Leviticus 26:40-41 With Implications For Justification By Faith

By David Graves

This article is taken from the author’s dissertation Far as the Curse is Found: Leviticus 25-26 as a Window on the Nature of Eschatological Rest. David Graves has a M.Div. and Ph.D. in Theological Studies, with an emphasis on Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

If God commands something in the law, must fallen man be able to fulfill that command? Many assume so. Leviticus 26 contains the blessings and curses of the Sinai Covenant (Exod. 20-Num. 10). Within this larger complex Lev. 26:40-45 contains a conditional sentence that sets up a test case for this question.

If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their sacrilege in which they committed sacrilege against me and also in walking contrary to me so that I myself walked contrary against them, so that I brought them to the land of their enemies, if they humble their uncircumcised heart, and they recompense for their iniquities…[1]

This conditional sentence (given at Sinai) looks forward to a future time in which Israel has undergone the ultimate covenant curse, i.e. exile symbolizing national death.

When one examines the literature on Lev. 26:40-41, one is hard-pressed to find commentators who dissent from the assumption that fallen humanity must be able to fulfill whatever God commands. This position, however, is assumed a priori and not addressed a posteriori from the text. This article will seek to demonstrate that, far from leaving restoration from exile within the power of Israel, this command conforms to the larger testimony of Scripture that fallen humanity is enslaved to sin and unable to positively keep God’s commands apart from a special work of divine grace.

There has been a reemergence of interest in the relationship between the two testaments. This discussion has produced helpful resources, yet one doubts that the work of John Calvin in his Institutes (2.10) will be surpassed. Calvin argued that “all whom, from the beginning of the world, God adopted as his peculiar people, were taken into covenant with him on the same conditions, and under the same bond of doctrine, as ourselves… the Fathers were partakers with us in the same inheritance, and hoped for a common salvation through the grace of the same Mediator.[2]

Recognizing the singular nature of salvation under the covenant of grace is essential to understanding this article. As the reformers understood (against their papist opponents on the one side and the Schwärmer, such as Servetus,[3] on the other side), if salvation were not by grace through faith from first to last, then merit undermined the gospel, and fallen man was without hope.

We are not able of ourselves, without the especial aid, assistance, and operation of the Spirit of God, in any measure or degree to free ourselves from this pollution, neither that which is natural and habitual nor that which is actual. It is true, it is frequently prescribed unto us as our duty,—we are commanded to “wash ourselves,” to “cleanse ourselves from sin,” to “purge ourselves” from all our iniquities, and the like, frequently; but to suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect. Our duty is our duty, constituted unalterably by the law of God, whether we have power to perform it or no, seeing we had so at our first obligation by and unto the law, which God is not obliged to bend unto a conformity to our warpings, nor to suit unto our sinful weaknesses.[4]

This may alarm some and seem to make salvation altogether impossible, as we see in the example of the disciples, after Jesus rebuffed the rich young man (cf., Matt. 19:23-26). However, if God left salvation in the hands of man as he had done in the garden under the covenant of works, it would be unstable and doubtful.[5]

In the discourse beginning in Leviticus 25 and running through the end of chapter 26, the covenant Lord repeatedly reminds Israel that he had graciously brought them out of Egypt in order to give them the land (25:38) and to make them exclusively his servants (25:42,55). By his own counsel and might Yahweh had brought about Israel’s existence and redemption. There was nothing meritorious on the part of Israel heretofore in their covenanted relationship; it would be passing strange to introduce that note in the exegesis and interpretation of two verses in the midst of this discourse, yet that is exactly what occurs in most commentaries on this section. In the end, this interpretive move, if established, would undermine the salvation principle of justification by grace alone through faith.

Exegesis Of Leviticus 26:40-41

In Lev. 26:1-39, one finds parallels between the blessings and curses of Ancient Near Eastern treaties. However, 26:40-45 sets the biblical text apart from the known non-canonical treaties. In the contemporary treaties one does not find a promise of restoration after breaches in the treaty, yet Yahweh promises a restoration should Israel prove treasonous and break the covenant.

The book of Leviticus set forth the sacrificial system as the only means whereby Israel might approach Yahweh. According to B. B. Warfield, however, since the inception of false religion, man has sought to approach God on his own terms. Commenting on Genesis 4, Warfield says,

It is difficult to believe at least that we are expected to understand that the whole difference in the acceptability to Jehovah of the two offerings of Cain and Abel hung on the different character of the two offerers: we are told that Jehovah had respect not merely unto Abel and not unto Cain, but also to Abel’s offering and not to Cain’s … It can scarcely be reading too much between the lines to suppose that the narrative in the fourth chapter of Genesis is intended on the one hand to describe the origin of sacrificial worship, and on the other to distinguish between two conceptions of sacrifice and to indicate the preference of Jehovah for the one rather than the other. These two conceptions are briefly those which have come to be known respectively as the piacular theory and the symbolical, or perhaps we should rather call it the gift, theory…There is no reason apparent why Jehovah should prefer a lamb to a sheaf of wheat. The difference surely goes deeper for it was “by faith” that Abel offered under God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain—which seems to suggest that the supreme excellence of his sacrifice is to be sought not in the mere nature of the thing offered, but in the attitude of the offerer. What seems implied is that Cain’s offering was an act of mere homage; Abel’s embodied a sense of sin, an act of contrition, a cry for succor, a plea for pardon. In a word, Cain came to the Lord with an offering in his hand and the Homage theory of sacrifice in his mind: Abel with an offering in his hand and the Piacular theory of sacrifice in his heart … If so, while we may say that sacrifice was invented by man, we must also say that by this act piacular sacrifice was instituted by God.[6]

Warfield goes on to argue that the homage theory represents man reaching out to God as if man could make God a debtor. On the other hand, the piacular theory views sacrifice as a divine condescension “for the restoration of a guilty human being to a condemning God.”[7] So for the purpose of understanding Leviticus only the piacular or penal substitution view of atonement adheres. Leviticus lacks even the hint that anything else will atone for sin.

Leviticus 26:40-41 contains three conditions for restoration from exile: confession, humbling uncircumcised hearts, and appropriate recompence for Israel’s iniquity. Jacob Milgrom has made a correct argument that a confession is necessary, but he errs by asserting that confession alone is sufficient.[8] Milgrom’s argument causes dissonance with the larger biblical witness, indeed with the book of Leviticus, though, many commentators seem to miss this. Those commentators who do examine the requirements for restoration tend to follow Milgrom’s solution that confession plus time can remove the pollution of cultic violations.[9] However, Yahweh through Moses sets forth two further prerequisites for restoration: יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת־עֲוֹנם (“humble their uncircumcised hearts and make the proper restitution for their iniquities”).

In order to understand the argument of Lev. 26:40-41, we will follow the method suggested by Gerald Klingbeil. He avers that while a description of a particular ritual may be abbreviated and omit the mention of some elements, one must avoid fragmenting the elements of a ritual and must look instead at the whole ritual. Klingbeil’s taxonomy helps elucidate Lev. 26:40-45. In order to understand what these two final steps entail and thus what the promise of restoration depends upon, it will be helpful to break down the ritual into its smallest building blocks: (1) time; (2) space; (3) actions; (4) sequence/order; (5) required situation/context; (6) participants; (7) objects; (8) structure; (9) sounds; and (10) language.[10] To begin, the time frame of Lev. 26:40-45 is the future after the threatened exile for a covenant-breaking Israel. The space in which it occurs is in the land of exile and not in Israel. The actions demanded are confession, humbling of uncircumcised hearts (or in the language of Deut. 10:16; 30:6, Jer. 4:4 “circumcised hearts”), and making appropriate satisfaction for עֲוֹנָם (their iniquities), in that order. The text calls for the people in exile to participate in this ritual. The text is silent on the objects, structure, and sounds required of this ritual, but the language is that of ritual, despite the arguments of Milgrom.

If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their sacrilege which the committed sacrilege against me and also in walking contrary to me, so that I myself walked contrary against them, so that I brought them to the land of their enemies, if they humble their uncircumcised heart, and they recompense for their iniquities. Then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and surely my covenant with Isaac and surely my covenant with Abraham I will remember. And I will remember the land. But the land will be abandoned by them, and it shall be recompensed its sabbaths in its desolation from them. And they shall recompense for their iniquities; because they rejected my judgments, and their souls loathed my statutes. And even for this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, and nor will I loath them so as to destroy them, so as to break my covenant with them, for I am Yahweh their God. For their sake, I will remember my covenant with their fathers whom I brought from the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, to be for them God. I am Yahweh.

The Three Conditions For Restoration

1. Confession Of Their Iniquity And The Iniquity Of Their Fathers

Verses 40-41 form the protasis to an extended conditional sentence that runs through the end of v. 45. The three verbs of note in this protasis are וְהִתְוַדּוּ (“if they confess”), יִכָּנַע (“humble”), and יִרְצוּ (“pay restitution”). Milgrom only emphasizes the first verb as the necessary precondition for the end of exile. He makes much of the dual connection between Lev. 26:40 and Num. 5:5-8, namely the use of both וְהִתְוַדּוּ (“if they confess”) and מַעַל (“sacrilege”).[11] The hithpael of ידהoccurs three other times in Exod. 20-Num. 10 (viz., the Sinai Covenant). The three other occurrences are: Lev. 5:5; 16:21; and Num. 5:7. Its use in Lev. 16:21 forms part of the ritual for the Day of Atonement and does not directly elucidate the argument given here, other than being merely one step in a ritual.

Lev. 5:1-13 describes the manner for making cultic reparations for a sin that is not known at the time of offense. One can dissect the ritual in the following manner: (1) the precondition: (a) a person fails to testify when summoned and it becomes known to him (Lev. 5:1); (b) a person touches an unclean thing, it is hidden from him, he becomes unclean, and then becomes aware of his guilt (Lev 5:2); (c) a person touches some form of human uncleanness, it is hidden from him, he becomes aware of it, and then he becomes aware of his guilt (Lev. 5:3); or (d) a person makes a rash vow (for good or evil), it is hidden from him, he becomes aware of it, and then he will realize his guilt (Lev. 5:4); (2) then he must confess his sin (Lev. 5:5); (3) he must bring to Yahweh the prescribed guilt offering (Lev. 5:6a,7-12); (4) the priest will make atonement for the offerer’s sin (Lev. 5:6b, 13). Of interest for our purposes is the manner in which the confession (וְהִתְוַדָּה) functions in 5b. It is the initial step in the ritual upon the recognition of guilt. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient to accomplish the end of the ritual, namely “atonement…and forgiveness” (וְנִסְלַח … וְכִפֶּר, 5:13).

The next instance is in Num. 5:5-8. Again one finds the use of ידה in the hithpael as a necessary component of a ritual, but not sufficient to accomplish its end, in this case, restitution for some wrong. This text follows a similar set up as the ritual of Lev. 5:1-13, but this time there is an added step: (1) Precondition: when a person sins by committing sacrilege (מַעַל)12 against Yahweh, then that person shall realize his guilt (Num. 5:6a1-b1); (2) he shall confess his sin (Num. 5:7a); (3) he shall pay his restitution plus one fifth (Num. 5:7a); (4) He shall give this restitution to the aggrieved party or an appointed surrogate (Num. 5:7b-8a); and (5) he shall bring a goat of purgation (Num. 5:8b). The man or woman who commits this sin, which this passage identifies as a violation of the sacred things of Yahweh, must do more than confess in order to be restored to covenant relationship with Yahweh, though a confession is part of the requirement. Therefore as we look at Lev. 26:40-41, it seems that confession is necessary but insufficient to make amends for Israel’s iniquities and to restore the people to covenant relationship with Yahweh, namely, through the return from exile.

2. Humbling Their Uncircumcised Hearts (אוֹ־אָז יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל)

This phrase occurs nowhere else in the OT, “though it is substantially the same as the one found in Jer. 9:25 and Ezek. 44:7, 9 (‘arlê lēb).”[13] While the Abrahamic covenant had required physical circumcision as the sign of covenant membership, this imperative demonstrates that God requires an internal change of heart on the part of Israel. God requires inner and external conformity to his stipulations.

This mention of uncircumcised hearts (41) invites them to see that their action has, in effect, foolishly put them outside the covenant … and made them in effect no different from other nations, who were excluded from its privileges. God’s grace longed to restore them, but that did not mean that he could wink at sin as if it were of no consequence.[14]

As Robert Vasholz has said, “an external rite, circumcision, is worthless without conversion.”[15] The New Covenant, first announced in Jer. 31:31 and expounded in the NT, especially in Hebrews, deals directly with the human need for a new heart. For unlike the uncircumcised heart, which in the words of Lev. 26:15 detests and abhors the Lord’s commandments, this humbled heart will have the law written on it, and God will place the law in their minds (Jer. 31:31-34; cf., Heb. 8:8-12).[16] This humbling seems to go beyond a mere permissiveness for a changed heart.[17] It will require a new act of God as Jeremiah mentioned.

3. Making Appropriate Restitution For Their Iniquities (וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת־עֲוֹנָם)

This is a difficult phrase to translate, not in the sense that the various words are hard to define, but because of the assumptions one brings to the text when translating it. For example, Milgrom rejects the NEB’s, NAB’s, and NRSV’s translation of Lev. 26.41b as “and they make amends for their guilt (or iniquity).”[18] Instead he argues that Israel need only confess her iniquity as in 40a. But, according to Milgrom, God lays no obligation on Israel to change her conduct. He attributes the idea of the repentance element to “the prophetic doctrine of repentance”[19]—a doctrine that Milgrom identifies as a later development, foreign to Leviticus. “Furthermore, the verb צָר, Qal … is intransitive and belies any activity; it implies receiving, not doing.”[20] Milgrom renders רָצָה as “accept.” He then argues that the interpreter should read עָוֹן in its consequential state as punishment and not in the cultic sense as iniquity.[21] This seems like special pleading to avoid a much clearer reading of the text. Milgrom then gives a second possible rendering:

Alternatively, the verb צָר may be a substitute for kipper ‘atone’, and this clause would then be rendered “while they atone for their iniquity” (NJPS, similarly in v. 43ag). The choice of this unusual verb might then be justified on the grounds that kipper refers to the subject, YHWH, who grants atonement by sacrifice (P’s notion), whereas H[22] wants to stress that Israel, deprived of its sacrificial cult would express its atonement by contritely and patiently accepting its punishment of exile until the land made up its neglected sabbath years.[23]

Setting aside the source critical distinctions, Milgrom then avers that in either of these renderings Israel “must wait passively until its punishment is paid in full … that is until it has paid back its neglected sabbaticals.”[24] He also adduces Isa. 40:2 as a prophetic adaptation of this principle.

Elsewhere, Milgrom argues that while Israel may passively suffer for their iniquities in exile they must wait until the return from exile in a rebuilt sanctuary to seek forgiveness.

The concept of forgiveness is absent. One has to keep in mind at all times that this is a priestly document, the product of a theology, one of whose dogmas is that there is no full expiation—without the requisite sacrifice. Thus total reconciliation with God will occur only after Israel returns and rebuilds its sanctuary.[25]

Milgrom seems to be only partially correct. His analysis latches on to the first requirement of the protasis (40-41) in this extended conditional sentence (Lev. 26:40-45). He renders it sufficient and efficient to meet the conditions for the apodosis (42-45). However this is not convincing.

Commenting on this text, Calvin says,

Others elicit a very different meaning from the words which we have translated, “let them atone (propitient) for their iniquity.” The noun used is עון [“iniquity”] which means both iniquity and punishment; and the verb רצה [“pay restitution”] which is to expiate, or to esteem grateful, or to appease. Some, therefore, explain it, they shall bear their punishment patiently, or esteem it pleasant; but it appears to me that Moses connects with repentance the desire of appeasing God, without which men are never really dissatisfied with themselves, or renounce their sins; and his allusion is to the sacrifices and legal ablutions, whereby they reconciled themselves to God. The sum is, that when they shall seriously endeavor to return to God’s favor, He will be propitiated towards them on account of His covenant.[26]

Calvin rejects the view that one may merely desire to be forgiven, and, thus, rightly translated it to refer to cultic purification. The logic of the cult is that the various rituals function as the means whereby Yahweh can dwell with his people. Milgrom has argued that one needs only to confess in order to be holy and pure (i.e., to fulfill the prerequisites for restoration). It seems to strain credulity, however, that within the book of Leviticus one could find a mechanism to remove cultic pollution by a bald confession--bald not in the sense of lacking faith or trust in the goodness and promises of the covenant Lord, but in the sense of empty handed without a requisite sacrifice, especially given Milgrom’s statement that “this is a priestly document, the product of a theology, one of whose dogmas is that there is no full expiation—without the requisite sacrifice.”[27] The problem with this statement is the adjective “full.” Is there any expiation in Exodus-Numbers without a sacrifice? In fact can there be any propitiation or expiation without the blood of a sacrifice (cf., Heb. 9:22)? Milgrom argues in this manner although he notes that “Ezekiel denies any role to Israel in the redemptive process. God will restore Israel to its land unconditionally”[28] (although unilaterally might be a better choice of words).

Kiuchi sets up the tension that 26.41b creates in understanding the protasis.

Though the content of v. 41a resumes what is said previous, this is treated on a different level from the foregoing discourse. The latter half of the verse begins with ’ô ’āz, which probably means ‘or if then’ … The people’s repentance is presented as a possibility. This seems to conflict slightly with what is said between vv. 39 and 40 where the connections seems natural. Yet this apparent discrepancy dissolves when it is seen that vv. 29-40, particularly v. 40, describe the general course of an event from a divine point of view, while 41b addresses the details of a confessing heart with an emphasis on human responsibility: repentance is a necessary result, but even that hinges on the will of the survivors. At the same time, one’s interpretation depends much on how the nature of the Lord’s whole discourse in this curse section should be viewed. If one assumes the Lord says these things in order to bring the people to confess their guilt and salvation, the conditional nature of v. 41b strikes a jarring note. However, if the Lord speaks these words in anger, the apparent limitation on the ability of the survivors to humble themselves in v. 41 is possibly just a natural expression of the Lord’s anger, for he has repeatedly experienced the deception and rebellion of this people. This latter view seems more fitting, considering the nature of the Lord’s discourse.[29]

Kiuchi identifies vv. 29-40 as the course of the curses from a divine perspective and states that 26:41b “addresses the details of a confessing heart with an emphasis on human responsibility: repentance is a necessary result, but even that hinges on the will of the survivors.”[30] This interpretation seems to rest on an unwarranted assumption, namely, that the power of repentance does indeed reside with humans (but cf., 2 Tim. 2:25). Kiuchi then identifies two means of understanding the tension. In the first these verses set up a summons to repentance; in the second Yahweh’s anger is kindled against an obdurate and contumacious people who have a history of deceiving and rebelling against their Suzerain.

Milgrom seeks to make time expiatory to alleviate this seeming incongruity. It is true that time is the only means whereby one can רָצָה (“pay restitution”) for broken שַׁבְּתֹת (“sabbaths”) (26:34,43a). Yet this does not mean that one can רָצָה (“pay restitution”) for עָוֹן (“iniquity”) with time. A Sabbath is a time element; מַעַל (“sacrilege”) and עָוֹן (“iniquity”) are inherently cultic violations, and the only remedy lies within the realm of the cult. It is at this juncture that one notes many philosophical Trojan horses among the commentators. R. K. Harrison seems to recognize the dilemma in the text, and adds the textually unwarranted “earnestly desire to make amends,”[31] making it seem as if feeling bad is expiatory for generations of iniquities. Hartley glosses over this clause in his commentary,[32] although, like Milgrom, he recognizes that it is more than the confession of a particular sin; it is the confession of a contumacious character towards God’s law.[33] Kiuchi describes the need for a new heart, but again falls short of examining how an exiled Israel could יִרְצוּ אֶת־עֲוֹנָם (“make the proper restitution for their iniquities”).[34] This issue cannot be sidestepped, “since without the purification of the sanctuary there was no possibility of personal atonement.”[35] Kiuchi follows Milgrom in understanding this as suffering for iniquity. “The idea that human guilt is compensated by suffering and the confession of guilt is new within the context of Leviticus, but this observation need not imply a particular historical reality within the history of Israel (pace Milgrom 2001:2330).”[36] So while Kiuchi argues earlier that one should understand these commands as outside of the ability of Israel to perform, three paragraphs later he demurs.

The submission of their arrogant hearts marks the last phase of compensation for their guilt, and this is expressed by the force of the second ’āz in v.41b. Moreover the Lord’s words are not a law but a compromise, considering the standard the rest of the laws in Leviticus set.[37]

He thus notes the dissonance that such an interpretation has with the remainder of the book of Leviticus; in fact, in the whole Bible, this would be the one place where suffering for one’s wrong doing has a remedial function.

Among the few who note this are Gorman and Elliger, although both only sketch the rudiments and do not develop this theme. Gorman states, “If Israel will confess its iniquity, demonstrate humility, and make amends, then Yahweh will remember the covenant made with the ancestors.”[38] Gorman sees making amends as essential for future restoration after a potential exile, but fails to note how Israel could make amends. Elliger renders the clause as “Schuld bezahlen” (“pay for guilt”).[39] He refers the reader to Isa. 40:2, which he seems to suggest could point to time plus suffering as expiatory. Opposing Elliger’s view that time suffered per se is expiatory, however, J. Alec Motyer argues:

The noun and the verb נִרְצָה עֲוֹנָהּ [“her iniquities are paid for”]… appear in Leviticus 26:41, 43, meaning ‘to accept punishment for iniquity’. The passive, as used in Isaiah, means ‘the punishment for their iniquity has been accepted as satisfactory’, that is, by God, for the passive of the verb is only used of God’s acceptance of the Levitical offerings. The only cases of this passive usage are Leviticus 1:4, 7:18; 19:7; 22:23, 25, 27, which are all concerned with the offering of blood sacrifice. The development of this section of Isaiah will reveal that the ‘period of duress; can be identified with the Babylonian captivity (43:14) and the satisfactory payment with the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (52:13ff.).”[40]

Motyer notes the cultic uses of the root רצה in Leviticus speak of the acceptability of sacrifices to Yahweh.[41] Interestingly, HALOT notes that while one might “draw [the] conclusion from Biblical Hebrew alone” that only one verb exists with the root of רצה, “Middle Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, Akkadian, and Old South Arabian suggest that two homonymous roots should be recognized.”[42] The entry for this second homonym examines four uses of רצה in Leviticus 26, as well as the uses in 2 Chron. 36:21 and Isa. 40:2. Three times the verb רצה takes עֲוֹן (“iniquity”) as the direct object, and four times the land is the subject and sabbaths is the object.

רצה עֲוֹן (“pay for iniquity”)		רצה שַׁבַּת (“pay for [missed] the Sabbath”)
Lev. 26:41b2	וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת־עֲוֹנָם׃ (“and then they pay for their iniquities”)	Lev. 26:34a1	אָז תִּרְצֶה הָאָרֶץ אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ (“and the land will be paid her Sabbaths”)
Lev. 26:43a3	וְהֵם יִרְצוּ אֶת־עֲוֹנָם (“and they pay for their iniquities”)	Lev. 26:34b2	וְהִרְצָת אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ׃ (“and she will be paid her Sabbaths”)
Is. 40:2a4	כִּי נִרְצָה עֲוֹנָהּ (“and her iniquities are paid for”)	Lev. 26:43a2	וְתִרֶץ אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ בָּהְשַׁמָּה (“and she will be paid her Sabbaths in her desolations”)
		2Chron. 36:21a2	עַד־רָצְתָה הָאָרֶץ אֶת־שַׁבְּתוֹתֶיהָ (“until the land is be paid her Sabbaths”)

In the four instances in which the land is the subject it seems that reparation of Sabbaths happens objectively. It is neither the result of malfeasance on the part of the land, nor does the land commit a positive act. Rather because Israel had failed to keep its covenant obligation to leave the land fallow every seventh year and during the Jubilee, Yahweh promises to cast an unfaithful Israel from the land. This would leave the land vacant, so that it may be repaid for the Sabbaths due to it from an unfaithful Israel.

In the three instances in which Israel is the subject and עֲוֹן (“iniquity”) is the object a different situation occurs. For here, Israel has violated the covenant and is thus guilty and owes reparation. In the first instance the land is repaid, in the second instance Israel must pay the restitution. Thus one justifiably may conclude in these instances that the verb רצה(“pay restitution”) means, objectively, to repay or make restitution, or subjectively, to be repaid for damages lost.

Jeremiah 14 and Hosea 8 have two intriguing uses of the verb רצה (“pay restitution”) and the noun עֲוֹן (“iniquity”) that help define the effects of רצה(“pay restitution”).

Jer. 14:10b1-2	וַיהוָה לא רָצָם עַתָּה יִזְכֹּר עֲוֹנָם	Therefore Yahweh shall not accept them; now He shall remember their iniquities.
Hos. 8:13a3-b1	לא רָצָם עַתָּה יִזְכֹּר עֲוֹנָם	He shall not accept them, now he shall remember their iniquities.

In both instances Yahweh is the subject of the 3rd masculine singular qal of רצה (“pay restitution”) with the third masculine plural suffix. The second clause is also identical in both Jer. 14:10b and Hos. 8:13b so that now he promises to remember their iniquity. These two instances of the antithetical parallel demonstrate that for Yahweh to רצה (“pay restitution”) for Israel’s iniquities means to no longer remember them. So in this instance one justifiably may render it something akin to assuaged or propitiated. In Jer. 14:10, Yahweh refuses to be assuaged or accept faithless Israel because their hearts are set on wandering and they have refused to restrain their feet. In Hos. 8:13, Ephraim has forsaken the covenant stipulations, and despite offering many sacrifices, Yahweh promises to send them into captivity (Hos. 8:11-14). In both situations, Israel has kindled the displeasure of her Suzerain. Instead of ameliorating his displeasure, so that he will accept them and forget their iniquities (Jer. 14:10b; Hos. 8:13b), they provoke him further.

This snapshot of the uses of רָצָה (“pay restitution”) gives us room to provide a rendering of the two distinct uses of the verb relevant to Leviticus 26. In the four instances where the land is the subject and Sabbath the object of the clause (Lev. 26:34a, 34b, 43a; 2 Chron. 36:21a), the land will be recompensed for her missed Sabbaths, i.e. both normal sabbatical years and jubilee years. In the three instances where Israel is the subject and עֲוֹן (“iniquity”) is the object of the clause (Lev. 26:41b, 43a; Isa. 40:2a), Israel will pay restitution of some sort or, as in the Isaiah passage, her iniquities have been paid in full.

Integral to the use of this verb as opposed to the normal collocation for paying restitution ( הֵשִׁיב אָשָׁם“pay for guilt,” cf., Num. 5:7) is the idea of acceptable restitution. In the case of the land the acceptable restitution is fallow years for missed fallow years. However, regarding the manner in which Israel is to pay restitution for its iniquities, the text is silent. While Milgrom and others argue that quiet resignation to Israel’s fate in exile is the appropriate means, this is merely a surmise as the text does not spell it out here.

This restitution for the iniquities is not merely a demand for a pound of flesh as if God were some divine Torquemada. Note Eichrodt’s perceptive comments:

The heart of this all-embracing order, however, is real communion between God and man … Likewise the consummation of God’s sovereignty is unthinkable without the setting up of a personal communion of will between God and man. This character of the new divine-human relationship is brought into especial prominence when the perfect fulfillment of the will of God, which in the present is despised, is looked for in the age of salvation, whether it be the messianic King who guarantees this, or God himself who ensures it by renewing men’s hearts. Even when not made explicit, however, this forms the obvious underlying presupposition. Its full profundity was grasped when it was spoken of as realized through suffering whether this be the sufferings of divine love for the lost, as in Hosea and Jeremiah or the suffering of the mediator called by God, as in the Servant of Yahweh in [Isaiah] and the good shepherd in [Zechariah]…[43]

While this may have seemed obvious to Eichrodt, the dearth of this understanding in most scholars belies his view of the blatancy of this conception. Eichrodt argues that the communion between God and his people is the heart of the New Creation. Next, he notes that suffering is a part of the inauguration of the New Creation, yet his emphasis is upon divine suffering or the suffering of the chosen mediator, not suffering in itself. It is also important to note that suffering for wrong doing is penal, not remedial. In Jeremiah 14 and Hosea 8 we find a need for a new heart, as in Lev. 26:41b, and the removal of sin, as in 26:41b. Eichrodt alludes to the messianic accomplishment of both of these things. This is the direction that the rest of Scripture does seem to direct us, beginning with Genesis 1-3 and its treatment of that blessed state, the revolt, the curses, and a promised hope. The elements under examination in Leviticus 26 follow the same pattern of blessing, revolt, and curses followed by a promised restoration.

In conclusion, Lev. 26:40-41 forms the protasis of a conditional “sentence” that runs from Lev. 26:40-45. The protasis contains three conditions that must be met for Israel to be restored after a threatened exile. First she must confess (Lev. 26:41a), which Milgrom seeks to view as the sole condition, with the other two conditions (Lev. 26:42b) being relegated to descriptions of the process. This fails to satisfy. On syntactical grounds, it is passing strange to see the two other conditions prefixed with the adverb אָז (“then”), if they are further ways of describing the confession. Next, in the three other uses of הִתְוַדּוּ (“confess”) in Lev. 5:5; 16:21; and Num. 5:7, the verb always plays only one part of the larger ritual. While the collocation יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל(“humble their uncircumcised hearts”) is a hapax, Scripture develops the theme of a circumcised or humbled heart in passages such as Jer. 31:31-34. Finally יִרְצוּ אֶת־עֲוֹנָם (“pay for their iniquities”) forms a crux, which deserves attention on its own right. For our purposes, the verb רָצָה takes on either the force of one making an acceptable restitution in the case of Israel, or the land enjoying its acceptable recompense as in the apodosis. While Milgrom, among others, renders this as accept its punishment by passively suffering during the end of exile, again syntax and the near and far contexts militate against such a view.

Help From Deuteronomy 30

Ostensibly the greatest argument in favor of fallen man’s ability to fulfill the law comes in Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

For this commandment that I command you today, is not too wonderful for you. It is not far off, nor is it in the heavens, so that you say “Who shall ascend to the heavens in order to take it for us that we may hear it and observe it?” Nor is it across the sea, so that you say, “Who will cross over for us to the far side of the sea, that he make take it for us that we may hear it and observe it?” For the word is very near to you in your mouth and on your heart to do it.[44]

Deuteronomy 30 is parallel to Lev. 26:40-45. It contains the same promise of God to restore an exiled Israel. Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is a classical passage used to argue for human ability.[45] If one takes it as it is generally presented, then it does seem to provide grounds for the ability of fallen man to fulfill the law of God. Yet one must interpret it in context, and when one interprets it in context, it takes on a very different character. However, as J. Gordon McConville notes, “ultimately the realization of an obedient people will depend on Yahweh’s new act in compassion.”[46]

In the Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.5.12, Calvin provides a rhetorical and theological examination of this passage that will at once give corroboration to the interpretation of Lev. 26:40-41 offered above and demonstrate the inapplicable usage of these passages for the promulgation of the ability of fallen man to keep the law.

Earlier in Book 2 chapter 12 Calvin had followed Augustine’s statement that at the Fall, “the natural gifts were corrupted in man through sin, but that his supernatural gifts were stripped from him.”[47] Calvin examined Deut. 30:11-14 because the proponents of libertarian freewill were using this passage to say that humans are able to fulfill the law of God apart from the gracious intervention of his regenerating will.

Now if these words be understood as spoken concerning the bare precepts, I admit that they are of no slight importance for the present case. For even though it would be an easy matter to dodge the issue by contending that this has to do with man’s capacity and disposition to understand the commandments, not with his ability to observe them, nevertheless perhaps some scruple would thus also remain.[48]

Richard D. Nelson argues that what is in view is precisely this. He argues that the ability to perform the stipulations of the covenant is not in view; rather he avers that the people will be able to understand the stipulations. “This is a user-friendly law, easy to grasp and freely available.”[49] While one may be able to cognitively grasp the stipulations of the law, no fallen man has ever kept or ever will keep the law of God perfectly.[50]

Nelson’s reading seems to run counter to the final word of the paragraph (לַעֲשׂתוֹ, “in order to do it”). Calvin directs the reader to see how Paul uses this passage in Rom. 10:6-9, for this is after all the authoritative interpretation of this passage (Institutes, 2.5.12). Paul there indicates that these verses speak of the perspicacity of the Gospel to the one who hears the preached word. In other words, these verses refer to the efficacious calling of the Gospel.

The reading that makes 11-14 a treatise on the nature of the fallen human will abstracts these verses. Instead one must read them in context. Deuteronomy 30 fits within the larger complex of blessings and curses in Deuteronomy 27-30. This expansion on the blessings and curses from the kernel in Leviticus 26 makes sense as it represents a covenant renewal. This is for a generation that grew up and came of age after the exodus from Egypt and the revelation of the covenant at Sinai. Moreover as the Book of Deuteronomy is the record of a sermon that Moses delivered to Israel on the banks of the Jordan, the expansion on the blessings and curses serves as a sermonic expansion to exhort the people to choose life.

As one looks at Deut. 30:1-10, Paul’s interpretation not only makes sense, but in fact it makes the best sense of the chapter.

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:5-13 ESV)

Paul contrasts the principle of the law “that if a man does them he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5)[51] with Deut. 30:11-14. Paul is thus identifying vv. 11-14 with the result of the circumcised heart and not the grounds whereby one receives the circumcised heart of Deut. 30:6. God’s act of circumcising the heart of the remnant in 30:6 seems to be parallel to the “humbling of the uncircumcised hearts” of Lev. 26:41.

The Deuteronomic context furthermore emphasizes that Israel is anything but obedient. It is rebellious and “stiffnecked.” If it is to fear, love, and serve the Lord, it must change its heart. As the subsequent narrative of Deuteronomy shows…it must be the Lord who “circumcises” Israel’s heart.[52]

In Leviticus God obliges Israel to repent, to humble their uncircumcised hearts, and to make appropriate restitution for their iniquity. Leviticus 26:40-41 does not give Israel a positive means to accomplish these conditions. Rather it puts before them a need to trust that the covenant Lord will graciously provide a means for their deliverance as he had so many times before. At the end of the day, while Israel may be able to understand Yahweh’s commandments, fallen human nature is unable to fulfill them. In respect to the covenant of works, Witsius stated, “Eternal life, promised by the covenant, can be obtained upon no other condition, than that of perfect, and in every respect, complete obedience.”[53] This holds true of the Sinaitic Covenant in all its stipulations including that of internal and external obedience to the Law.

Conclusion

“Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6) did not become true with the coming of Christ. From the creation of the world it has been the duty of the creature to believe and trust the Creator. Adam and Eve fell because they chose to trust Satan and not God; so too, the Sinai Covenant required faith of the descendents of Abraham. As Paul argued in Romans 10, the Jews had sought a righteousness that is apart from faith. As one consults the various commentaries on Lev. 26:40-41, one is hard pressed to find a commentator who takes this into account. Those who recognize the difficulties with the three conditions of vv. 40-41 seem to prefer to find an easier, more palatable solution. However, in the end the only option is that the ability to fulfill this promise of restoration lies outside of Israel’s fallen capacity, because “perfect, and in every respect complete obedience” is no longer possible for fallen humanity. Yet despite this seemingly hopeless situation, the triune God promises in vv. 44-45:

Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God. But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

God swears by his great name that he will bring the covenant promises to fruition. While Leviticus 26 is silent on the mechanism for this, in the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 30 and Paul’s interpretation of it in Romans 10, it becomes clear that God will remove the curse from Israel by sending the Son as the covenant Mediator who will become a curse on her behalf (Deut. 21:23; cf., Galatians 3). Therefore to read the protasis of Lev. 26:40-41 as if Israel is able without God’s aid to fulfill these three stipulations undermines justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Notes

1. Author’s translation.
2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; 1800, reprint ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 2.10.1.
3. Calvin identifies Servetus by name in 2.10.1 as one of those whom he is opposing, along with “some madmen of the sect of the Anabaptists, who think of the people of Israel just as they would do of some herd of swine, absurdly imagining that the Lord gorged them with temporal blessings here, and gave them no hope of a blessed immortality.”
4. John Owen, A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, in The Works of John Owen (reprint ed., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991), 3:433.
5. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, trans. John Vriend, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 3:204.
6. B.B. Warfield, “Christ our Sacrifice,” in Biblical Doctrines, ed. Ethelbert Warfield, William Park Armstrong, and Caspar Wistar Hodge (reprint ed., Carlisle, PA.: Banner of Truth, 2002), 405-07.
7. Ibid., 408.
8. Contra a Socinian understanding of God’s forgiveness as free and unbounded by any element of his character, for he “could and would gratuitously remit sins” (cf., Socinus, De Iesu Christo Servatore, Pt.I.1 [1594]. 1-11; Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992, 14.10.4). Though Milgrom’s view has several formal similarities to Socinus’, one would not expect a genetic link.
9. Cf., Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus (AOTC 3; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 484-86, although it seems to run counter to his argument concerning the needed removal of the ego-centric nature.
10. Gerald Klingbeil, “Altars, Ritual and Theology--Preliminary Thoughts on the Importance of Cult and Ritual for a Theology of Hebrew Scriptures,” VT 54 (2004): 503.
11. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 3.2330.
12. Leviticus 5:15 defines l[;m; as committing sin unintentionally (בִּשְׁגָגָה וְחָטְאָה) against the holy things of Yahweh.
13. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 485.
14. Derek Tidball, The Message of Leviticus: Free to Be Holy (BST; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), 313.
15. Robert I. Vasholz, Leviticus (MC; Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2007), 338.
16. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 485.
17. Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (I; Louisville: John Knox, 2002), 201.
18. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2333.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid. Milgrom’s conclusion that רצה (“pay restitution”) is intransitive is implied by the grammar of this very clause. As 26.41b2 contains the direct object marker אֶת, it is passing strange to aver that the verb is intransitive! Moreover the direct object is none other than עֲוֹן (“iniquity”).
21. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1.339.
22. H is the source critical distinction for the so-called Heiligkeitsgesetz (Holiness Code) which is supposedly a substratum of the so-called P from the dubious Documentary Hypothesis.
23. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2333.
24. Ibid
25. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 323.
26. John Calvin, Commentaries on The Four Last Books of the Law Arranged in the Form of A Harmony, trans. William Charles Bingham (reprint ed., Albany, NY: Ages, 1998), 3:192.
27. Milgrom, Leviticus, 323.
28. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2330.
29. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 484-85.
30. Ibid., 484.
31. R.K. Harrison, Leviticus (TOTC 3; Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity, 1980), 234, emphasis added.
32. John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1992), 469.
33. Ibid.; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 484-85; cf., “In exile, the people will submit to God’s will, and their contrition will prompt God to remember His covenant.” Baruch Levine, Leviticus, (JPSTC; Philadelphia, JPS, 1989), 191.
34. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 488-89.
35. Klingbeil, “Altars, Ritual, and Theology,” 504.
36. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 485.
37. Ibid.
38. Frank H. Gorman, Leviticus: Divine Presence and Community (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 147.
39. Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HZAT 4; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1966), 378.
40. J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity, 1993), 299.
41. Motyer is referring to the eight uses of the nominal use of the hcr root in the covenant stipulations of the Sinai Covenant: Exod. 28:38; Lev. 1:3; 19:5; 22:19-21, 29; 23:11. One could render it in each instance (excepting Exod. 28:38 in reference to the high priest’s crown) that it speaks of the proper reparation for the cultic defilement.
42. HALOT, 2.1281-82.
43. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J.A. Baker (OTL; Westminster: Philadelphia, 1961-67), 1.506. Emphasis original.
44. Author’s translation.
45. Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 (WBC 6B; Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2002), 743-44.
46. J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy (AOTC 5; Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 2002), 429.
47. Augustine, On Genesis in the Literal Sense VIII. 4-6, cited in Calvin Institutes 2.2.12 (Battles).
48. Calvin, Institutes, 2.5.12.
49. Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy (OTL; Louisville, KY: WJK, 2002), 349.
50. As Calvin noted it is pointless to speculate over whether it was theoretically possible, for Scripture is clear that the divine decree is explicit, no one ever will keep the law. “Here I shall not weave long circumlocutions of various kinds of possibilities. I call ‘impossible’ what has never been, and what God’s ordination and decree prevents from ever being. If we search the remotest past, I say that none of the saints, clad in the body of death [cf. Romans 7:24], has attained to that goal of love so as to love God ‘with all his heart, all his mind, all his soul, and all his might’ [Mark 12:30, and parallels],” Calvin, Institute 2.7.5.
51. For a treatment on Lev. 18:5 as the principle of the covenant of works see Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank (reprint ed., Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1990), 1.3.7.
52. Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (eds. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 657.
53. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 1.9.2.