Translation, History, and Faith

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I 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.’  Leviticus 17:11 NASB

Life/ souls/ life – “Life is in the blood.”  How many times have we heard this idea espoused to support some theory of sacrificial repentance?  How often will sermons repeat the claim that Jesus’ blood saves?  Perhaps we need to rethink our customary theology after considering the historical cultural understanding of the original author, and then examining the complexity of the Hebrew words.  Let me offer some background.

First, of course, is the need to align our biblical interpretation of the facts of the history.  Gunkel provides a summary:

“What kind of a faith would that be which is afraid of facts, which abhors scientific investigation!  If we really believe in God, Who reveals Himself in history, then we are not to dictate to the Highest what the events are to be in which we find Him, but we have only to kiss humbly His footprints and to revere His dealings in history.  If we have to alter our views of God’s ways in history, because the facts teach us, well, we simply have to do so!”[1]

“We acknowledge cheerfully and honestly God’s revelation wherever a human soul feels itself near its God, even though that be in the most arid and strange forms.”[2]

“Alas for theology and alas for our church as well, if it takes up the profession of closing its eyes to obvious facts!”[3]

What are the “obvious facts” surrounding Leviticus?  Well, for one thing, it involves priestly traditions that only make sense within the society of ancient Israel.  It assumes a people governed by religious law.  It is focused on obedience and restitution.  In particular, it outlines priestly duties and concerns during a time when the Torah was not standardized.  Its language and imagery belong to a society that no longer exists.

With this in mind, let’s consider the remarks of Joel Hoffman on this particular verse:

“What we have here, though, is classical magic—that is, using a thing to affect that very thing, like dressing up as a daemon to repel daemons, or, as they did in ancient Egypt, using a pig’s eye to cure eye disease.  In the case of Leviticus, the idea was that blood could affect blood.  More specifically, blood could affect the nefesh, a process ‘explained’ by the fact that the nefesh is in the blood. . .  To summarize, then, at this point we know that nefesh has something to do with life, can be used to mean ‘person,’ can specifically refer to the aspect of being alive that involves eating, and is in the blood.  Certainly we have no English word for that.”[4]

“. . . modern American culture seems to separate rationality from emotion, putting one in the mind and one in the heart.  The word levav shows us that the ancients saw the two as connected.  Both emotion and rational thought were in the same place—namely, the levav.”[5]

Perhaps we need to rethink our penchant for using Leviticus to justify the Reformed idea of substitutionary atonement.  If nothing else, we should remember Hoffman’s remark, “Reading most Bible translations is like reading The New York Times, Shakespeare, and Beatles lyrics but destroying the differences among the three.  When Shakespeare sounds like the daily news, something is wrong.  When everything in the Bible sounds identical, the same thing is wrong.”[6]

Topical Index:  heart, flesh, soul, nefesh, blood, Gunkel, Hoffman, interpretation, Leviticus 17:11

[1] Hermann Gunkel, Israel and Babylon: The Influence of Babylon on the Religion of Israel, p. 39.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., p. 41.

[4] Joel Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning, p. 117.

[5] Ibid., p. 111.

[6] Ibid., p. 99.