An Atheist Explores the Bible Part Nineteen: God loves a barbecue (Leviticus 1-5)

Leviticus 1-5

God loves a barbecue.

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

Leviticus 1

“If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.”

From what I remember of Leviticus it’s basically a list of rules. In this chapter we are given guidelines for what kinds of cattle, sheep or fowl to sacrifice, and how the various parts of the animal are to be treated. All get burnt ultimately, but legs and guts are to be washed first. All somewhat gruesome.

Leviticus 2

“And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:”

More rules for offerings. This time, “meat” seems to mean either “food” in general, or “bread” or some variant thereof, because most of the variants are some kind of simple flour and oil mixture. There’s a very definite proscription against using yeast and honey in the offerings. The “leaven” (yeast) I can understand because that stems from the tradition that the Israelites left Egypt in such a hurry that they didn’t have time for their dough to prove, and so it’s in memory of that. Don’t know what God has against honey, though. Salt is good, though. Salt is symbolic of success, so include salt. But not honey. Because... bees ... are ... evil, or something? Oh, and the priests get to keep most of this and only need to burn a portion.

Bet they’d have preferred honey.  Hm, I wonder if that’s the reason, so they don’t take too much of the offering?

Leviticus 3

“And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.”

More animals bite the dust. This chapter deals with “peace offerings”, I’m not sure what the purpose of these is. Peace with God? Praying for peace between people? Anyway, it’s a more complex affair than the offerings in Leviticus 1, with kidneys and fat being the main component. And because of this, it is forbidden to eat fat or blood. Hm. Hands up anyone who’s ever eaten a beefburger.  Yep, you shouldn’t have done so, according to this. And I quite like black pudding as well.

Leviticus 4

“If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.”

More sacrificial offerings, this time as atonement for sins. There are rules for priests, congregation and rulers, which are all pretty much the same except that rulers get to sacrifice a goat whilst everyone else has to provide a bullock. Once again the ritual is a step more complex – the animal is bled, the blood daubed around the altar, kidneys and fat burned as per a peace offering and the rest taken out of camp and burned.

I was thinking that it’s a bit unfair on these animals to suffer for someone else’s sins, but I suppose it’s been well established that the Israelites were a herding culture, and a man’s worth was measured in livestock (see Jacob), so I guess offering an animal is much like a fine, really. I would have thought that a bullock was worth more than a goat, but perhaps not.

Leviticus 5

“Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.”

I got a bit lost with this one, to tell the truth. It deals with “sin” offerings, which can be sheep, or kids, or two turtledoves or two pigeons. Wonder if that was to origins for that part of the Twelve Days of Christmas?

Anyway, there are “sin” offerings and “trespass” offerings but the chapter is a bit vague as to what the difference is. It seems that a “sin” is breaking one of the laws given in Exodus, whereas “trespass” seems specific to when the priesthood are harmed or offended. I think...

But this wouldn’t help me, because apparently even if you don’t know that you’ve sinned, you’ve still got to make an offering. Presumably after someone tells you what you’ve done.

It doesn’t help, also, that the chapter mentions “unclean” things, but doesn’t specify what they are. I mean, what is one to make of the verse I quoted at the top there? It sounds worryingly like the kind of quote a homophobic hate preacher would use to “justify” their position but really, it could mean anything. It’s more likely to mean a ceremonial “cleanliness”; something that was not yet anointed when it should be, or someone who had recently touched the unwanted parts of an animal sacrifice and so on.

Another penny dropped for me here as well. All this sacrificial offering of blood to atone for sins feeds directly forward into the symbolism of the Crucifixion. I suppose this is why Christians don’t feel the need to slaughter sheep and bullocks all the time as they believe that Jesus’ sacrifice did this shedding of blood enough for them, for all of them, forever; as long as they honour his sacrifice this is equivalent to making a sin offering themselves. That’s ... actually quite a clever bit of symbolism. I wouldn’t have thought I’d be getting to NT stuff so soon, but there we go. And here I thought Leviticus would just be dull and mechanical.