free to embrace the Church.

...the principle of religious liberty contributes in no small way to the development of a situation in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will and give it practical expression in every sphere of their lives.⁷⁰

For Discussion:

1. What opportunities for evangelism among Roman Catholics are opened as a result of Dignitatis Humanae?

2. Are humans “impelled by their nature to seek the truth”? How does this square with Romans 1:18-20?

3. Would you consider this document (Dignitatis Humanae) to be granting Catholics freedom of religious inquiry?

4. In keeping with Dignitatis Humanae how should the Catholic hierarchy view the Protestant movement?

5. What purpose or end result does the Church see in religious liberty?

Ecumenism

The Roman Church’s Decree on Ecumenism articulates her desire for the restoration of unity among all Christians. The document, Unitatis Redintegratio, expresses an attitude of inclusiveness. No longer are Protestants considered condemned; rather, they are seen as separated brethren. Protestants are now regarded as Christians who are in “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church. The objective of the Church’s ecumenical dialogue is to gather all Christians back into the Catholic Church. The document begins by explaining the need for an ecumenical movement.

In this one and only church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.⁷¹

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow...⁷²

Next, the concept of ecumenism is defined.

The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult. Then, dialogue between competent experts from different Churches and communities... Through such dialogue everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both communities. In addition, these communions engage in that more intensive cooperation in carrying out any duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience. They also come together for common prayer, where this is permitted.⁷³

The Council expects the ecumenical movement to produce Christian unity.

The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church....⁷⁴

Unitatis Redintegratio provides several criteria for implementing the ecumenical movement by the Church. First, the Church is called to interior renewal, a change of heart and holiness of life. Second, ecumenical prayer services “for unity” are desired. Worship in common, however, is not encouraged. In addition to these, the document adds,

We must become familiar with the outlook of our separated brethren. Study is absolutely required for this, and it should be pursued in fidelity to the truth and with a spirit of goodwill.⁷⁵

The principal schisms within the Church with which the document deals include the separation of the Eastern Church in the twelfth century and the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Regarding the Protestant church the document states,

Our thoughts are concerned first of all with those Christians who openly confess Jesus Christ as God and Lord and as the only mediator between God and man.... We are indeed aware that there exist considerable differences from the doctrine of the Catholic Church even concerning Christ the Word of God made flesh and the work of Redemption, and thus concerning the mystery and ministry of the Church and the role of Mary in the work of salvation.⁷⁶

Though the Protestant church embraces baptism, the beginning point in Catholic theology, the absence of the other sacraments produces the imperfect communion which the separated brethren have with Catholics.

By the sacrament of Baptism, whenever it is properly conferred in the way the Lord determined and received with the proper dispositions of soul, man becomes...reborn to a sharing of the divine life...

Baptism, therefore, constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn. But baptism, of itself, is only a beginning, a point of departure, for it is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ.⁷⁷

For Discussion:

What access is granted to Roman Catholics as a result of the ecumenism decree? What openings for evangelism by Protestants does the decree provide?

1. What potential does Catholic inquiry into Protestant doctrine hold for evangelism of Roman Catholics?

2. In a word, what crucial doctrine has the Catholic Church concluded to be the basis of the schism between Catholicism and Protestantism? Explain.

3. Explain in your own words the reason that the Church refers to Protestants as separated brethren in “imperfect communion.”

Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions

Nostra Aetate, Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, articulates the Church’s desire to initiate dialogue with non-Christian religions.

...there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by way of well-defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn.14:6).⁷⁸

The document focuses upon two groups, Muslims and Jews.

The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as prophet, his virgin mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead.⁷⁹

Lumen Gentium adds,

...the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems...⁸⁰

Nostra Aetate also references the Jews specifically. However, the quote which follows is taken from the Catechism and augments what is stated in Nostra Aetate.

When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the people of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”; “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”⁸¹

For Discussion:

1. In what ways does this document present a position of limited universalism?

2. Does the Catholic Church regard Muslims and Jews as included among those who will be saved? If so, what is the basis of this position?

Three: Salvation

Roman Catholic salvation theology is driven by two defining tenets: first, man has been wounded by sin, and second, justification is incomplete without ultimate sanctification. With the help of divine grace, sin’s wounds must be overcome and a life of charity must be produced. Only then is justification assured. Sanctification has been assimilated into justification in Catholic theology and thinking, so that as Catholics cooperate toward sanctification they increase their justification. This, of course, runs counter to the Protestant doctrine of sola fide.

Justification

Man’s Condition

A theological understanding of man’s condition outside of Christ, in his sinful state, informs one’s approach to the doctrine of justification. Man’s role in his own salvation is affected by the state that sin has left him in. If man is dead in sin, then there is presumably nothing he can do about his own salvation. He is dependant upon God. If instead he has only been injured by sin, then he may contain within himself the necessary resources to recover from sin’s wound.

The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice⁸² not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”--a state and not an act.⁸³

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin--an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.⁸⁴

The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).⁸⁵

Catholicism attempts to bridge the gap between Pelagianism and Protestant theology. Man needs grace, but he is not dead. Justification in Catholicism might best be described as cooperative--God begins it, but man, with God’s help, finishes it.

Roman Catholicism is generally referred to as semi-Pelagian in its theological stance. Pelagius taught that each person was born with a free will and the ability to choose good as well as evil. He rejected the notion that man’s will had been affected by the fall of Adam. Although Roman Catholicism differs from Pelagianism, it does acknowledge the cooperation of the human will with God’s grace in salvation--this being possible because the sin of Adam left man in a weakened condition but not spiritually dead.⁸⁶

Faith

The Catechism stresses the importance of faith in salvation.

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end’”⁸⁷

Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow, and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the church.⁸⁸

Justification

Justification includes both the removal of sins committed prior to Baptism and the infusion of faith, hope, and love for sanctification. What Protestants understand to be sanctification, or growth in grace, and see to be a result of justification, Catholics believe to be a part of justification. So a Catholic is not completely justified before God until he is fully sanctified. Protestant Michael Horton explains:

Rome simply combined [at the Council of Trent] the two concepts into one: God justifies us through the process of our moving, by the power of God’s Spirit at work in our lives, from being unjust to becoming just. In other words, men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God’s grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ’s finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone.⁸⁹

The Catechism explains as follows:

...justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.⁹⁰

Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.⁹¹

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted to us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.⁹²

Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons.⁹³

With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.⁹⁴

Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent....⁹⁵

Merit

While the first work of justification is grounded solely on grace through faith, the completing work of justification is merited. As the Catholic cooperates in charity with the promptings of the Holy Spirit he merits his sanctification, resulting in eternal life. Eternal life is an earned privilege.

The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members...⁹⁶

With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man.⁹⁷

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.⁹⁸

The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.⁹⁹

For Discussion:

1. Develop a biblical understanding of the transmission of original sin utilizing Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12-21. Explain the concept of imputation of sin. Compare and contrast your work with Catholic thought.

2. To what extent has sin impacted man from a biblical standpoint? Justify your response with Scripture. Has human nature been totally corrupted or just wounded?

3. How might a semi-Pelagian view of sin affect one’s approach to justification?

4. Biblically, what is the role of faith in salvation? Can faith be lost? Does the loss of faith necessitate the loss of salvation?

5. Contrast the terms infuse and impute. Which one most accurately describes how righteousness is received when an individual becomes a believer? Refer to Romans 4:3-5.

6. Describe in your own words the difference in understanding between Protestants and Catholics regarding the relationship of sanctification to justification. What Bible texts support the Protestant understanding?

7. To what biblical support might Catholics appeal for assimilating sanctification into justification?

8. What is the extent of the forgiveness received at Catholic baptism?

9. What specific wording in the Catechism (quoted above) supports the conclusion that Catholics have combined justification and sanctification?

10. What assurance of salvation exists for the Catholic?

11. How might assurance of salvation re-orient the Catholic’s response to God on a daily basis? How would this impact his motivations?

The Sacramental Economy

Introduction

Excepting the sacrament of Baptism, which produces justification, the sacramental economy is the currency of the cooperative aspect of justification, or sanctification. Participation in the sacraments yields the needed grace for charity, which continues and perfects justification.

The liturgy, in its turn, moves the faithful filled with “the paschal sacraments” to be “one in holiness”; it prays that “they hold fast in their lives what they have grasped by their faith.” The renewal in the Eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and man draws the faithful and sets them aflame with Christ’s insistent love. From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, grace is poured forth upon us as from a fountain, and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God to which all other activities of the church are directed, as toward their end, are acheived with maximum effectiveness.¹⁰⁰

Liturgy and Sacrament

In Christian tradition [liturgy] means the participation of the People of God in “the work of God.” Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church.¹⁰¹

“Seated at the right hand of the Father” and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his Body which is the Church, Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify.¹⁰²

The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.¹⁰³

The Unique Paschal Event

The Catholic’s understanding of the death-burial-resurrection event as a unique ever-abiding event explains it’s presence in the sacraments. The sacrifice of Christ is not only historical, but is also an ever-present event producing present results.

In the liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present. During his earthly life Jesus announced his Paschal mystery by his teaching and anticipated it by his actions. When his hour comes, he lives out the unique event of history which does not pass away: Jesus dies, is buried, rises from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father “once for all.” His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The Paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is--all that he did and suffered for all men--participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything toward life.¹⁰⁴

The Seven Sacraments

One: Baptism

Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission...¹⁰⁵

...it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.”¹⁰⁶

Special emphasis is directed toward the Baptism of infants,

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.¹⁰⁷

Two principal effects result from the sacrament of Baptism,

By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishments for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin...¹⁰⁸

The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

--enabling them to believe in God...
--giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit...
--allowing them to grow in goodness...¹⁰⁹

Two: Confirmation

...the reception of the sacrament of confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For “by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit.¹¹⁰

The essential rite of Confirmation is annointing the forehead of the baptized with sacred chrism, together with the laying on of the minister’s hand and the words: “Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti” (Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.)...¹¹¹

The effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the “full outpouring of the Holy Spirit”¹¹² resulting in an “increase and deepening of baptismal grace.”¹¹³ The baptized believer must be in a state of grace to receive Confirmation. To insure this, the sacrament of Penance is urged prior to receiving the sacrament of Confirmation. Confirmation is often celebrated alongside Baptism eliminating this concern.

Three: Eucharist

The Eucharist, also referred to as Holy Communion and Holy Mass, “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior.”¹¹⁴ It is the centerpiece of the sacramental economy and of the Church’s life. In the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated throughout the ages.

a. The Celebration’s Movement

The Eucharist begins with a homily, which is followed by the presentation of the offerings, the bread and wine. The anaphora, the portion of the liturgy in which the elements are offered as a sacrifice, follows.

In the preface, the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification.¹¹⁵

In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit.¹¹⁶

In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.¹¹⁷

In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him.¹¹⁸

In the intercessions, the Church indicates that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole Church in heaven and on earth, the living and the dead, and in communion with the pastors of the Church, the Pope, the diocesan bishop, his presbyterium and his deacons, and all the bishops of the whole world together with their Churches.¹¹⁹

In the communion, preceded by the Lord’s prayer and the breaking of the bread, the faithful receive “the bread of heaven” and “the cup of salvation,” the body and blood of Christ...¹²⁰

b. The Eucharist as Sacrifice

When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”¹²¹

...the Eucharist is also a sacrifice.¹²²

In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”¹²³

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...¹²⁴

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”¹²⁵

The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church.¹²⁶ The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value.¹²⁷ To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven.¹²⁸

The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who “have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified,” so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ...¹²⁹

c. The Presence of Christ

Christ is present in the Eucharist by virtue of transubstantiation, a divine action whereby the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood.

In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.”¹³⁰

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.¹³¹

Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.”¹³²

d. The Fruits of The Eucharist

Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ...preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism.¹³³

The Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.¹³⁴

By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins.¹³⁵

Four: Penance or Reconciliation

Penance, or Reconciliation, restores the Catholic to grace after he sins. Penance provides, from God’s mercy, pardon for offenses committed against him and reconciles the repentant Catholic to the Church. Penance is an essential remedy available to the Catholic to be relied upon during the course of sanctification. Without the sacrament of Penance, the Catholic guilty of mortal sin, having lost his baptismal grace, could not be restored to grace, and so would be condemned to hell. For this reason, Penance is also thought of as the second conversion, Baptism being the first conversion.

a. Sin in Catholicism

Catholicism evaluates sin according to the degree of seriousness. Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart and turns the Catholic away from God, necessitating the sacrament of Penance for resolution. Venial sin offends and wounds charity, but does not destroy it.

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”¹³⁶

Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.¹³⁷

Venial sin weakens charity...[and]...merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable.¹³⁸

b. Penance a Matter of the Heart

Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.¹³⁹

c. Its Essential Elements

It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; on the other, God’s action through the intervention of the Church. The Church...through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction.¹⁴⁰

Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance...¹⁴¹

Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended...¹⁴²

Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”¹⁴³

The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear.¹⁴⁴

(Indulgences)

The doctrine of indulgences is closely related to the sacrament of Penance, and so is presented here. This doctrine also involves the Treasury of the Church which was discussed in the previous chapter.

“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven...”¹⁴⁵

“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.”¹⁴⁶

An indulgence provides a pardon of the need to make satisfaction in completing Penance. The Catechism explains,

To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.¹⁴⁷

The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”¹⁴⁸

Indulgences are obtained from the Treasury of the Church, which is a bank of spiritual goods, or satisfactions available for distribution by the Church.

An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins.¹⁴⁹

Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.¹⁵⁰

Five: Annointing of the Sick

This sacrament was formerly known as Extreme Unction, as it was conferred almost exclusively at the point of death. The sacrament is now used in the case of grave illness, and it is a repeatable sacrament.

The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick has as its purpose the conferral of a special grace on the Christian experiencing the difficulties inherent in the condition of grave illness or old age.¹⁵¹

The proper time for receiving this holy anointing has certainly arrived when the believer begins to be in danger of death because of illness or old age.¹⁵²

Each time a Christian falls seriously ill, he may receive the Anointing of the Sick, and also when, after he has received it, the illness worsens.¹⁵³

The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its affects:

--the uniting of the person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;

--the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;

--the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;

--the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul;

--the preparation for passing over to eternal life.¹⁵⁴

Six: Holy Orders

In the sacrament of Holy Orders the recipient is ordained into the line of apostolic succession, granting him sacerdotal power¹⁵⁵ in the case of consecration to the episcopate (bishops) and the presbyterate (priests). Sacerdotal power does not apply to deacons, though they are consecrated through this sacrament as well.

The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ.¹⁵⁶

The bishop receives the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which integrates him into the episcopal college and makes him the visible head of the particular Church entrusted to him. As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope.¹⁵⁷

Priests are united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity and at the same time depend on them in the exercise of their pastoral functions; they are called to be the bishops’ prudent co-workers. They form around their bishop the presbyterium which bears responsibility with him for the particular Church. They receive from the bishop the charge of a parish community or a determinate ecclesial office.¹⁵⁸

Seven: Matrimony

The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life.¹⁵⁹

For Discussion:

Is there any scriptural basis for the Catholic understanding of a transcendent Paschal event? Is there any theological necessity of a transcendent Paschal event?

1. Does Catholic theology hold to baptismal regeneration? Develop the scriptural alternative to baptismal regeneration.

2. In the case of infant baptism faith is obviously not essential. How does this coordinate with the earlier statement regarding the prerequisite of faith for salvation?

3. What is the evangelical view of the Lord’s supper termed? Defend this view scripturally. How might a Catholic defend his view (transubstantiation) with the Bible?

4. State in your own words the meaning and value of the Eucharist to the Catholic.

5. Is the Catholic Eucharist actually a sacrifice for sins? If so, which sins? In your view, is the Protestant Lord’s Supper a sacrifice for sins?

6. How does the Catholic view of the Eucharist as sacrifice compare/contrast with Hebrews 7-10? What is the extent of Christ’s sacrifice according to Scripture?

7. What is the significance to the believer of the doctrine of eternal security? Provide a biblical defense for this Protestant doctrine. What attraction might this doctrine have to Catholics?

8. What biblical support exists for the classification of sins as either venial or mortal in Catholicism?

9. Can Venial sins pile up and become mortal sins?

10. If penance is a matter of interior conversion, can the priest really absolve sins?

11. On what biblical grounds must a Catholic make satisfaction for his sins? Would you consider this a form of works salvation? How does Galatians 3:3 inform this?

---

2 Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism. (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962), pp. 75-76.

3 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 9 & 10. All Vatican II quotations used in this workbook are taken from Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992)

4 Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Ligouri, MO: Ligouri Publications, 1994), no. 104, quoting DV 21 & 24.

5 Ibid., no. 105, quoting DV 11.

6 R. K. Harrison, Article on the Apocrypha in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenny, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975).

7 Boettner, p. 88.

8 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 22.

9 Adapted from Tradition Old and New by F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 160-161.

10 Boettner, p. 97, quoting Council of Trent.

11 Ibid., p. 99.

12 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 22.

13 Ibid., no. 25.

14 Ibid., nos. 7 and 8.

15 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 78.

16 Avery Dulles, Faith and Revelation in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, Francis Schussler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin, eds., (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 121.

17 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 8.

18 James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 298.

19 Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), Translator’s footnote, p. 363.

20 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 12.

21 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 66.

22 Boettner, 80.

23 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 18.

24 Ibid. no. 20.

25 Ibid. no. 21.

26 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 857.

27 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 10.

28 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 85.

29 Avery Dulles, p. 123.

30 Boettner, p. 127, quoted from The National Catholic Almanac.

31 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 22.

32 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 553.

33 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 25.

34 Avery Dulles, p. 124.

35 Quoted from James G. McCarthy, pp. 272-273.

36 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 168.

37 Ibid., no. 169.

38 Ibid., no. 868.

39 Ibid., no. 846.

40 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 8.

41 Ibid., no. 49.

42 Ibid., no. 14.

43 Ibid., no. 49.

44 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2683.

45 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 50.

46 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2132, quoting from Basil and Thomas Aquinas.

47 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 50.

48 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1030.

49 Ibid., nos. 1475, 1476, 1477, quoting from Indulgentiarum doctrina.

50 Ibid., no. 490.

51 Ibid., no. 491, quoting from Ineffabilis Deus.

52 Ibid., no. 495.

53 Ibid., no. 499.

54 Ibid., no. 500.

55 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 59.

56 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 966.

57 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 56.

58 Ibid., no. 58.

59 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 965.

60 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 60.

61 Ibid., no. 61.

62 Ibid., no. 62.

63 S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Mary, the Saints, and Sacerdotalism in Roman Catholicism, John Armstrong, ed., (Chicago: Moody, 1994).

64 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 65.

65 James G. McCarthy, p. 206.

66 Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Liberty, no. 2.

67 Ibid., no. 3.

68 Ibid., no. 1.

69 Ibid., no. 4.

70 Ibid., no. 10.

71 Vatican II, Degree on Ecumenism, no. 3.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid., no. 4.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid., no. 9.

76 Ibid., no. 20.

77 Ibid., no. 22.

78 Vatican II, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, no. 2.

79 Ibid., no. 3.

80 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 16.

81 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 839, quoting from NA 4; Roman Missal, Good Friday 13: General Intercessions, VI; and Romans 9:4-5; 11:29.

82 This concept of original holiness and justice is Tridentine. Original holiness refers to man’s capacity to share in divine life. Original justice refers to the harmony which Adam and Eve experienced, both inwardly within themselves and outwardly with one another and creation generally (Catechism, 375-376).

83 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 404.

84 Ibid., no. 405.

85 Ibid., no. 406.

86 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), p. 527.

87 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 161; quoting from Dei Filius 3.

88 Ibid., no. 162.

89 Michael S. Horton, What Still Keeps Us Apart? in Roman Catholicism, John Armstrong, gen. ed., (Chicago: Moody, 1994), pp. 257 and 258.

90 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2018.

91 Ibid., no. 2019.

92 Ibid., no. 2020.

93 Ibid., no. 2021.

94 Ibid., no. 1991.

95 Ibid., no. 1993.

96 Ibid., no. 2006.

97 Ibid., no. 2007.

98 Ibid., no. 2010.

99 Ibid., no. 2016.

100 Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 10.

101 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1069.

102 Ibid., no. 1084.

103 Ibid., no. 1129.

104 Ibid., no. 1085.

105 Ibid., no. 1213.

106 Ibid., no. 1215.

107 Ibid., no. 1250.

108 Ibid., no. 1263.

109 Ibid., no. 1266.

110 Ibid., no. 1285.

111 Ibid., no. 1320.

112 Ibid., no. 1302.

113 Ibid., no. 1303.

114 Ibid., no. 1330.

115 Ibid., no. 1352.

116 Ibid., no. 1353.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid., no. 1354.

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid., no. 1355.

121 Ibid., no. 1364, quoting Lumen Gentium 3.

122 Ibid., no. 1365.

123 Ibid.

124 Ibid., 1366.

125 Ibid., no. 1367, quoting from Trent.

126 Ibid., no. 1368.

127 Ibid.

128 Ibid., no. 1370.

129 Ibid., no. 1371, quoting from Trent.

130 Ibid., no. 1374, quoting from Trent.

131 Ibid., no. 1377.

132 Ibid., no. 1378, quoting Paul VI, MF 56.

133 Ibid., no. 1392.

134 Ibid., no. 1394.

135 Ibid., no. 1395.

136 Ibid., no. 1857.

137 Ibid., no. 1858.

138 Ibid., no. 1863.

139 Ibid., no. 1430.

140 Ibid., no. 1448.

141 Ibid., no. 1456.

142 Ibid., no. 1458.

143 Ibid., no. 1459.

144 Ibid., no. 1460.

145 Ibid., no. 1471, quoting Paul IV.

146 Ibid.

147 Ibid., no. 1472, quoting Trent.

148 Ibid., no. 1473.

149 Ibid., no. 1478.

150 Ibid., no. 1479.

151 Ibid., no. 1527.

152 Ibid., no. 1528.

153 Ibid., no. 1529.

154 Ibid., no. 1532.

155 Sacerdotal power authorizes a priest to act as a mediator. Included as sacerdotal powers are the power of the keys and the power to bind and loose (see page 22).

156 Ibid., no. 1551.

157 Ibid., no. 1594.

158 Ibid., no. 1595.

159 Ibid., no. 1661.

Religion and Public Life, a research and education institute located in New York City, held a press conference on March 29, 1994, to release a document prepared and signed by a group of Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. Dallas Seminary was not involved in the formation of this statement or of subsequent documents. However, a growing concern has been expressed by some Dallas Seminary alumni and friends as to the relationship of the Seminary to this declaration. In light of the questions raised, the administration is responding with the following evaluation.

Dallas Seminary recognizes that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics share much in common on moral and social issues and can often cooperate in these areas.

Our society is under assault by the forces of secularism, humanism, and false religions. Catholics and Evangelicals unite in opposition to such evils as abortion on demand and pornography. And we unite in our support for many basic theological truths and biblical values on morality and the family. These (and other) issues are addressed in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document and are a welcome reminder of the areas where Evangelicals and Catholics agree.

Cooperation in these areas takes the form of political, moral, and social action. Resisting the abortion of the unborn, establishing crisis pregnancy centers, and lobbying for laws that promote moral values and protect abused family members are areas where Evangelicals and Catholics have cooperated in the past. Such cooperation helps Evangelicals fulfill their responsibility as good citizens and, more importantly, as salt and light in a corrupt and dark society.

Dallas Seminary believes the theological differences between Evangelical and Roman Catholics remain significant and must not be minimized.

Though Dallas Seminary affirms areas of agreement in the moral and social arenas, we strongly question whether Evangelicals and Catholics can ever “unite on the great truths of the faith.” Though both groups might use the same words and quote the same Scriptures, at least four fundamental issues separate Evangelical and Catholic doctrine.

1. Evangelicals hold to sola fide (justification by faith only in Christ alone) while official Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that justification also involves human effort and merit.

2. Evangelicals teach that the new birth is not dependent on water baptism while Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that water baptism is a “sacrament of regeneration.”

3. Evangelicals affirm sola scriptura (the Word of God alone is our final authority for doctrine and Christian life) while Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that church tradition and the authority of the pope sustain equal validity with the Bible.

4. Evangelicals hold that all believers are priests with immediate access to God through Jesus Christ while Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the clergy, saints, and the Virgin Mary are also mediators whom individuals need to approach God.

These doctrinal differences are too significant to ignore. Furthermore, these were major issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation and cannot be dismissed for the sake of unity. Dallas Seminary therefore cannot in good conscience endorse the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. However, we will maintain fellowship with those Evangelicals who did sign the document. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we affirm them as friends while disagreeing with this particular action on their part.

We close by noting three specific points made in the document we feel are significant.

1. The document was not a formal agreement between Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church. It begins by stating unequivocally, “This statement cannot speak officially for our communities.” It is a document representing the views of several Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, but it never intended to speak on behalf of either group as a whole.

2. The document highlights the fact that a number of Roman Catholics are trusting in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and are truly “born again.”

3. The document does remind Evangelicals that Roman Catholics are our allies in the fight to reclaim the basic moral and spiritual values under assault in our society.

Dallas Seminary will continue to train men and women to take the good news of God’s salvation by grace through faith to all needy people in this world who believe they can somehow earn eternal life by their own merit. To do less is to deny the Great Commission of our Lord.

---

205 This response appeared in Dallas Connection, Fall 1995, published by Dallas Theological Seminary. Reprinted by permission of Dallas Theological Seminary.