Don’t Read It Like This
He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities. Leviticus 16:16 NASB
Which – How would you prefer to read this verse? Oh, did you think that there was only one way to read it properly? Did you think that the NASB translation (or similar version) was the definitive understanding of this text? Remember that the original contains no vowels, no punctuation and no clarification of ambiguous words. Context is key. So, what’s the context? Well, that depends on a lot of factors including the presuppositions of the reader. If we begin with the presupposition that God is offended by sin and cannot bear the presence of disobedience, then we might read this verse so that the last two prepositional phrases are about the tent of meeting. God isn’t around, but the tent of meeting still is. So if we sin, God leaves, but the physical symbol of His now-departed presence is still with us. Thus, we use the word “which,” referring to an inanimate object (the tent).
But the Baal Shem read this verse differently. “Sinners who know that they sin are humble. Therefore the Lord remains close to them—who ‘abides with them in the midst of their uncleanness’ (Leviticus 16:16). But he who is arrogant, though no evildoer, alienates God, for He says of him: ‘He and I cannot live together in the same world.’”[1]
In other words, the verse should be translated with “who,” not “which.” God remains despite our impurities. It isn’t the tent of meeting that matters. It is the presence of the Lord. The tent of meeting doesn’t atone. YHVH forgives. He is right there in the midst of our impurity, exhorting us to repent and embrace the relationship He offers. David put it another way. “When I make my bed in She’ol, You are there.” The rabbis read creatively, based on their deeper understanding of YHVH’s character. As we shall see in subsequent investigations, far too often our Western theological influences misdirect us because they are steeped in a representation of a God who is much more like a Roman emperor than a shepherd Father. Unfortunately, unless we are paying very close attention, we will absorb the subliminal messages about God from these misdirections. The result is a supernal Policeman, a transcendent Judge, who is offended by our very existence and has to be coaxed back into the fragile relationship of perfection.
Oh, by the way, the attribute of perfection is never found in the Tanakh. The Greek teleios (cf. Matthew 5:48) is rather oiktirmon (LXX), as found in Luke 6:36. The God of Israel is not described as perfect. Instead, He is described as merciful. With that in mind, how would you prefer to read Leviticus 16:16?
Topical Index: which, merciful, atonement, perfection, Leviticus 16:16, Luke 6:36
[1] Arakhim, 15b., cited in Abraham Heschel, A Passion for Truth, p. 67.
Skip, I’m trying to gain understanding of the point you are trying to make, referring to this statement: “Oh, by the way, the attribute of perfection is never found in the Tanakh. The Greek teleios (cf. Matthew 5:48) is rather oiktirmon (LXX), as found in Luke 6:36.”
If “perfection” is not an attribute used to describe God in the Tanakh, does that automatically mean that He could not be described as “perfect” in the New Testament? Why would the Greek word “teleios” be used, if not to convey God’s desire for saints to “be perfect” (or righteous) as YVWH is? I realize perfection is a Greek idea, but do you think that “telios” is wrongly used in Matthew 5:48?
SIDE NOTE: One revelation YVWH gave to me when I stumbled across Matt 5:48 a while back and was baffled at God’s expectation of us to “be perfect” was that “telios” is from the primary root word “tello”, which means “to set out for a definite point or goal.” (See Blue Letter Bible link: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5056&t=ESV). This gave me comfort, knowing that God desires for me to set out to be perfect, to press forward with an end-goal of perfection in mind.
Agreed, the last statement is one that actually I’m having the hardest time with too.
Not sure why it would matter if God is perfect or not but my assumption has always been that we can’t be in His presence when we sin because He is perfect and Holy – we are not etc (I’m sure pretty much all have heard the theology). Therefore, everyone has to pass through the lake of fire to be purified so we can be around His holiness/perfection. And beyond that, I have a hard time swallowing that He is not perfect because I equate His perfection to how He has a perfect plan – or is there not textual evidence for that either? Or wrong is my assumptions wrong that the too relate to each other?
By not stating He is perfect, does that imply He is not? Was a non perfect God something that Israelite’s had no issue with at the time because culturally gods were not perfect? Some elaboration would be helpful.
I am thinking that your question depends somewhat upon your definition of “perfect.” Where did we get this thought that God is “perfect?” According to whose definition?
God is God and I wonder if we can tag him with our words of how we think He is or ought to be. Of course these are the glasses we look through because we have been taught these things. Not saying you and Gaynor are wrong or right, just wondering along with you both.
I personally am okay with not being able to know in my humaness *exactly* how to define God. He is pretty far beyond my understanding but I know He is God because He says so and shows me everyday in His creation. I see Him in the history we have been left and the wonder of the created things that exist. I know I am not doing a very good job of defining Him and a scholar intent on proving me ignorant would have a ball here! But I am okay with that too 🙂
Mercy is something I am ever so grateful for in God, others and myself too.
Thanks for the response! Sure agreed, it goes back to what is the definition of perfect. Based off of that you will have an answer. To me, my biblical definition of perfect (self made definition) is,
‘Biblical perfection'”:
a) To be sinless, with out error.
b) To fall in line to Torah without contradiction from Gen of birth (or in this case creation) to death on this earth for us and for God infinity.
c) For God to have enough oversight understanding of who I am that while yes I have free will, nothing is going to be a, ‘Curve ball’ to him.
d) He forgets nothing, no single good nor bad – His memory is better than what I could imagine. So when I’m judged he’s not overlooking things or convently, ‘forgets’ good or bad for me.
e) When He gives His word, He doesn’t do it for manipulation purposes or self interest but because He understands what’s best for me
While yes, these are human characteristics Exodus 34:6-7 is His personality. If He can’t do that perfectly then what is there? So based off my definition it may be a bit more clear why it’s an uncomfortable notion for me to have an imperfect God. Comforting that that He doesn’t expect perfection out of us sure, but if the maker of the rules can’t do it then how is that supposed to be a breath of fresh air (no snarky tone implied – honest question)? Full circle, I a agrees on “what is the biblical definition of perfection?” not, “Derek’s biblical definition of perfection”. Again thank’s for your reply.
Very interesting that “to be perfect” is defined as “to set out for a definite point or goal”… If we consider the new covenant definition…
33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Jeremiah 31:33-34
and
33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Ezekiel 36:25-28
we can understand what is God’s goal for us… to be perfect with a perfect heart to hold His Torah and walk His Ways, having also a perfect (immortal) body as Paul writes
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on [t]the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory.55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
1 Corinthians 15:51-55
Gaynor (and all others on this particular blog),
Please keep in mind that the Greek idea of perfection is the real problem here, not the attributes (careful) of YHVH in the Tanakh. It is the Greek idea that “perfect” means “absolutely without flaws, error, inconsistencies or lack of any kind” that created the idea that God can never change, since, ipso facto, change always implies a prior or subsequent lack. But this idea is not a biblical one. Therefore, “perfect” is not used in the Tanakh because God is constantly in a state of relationship and relationship is the epitome of movement, change, alteration, accommodation, etc. This does NOT mean God isn’t “perfect.” It means He is not to be defined by our Greek idea of perfect. So ask yourself, “What would a “perfect” relationship with another person be like?” Don’t get trapped in “What would it mean to be without any change?” You see the problem? When we unintentionally apply the Greek idea, we immediately get stuck in definitions about essence, i.e., those qualities that cannot change. But the “essence” of a relationships is constant change in the fabric of continuous commitment. Now go back and re-read your comment and see if you aren’t really struggling with the wrong definition and concluding that God can’t be God because He doesn’t fit the Greek idea.
By the way, adoption of the Greek idea of perfection is the basis for a whole host of Christian attributes of God (as I explain in my book God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience) that ultimately lead us to a God who is so unlike us that we have no way to know anything about Him. He is quintessentially a non-personal God if we follow the Greek idea to its truly logical end.
We must by wary of exegetical fallacies (title of a book by D. A. Carson). We must be careful not to import all meanings to one word (illegitimate totality transfer), or import the wrong meaning in a given context; and we must steer clear of the etymological fallacy (looking at a word’s etymology and assuming that is applicable in all cases). As we know, words only acquire meaning in context, which may be in a clause, a sentence, or it may even require an entire document to uncover its meaning.
Jesus’ final cry on the cross, tetelestai, is instructive here. It’s the perfect tense-form (3rd person singular, middle voice, indicative) of teleō, best rendered “It is finished”. “Completed” would also work (NET Bible translates it this way), as would “perfected”, with the understanding that each of these are synonymous with “finished”. Jesus’ final words were not, however, meant to convey the perfection of a process, i.e., a thing/person/etc. containing flaws has now, through a process of some sort, reached its perfection is now flawless.
Especially since he did not speak GREEK from the cross
Are you certain of this?
Yes, as indicated by the crowd who mistook him for calling for Elijah.
Mark records Jesus’ specific words here as the Aramaic “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”, while Matthew records these words as a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew (“Eli”): “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” So, which was it: was it a mixture, or was it strictly Aramaic? We don’t know that for sure. But, what we do know, as indicated by both Mark and Matthew, is that some in the crowd did not understand those words, thinking he was calling out to Elijah.
What language did Jesus speak to the criminal on the cross? Clearly Jesus would have spoken in a language the criminal understood. But, what language would that have been? I submit that we just don’t know for sure. When he spoke to Mary (John 19:26-27), what language did he speak? Can we know for sure?
When Jesus said “I am thirsty”, apparently he was understood, as a wine vinegar-soaked sponge was raised to his lips.
When John records Jesus’ words “It is finished/completed” (tetelestai), were the words spoken in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or some other language? It’s not recorded that some didn’t understand him, and it’s not recorded that some did. We just don’t know for sure.
I submit that you can’t take one statement that is recorded in Aramaic in one Gospel, and a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew in another, and make the leap that all other words spoken by Jesus must not have been in Greek.
Those (“some”) who mistook Jesus’s words as calling out to Elijah obviously knew about Elijah, and, hence Judaism. One must wonder why they (“some”) didn’t understand Jesus’ Aramaic (Mark) or Hebrew/Aramaic (Matthew). Is it because they knew Greek better than either Aramaic or Hebrew? That seems a reasonable assumption. Might that make it more likely Jesus spoke Greek to the criminal (Luke 23:43) and to those who understood he was thirsty (John 19:28)?
Sorry, not a reasonable assumption. The confusion comes over the Hebrew “nickname” of Elijah, as those in the Matthew passage think Yeshua is calling for “Eli.” It makes no sense in Aramaic or Greek.
Yet, Mark records Eloi instead of Eli, and that is mistaken for “Eli” (Elijah). In any case, my larger point is that you cannot possibly assert that Jesus didn’t speak any Greek on the cross, as he made other statements, as I’ve noted above, which are not specifically recorded as Hebrew/Aramaic. One could argue that Matthew 27:46/Mark 15:34 are exceptional usages, which is why they are parenthetically translated to Greek in the NT – that Jesus spoke Greek in the other instances. We just don’t know. We weren’t there.
I speak reasonable working French having studied it for 5 years in school and lived in a bi-lingual country, Canada, in a bilingual province, New Brunswick (2/3 rds anglophone, 1/3 francophone), in the only officially bi-lingual city in the entire country. I will speak to anyone I meet first in English and only otherwise if I am not understood which is VERY unusual in Canada, particularly by francophones.
One speaks in the language of default first, not second or third so it is unreasonable to say “Is it because they knew (patois) Greek better than either Aramaic or Hebrew? That seems a reasonable assumption.” Really? I dont think so. It is more reasonable to think that you would be misunderstood in a second or third language rather than a first.
Yes, He remained with them in the wilderness; yes, I am convinced that He NEVER leaves us, but we can and do leave Him multiple times a day, and it is by His mercies that we are not consumed for it, too. There is a bruised Body in the synapse gap, gracefully holding open yet another chance to return.
No one got circumcised for that period, however; neither did they observe the Passover. These were like the Children’s end of the covenant observances. YHVH was chastening them by refusing to acknowledge their end of the deal. He did NOT leave them; the pillar of cloud and fire stayed, and His Spirit still led them and fed them and the Rock still watered them, too. I think we get it backwards so much of the time. Must be because we are thinking of God as a Roman emperor (lol). Love NEVER leaves, but it can and does refuse to acknowledge insincerity or pretend that things are all right when they are not. That refusal, along with not letting them enter the Promised Land, constituted the chastening.
I was thinking yesterday about the First Command, and also about people who persist in worshiping their version of YHVH their way, after reading Skip’s TW that got brought back up about worship. The entire planet could soon be persisting in worshiping their version of YHVH, but if they are at the same time insisting on breaking the Commands by substituting their own counterfeits, and if they are insisting on their version of worship and insisting on looking to their own preferred representatives of Him too, then, exactly which God are they worshiping in “spirit and in truth (actual fact)”? Seems to me they could be breaking the First Command, along with all the rest, too. The people’s end of the covenant acknowledgment was refused in the wilderness, and YHVH was only intimate with Moses during that time (heavy load, Moses!). If He refuses to engage in His end of worship, doesn’t that leave us breaking that First Command all by ourselves? Relationship takes two. The First Command takes two, also. Everything else is a false, or, made up god, is it not? Sometimes, when we think we are talking to God, perhaps we should go to the bother to check to see if He is on the other end of the line. We may have hit disconnect.
With as much as I don’t understand about God, this gives me great comfort this morning to know and be reminded that He is a God who remains…He doesn’t leave me. I praise Him for that. Thank you for correcting this translation error and helping us see this verse in a whole new light- that it’s God who abides with us in the midst of our impurities. It is YHVH we are talking about…not a tent. Wow!
Not so much a translation “error” as a translation **choice**. The translators chose to render it “which” instead of “who” based on a-priori theology, not necessarily linguistic ignorance.
Having said, that, I then went and took a closer look at the Hebrew text. In fact, the NASB translators have it literally correct. The subject of the phrase “who dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanness” is literally the ohel mo’ed (the tent of meeting) – but because (in English) “ohel mo’ed” is an “it”, not a “he” or a “she”, we render it “which dwells” instead of “who dwells”. There are, however, no neuter nouns in Hebrew – everything is either masculine or feminine, hence the “ohel mo’ed” uses the same pronoun as a person (“who”). The High Priest makes atonement for the tent of meeting (which is the subject of Hebrews 9:22), which is in the midst of the camp and thus pollluted by the uncleanness of the people.
That is all we’ll understand if we stop at the literal meaning of the text. The key sentence in Skip’s piece, though, is this: “The rabbis read creatively, based on their deeper understanding of YHVH’s character.” What we dealing with here is not a “pashat” (plain) reading of the text; rather, a deeper understanding gained through knowledge and understanding of the character of God, drawing a deeper “drash” (teaching) from the text that is not immediately obvious on the surface.
Further to that, what the Ba’al Shem Tov has actually done here, is to take a phrase that is literally about the tent of meeting and apply it to God to make a point about the relationship between God and the sinner who remains humble; to draw a comparison between that and an arrogant sinner, who alienates himself from God. As Skip has pointed out on multiple occasions in the past, this same thing happens in the Gospels and the apostolic writings; the writers take a passage from the Tanakh for which the plain reading is about Israel (or some historical fact or event), and apply it to Messiah. There are no literal statements or prophecies about Messiah in the Tanakh, when read in their original context. The same thing happens throughout the rabbinic writings over the centuries. It is the way Jews read and apply their own scriptures (after all, they wrote all of it) not just to the times when they were written, but to draw relevance and application to whenever and wherever they’re read and studied. The scriptures are not just dead words on paper (or parchment) – they’re living, breathing words that are applicable for all time.
If only we could all sit down and study and learn with the rabbis. Then, perhaps, we would truly see the fulfillment of this:
[Zec 8:23 ESV] 23 Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'”
Thank you, Rodney. I think I should have asked you to write this one.
Thank you Skip, Rodney and Craig
The language barrier well explained in conveying the true message.
God created everything using his voice. Words. John reiterates that these words should take on flesh (Craig let’s leave the previous discussion on John 1 as is as it is well recorded and shared…)
How does atonement manifest when we appreciate what is being said and adapt accordingly.
From this Faith is formed so the secret is let us test the spirits which are from God and which not… If we do not test we may just be listening to the wrong words and will our atonement to achieve the results God intends…