The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet

By Charles P. Baylis

[Teacher, Lake Ridge Bible Church, Mesquite, Texas]

Introduction

The story of the woman caught in adultery, recorded in John 7:53–8:11, and especially Jesus’ words, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (8:7), have been used in various ways: to justify lenience in criminal cases, to oppose capital punishment, to argue against church discipline, and to relax moral standards. While all would agree that no story in the Bible can be fully understood apart from its contextual setting, this one is rarely taught with an understanding of the surrounding context. Those who advocate the applications mentioned above seldom attempt to understand the story in the light of its context.

In fact problems with the interpretation of this passage have been present from its beginning. Its omission from early Greek manuscripts may have been based on the impression that Christ was too easy on adultery. Some have thought that some church fathers did not refer to it since they were fearful of encouraging the committing of the crime.[1]

The Textual Problem

One reason this story is not studied in its context is the question of whether it was part of the original manuscript of the Gospel of John. This writer believes it is the Word of God, and is an inseparable part of the context of John 7–8. The textual evidence has been treated by many scholars and will not be repeated here.[2] However, when a passage fits so well into the surrounding context as does this one, considerable weight must be given to its inclusion in the text.

The Problem of the Message

If Jesus argued that one needed to be perfect to judge anyone guilty of a crime, then He overruled what Moses had said, and He was not the Prophet about whom Moses spoke (Deut 18:15). The purpose of the Pharisees was to show that Jesus would contradict Moses. If Jesus said that one could not enforce Moses’ command concerning adultery, then He did exactly as the Pharisees had expected. Why then did they leave and not protest the contradiction? Moses had never stated that a man needed to be perfect to judge adultery or murder or any other crime. In fact God had commanded that adultery be prosecuted (Deut 22:23–24). Obviously Old Covenant people had personal sin, yet performed acts of civil justice.

Christ came to offer grace and truth (John 1:17), while Moses had given the Law. But the two were not contradictory. They worked together—the Law condemned, but through grace and truth Jesus offered a way out of the condemnation (1:29; 3:17).

The Greater Moses Must Affirm Moses

This article seeks to show that the Pericope Adulterae brought to a pinnacle John’s presentation of Christ as the Prophet of whom Moses had spoken (Deut 18:15). Further it will seek to show that Christ not only obeyed the Mosaic Law, as those present understood it, but also enforced it completely. The pericope demonstrates that Jesus was “the Prophet,” the true Teacher of the Law, while the scribes and Pharisees used it to attempt to disprove His claim.

The first seven chapters of the Gospel of John contrast Jesus, the “Greater Prophet” of the New Covenant, with Moses, the prophet of the Old Covenant. This contradistinction culminates in the test of the woman caught in adultery in chapter 8.

“The Prophet” in the Gospel of John

The Prologue to John’s Gospel

A prophet was always a revealer of God’s Word. John pointed out that Jesus is “the Word,” the ultimate revelation (light) from God (1:1–13), who became flesh and revealed the Father to man (vv. 14–18).[3] Jesus was contrasted to Moses, through whom the condemning Law was given (v. 17). Man stood condemned through the Law of Moses (5:45), but Jesus provided the grace for forgiveness. This came not through the symbolic lamb of Moses’ Passover but through the true Passover Lamb of God.

In John’s prologue Jesus introduced a new stage in the development of revelation and redemptive history. Grace was brought in to relieve man of his condemnation under the Law. This contrast is carried out in the remainder of the Gospel. Jesus, being the superior Prophet of whom Moses spoke (Deut 18:15), was the ultimate reality of God’s revelation (light) and grace to men. Those who recognized and accepted the truth lived in the light. Those who hated that truth lived in the darkness (John 3:19).

The Theme of Grace and Truth

The noncondemnation theme, which was introduced by the contrast of Moses and the Law to Christ and grace and truth (John 1:17) is continued in John 3. Jesus pointed out to Nicodemus that God had sent His Son into the world to give eternal life (3:16). He stated that He did not come to condemn the world (v. 17), for the world stood already condemned by the Law of Moses. Christ had come to save the world from that condemnation. Those who did not accept the revelation of grace that He brought were judged by the fact that they refused that light.

The Greater Prophet

The theme of the greater Prophet runs throughout the Gospel of John,[4] especially the first eight chapters. Jesus is presented, not as contradicting Moses, but as bringing grace to those condemned by the Law. He did this through His function as Messiah, the ultimate Passover Lamb of God. Was John the Baptist the Messiah, or Elijah, or the Prophet (1:21)? John the Baptist denied all those titles and pointed to Jesus as the ultimate One. Throughout the book evidences are presented that Jesus is all three: the Messiah (the major theme, 20:31), the greater Elijah (6:1–14),[5] and the Prophet (5:46).

Evidences of the Prophet. At the wedding in Cana, Jesus turned water into joyful wine in the waterpots of stone (2:1–11), whereas Moses had turned water into blood of judgment in the vessels of stone in Egypt during the plagues (Exod 7:19).[6]

At Jacob’s well a Samaritan woman questioned whether Jesus was greater than Jacob (John 4:12), perceived Him as a prophet (4:19), and concluded that He is the Messiah (4:25–29).

In chapter 5 the question of Jesus’ identity came to a crest when He healed a man on the Sabbath. The Jews took this as a contradiction to Moses (5:16, 18). But after they accused Christ, He turned the accusation on them, pronouncing that they were the ones who opposed Moses (5:45). In fact not only did He agree with Moses, but also He announced (5:46) that He was the Prophet of whom Moses wrote.

Then Jesus promptly set out to demonstrate that position. He showed He was greater than Moses by performing two signs (6:1–21).[7] Moses had given them manna in the wilderness and had parted the Red Sea. Christ provided food for 5,000 men out of virtually nothing.[8] And whereas Moses needed a dry surface on which to cross the Red Sea, Jesus simply walked on the waves.[9] Christ pointed out that while Moses’ manna did not prevent their ancestors from dying (6:49), He as the greater Prophet offered the living bread. The one who partook of this bread would never die (6:50–51).

The Prophet and the Feast of Tabernacles. John 7 deals with Jesus’ messiahship, for while the Feast of Tabernacles commemorated the wilderness protection under Moses’ leadership (Lev 23:43), it would find its fulfillment in the messianic kingdom (Zech 14:16). However, the theme of the Prophet is continued as the Jews debated with Him over the fact that He had seemingly opposed Moses, for they were still debating over the ethics of healing a crippled man on the Sabbath (John 7:14–24). Jesus accused the Jews of judging not with righteous judgment but according to appearance, and thus they, not He, opposed the writings of Moses.

On the last day of the Feast, some of the people were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet” (7:40). Jesus’ words that made them think He was the Prophet had just been spoken, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water’“ (7:38). Jesus was apparently using the wilderness experience of Moses as a background for His comments (Exod 17:6; Num 20:11).[10] The Messiah’s pouring out of the Spirit is seen as superior to Moses’ pouring out of water in the wilderness.[11] Recognizing Jesus’ claim, the people concluded that He is the Prophet.

The Pharisees opposed the people’s conclusion that He is the Prophet. However, Nicodemus urged them to judge according to properly administered Law (John 7:51). Yet they still argued, “Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (v. 52).[12]

Summary. Thus the scene was set. Christ had presented Himself as the Prophet. He had demonstrated it by providing living bread and walking on the sea. On the Sabbath His grace liberated a man from being crippled. The Pharisees held this was a contradiction to Moses. Christ accused them of judging by appearances and not righteously, stating that they were not of Moses, for Moses spoke of Him. He claimed to be a fulfillment of prophecy by providing not water like Moses but the abundance of the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus told the Pharisees to judge Him as the Prophet on the proper basis of the Law, but they told him that Jesus could not be a prophet.

The Pharisees were at a crucial point. Since the people were concluding that Jesus is the Prophet, the Pharisees felt that they had to expose Jesus for opposing Moses. How would they do it? They would confront Him with a situation that would corner Him into contradicting a clear Mosaic statute. Thus entered the “woman caught in adultery.” The Pharisees would test the Prophet by utilizing laws in chapters surrounding the prophecy of the Prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15. The totality of the question concerning the adulteress, the witnesses, and her punishment came from Deuteronomy 17:5–7; 19:15–21; and 22:22–27.[13]

The Test of the Prophet in John 7:53-8:11

The End of the Feast of Tabernacles

The statement “And everyone went to his home” (John 7:53) concludes the previous section regarding the Feast of Tabernacles (7:1–52), and particularly the section beginning in verse 37, which states, “Now on the last day, the great day of the feast.” Each year during the Feast of Tabernacles all the celebrants left their homes and passed the night in booths in remembrance of God’s provision during the journey in the wilderness. Thus the statement that they were going back to their homes (in contrast to their life in booths of the former seven or eight days [14]) is a fitting conclusion to the feast.

By contrast Jesus went to the Mount of Olives (8:1). Far from intending to show Jesus had no place to lay His head, which is not a major theme in John,[15] the author was pointing out Christ’s purpose. While men could easily forget the messianic implications of the Feast of Tabernacles and the coincidence of meeting the long awaited Messiah (7:40–52), Jesus continued on with His messianic purpose.[16]

The Prophet as a Teacher of God’s Word

Jesus began to teach in the temple “early in the morning” (8:2). In the Book of John such descriptive chronology is more than a time marker; it also has Johannine symbolism.[17] Much like breaking of the earthly light of dawn above the horizon, Jesus was about to demonstrate that He, as the Prophet, is “the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (1:9).[18]

In the temple Jesus “began to teach” (8:2). The Messiah/Prophet (7:40–52) was to be a teacher, for, as Moses wrote, the Prophet would speak the words God put in His mouth. “I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deut 18:18).

If Jesus was the Prophet, it was necessary that He be a Teacher of the Word of God. To emphasize that, John pointed out that Jesus “sat down” (John 8:2), the position of a teacher in Judaism.[19]

The Pharisees as the Testers

A certain crime. After identifying the principal character as Jesus, the Teacher of the Scriptures, John introduced His antagonists—the scribes and Pharisees (8:3). This is the only place in the Book of John where the scribes are mentioned. This is appropriate for here Jesus is presented as a Teacher of the Law. And whom could the Pharisees find more qualified to confront such an “alleged” Teacher than the scribes? It was not Christ against the adulteress, nor the scribes and Pharisees against the adulteress, but the Pharisees against Christ, with the scribes supporting the Pharisees with their knowledge of the Law. The adulteress was simply the foil against which this conflict took place.

John pointed out that the woman had committed adultery and had been caught. There was no question that this was a fact.[20] The Pharisees were certain that Jesus could not avoid their intended question on the basis of any doubt about the circumstances. A woman had been caught breaking the Mosaic Law, specifically the seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” And this was restated in Deuteronomy 22:22–27, a Mosaic statute not far from the prophecy of the greater Prophet.

The picture is completed by the phrase, “and having set her in the midst” (John 8:3). Jesus, the Teacher of the Law, was on one side, the scribes (the official interpreters of the Law) were with the Pharisees on the other side, and the woman who embodied the issue at hand was in the middle.[21] The sides were divided clearly. The crime was certain.

Certain witnesses. The Pharisees said to Jesus, “‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act’“ (8:4). In addressing Jesus as teacher, they were not speaking in jest. They were acknowledging Him as a Teacher of the Law in order to show that He was a false teacher and thus a false prophet.[22] They were not considering Him a judge, for Jesus had no civil authority.[23] As a Teacher of the Law He was set up to hear their testimony as witnesses. The testimony that the woman was in the “very act” was clearly eyewitness.[24]

The Pharisees continued, “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women” (v. 5a). By the use of the pronoun “us,” they were attesting that they were the very witnesses, for the Law proclaimed the witnesses should be the first to do the stoning (Deut 17:6–7).[25] Thus the certain crime was attested by certain witnesses, again from the near context of the greater Prophet of Deuteronomy.

A certain punishment. The Pharisees and the scribes made it clear that they had Moses on their side. They said, “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women” (John 8:5). Deuteronomy 22:24 was clear. She was to be stoned. Now the certain crime, attested by certain witnesses, had a certain punishment.

A certain case. They felt that Jesus had opposed Moses when He had broken the Sabbath (5:12, 18), yet He had claimed that Moses was against them. They expected Him again to contradict Moses with His emphasis on grace, as He had when they had observed that He extended grace to a crippled man on the Sabbath.

Then they asked Jesus, “What then do You say?” (8:5). Would He follow Moses’ pronouncement or not?[26] They felt sure Jesus would not condemn the woman, and therefore He would be disobeying Moses’ command. John revealed that He had not judged the Samaritan for her loose living (4:18), and had pointed out to Nicodemus that He had not come to condemn but to save (3:17). Surely they were irritated at this One who seemed to avoid the emphasis they had placed on condemnation required by the Law. What could be a better test case than that of adultery, a crime with a certain punishment from the very chapters of Deuteronomy’s greater Prophet?

A certain maliciousness. Obviously this was a setup, in which the Pharisees were “testing Him,” pitting Christ against Moses, so “they might have grounds for accusing Him” (8:6). This was the whole purpose of this incident—to present clear evidence to the people that Jesus was a false prophet.

With this situation, the Pharisees assumed they now had trapped Jesus, who claimed to be the Prophet. If He were the Prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18, then He had to follow Moses’ Law and condemn the woman. But if He did not condemn her, He would be violating the Law and could not be the predicted Prophet. What would Jesus do?

The Response of the Prophet

Jesus identified as the Lawgiver. “But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground…. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground” (8:6b, 8). The suggestions as to what Jesus wrote on the ground are numerous. Some say He wrote the judgment “stoning,”[27] and others suggest He wrote the sins of the witnesses, which they thought were secret.[28] However, there is no textual evidence that what He wrote was significant. The important thing is that He wrote. Further, the Pharisees reacted not to what Jesus wrote on the ground but to what He said (v. 9a). The importance is in what Jesus did and what He said, not what He wrote.

Sitting as a teacher (v. 2), Jesus stooped down and “with His finger wrote on the ground.” Why is this mentioned? This alludes to the fact that the Law was written by the “finger of God” (Deut 9:10).[29] Regardless of what Jesus wrote, John was suggesting that Jesus was claiming to be the actual Writer of the Law. Though the Pharisees questioned whether Jesus would contradict Moses, Jesus was pointing out that it was not Moses who wrote the Law, but Jesus, as God Himself.[30] This view is reinforced in that “again He stooped down and wrote on the ground” (John 8:8), thus alluding to God’s writing on the tablets of stone a second time.[31] Jesus replied to the Pharisees’ assumption that He would go against the Law of Moses by saying in effect, “How can I go against the Law of Moses? I wrote the Law of Moses!”

The Pharisees identified as malicious witnesses. Between Jesus’ demonstrations of His deity (writing on the ground twice, vv. 6, 8) Jesus said to the Pharisees, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (v. 7). Jesus’ “inclusio” signals that this statement was to be found within the Law. This was true, for stated in the same Deuteronomy context were the words, “The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deut 17:7).

Jesus acknowledged the valid application of the Mosaic Law to the situation before Him, with its crime, punishment, and witnesses. Then He took the situation further, using the Law that He wrote. Jesus offered them, as witnesses, the first stone, and told them to carry out the sentence as stated in the Mosaic Law.[32] However, He did something else. In calling for them to be “without sin” He identified another Mosaic requirement for the proposed action, namely, that witnesses be nonmalicious:

If a malicious[33] witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD…. and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother…. Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (Deut 19:16–19, 21).

As the Writer of the Law, Christ was showing He knew all its requirements. They had alluded to Deuteronomy 17 and 23 and He referred to Deuteronomy 19. It is important to note that Christ spoke in verse 7 not to the general crowd, but to the Pharisees,[34] since the crowd had not testified as witnesses against the woman.

The passage Christ used as the basis of His charge was to be applied to the witnesses. Besides offering the Pharisees the Mosaic solution, “cast the first stone,” He questioned their validity as witnesses. If they were malicious, they were subject to the very death they had proposed for the adulterers. A nonmalicious, objective witness was required by the Mosaic Law. Jesus knew they were testifying against her, not out of a pure heart of concern for justice in Israel but “testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him.”[35]

The Greek word for “without sin” (v. 7) has been discussed extensively. Some say it refers to a specific sin, whereas others suggest it means sinlessness.[36] However, the context shows that in this passage the word specifically means a malevolent witness.[37] They were unconcerned about justice, but were using her in order to accuse Him. It was a trap, laid with malignant intent.

The Result of the Controversy

“And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst” (8:9).

Apparently each of the Pharisees was weighing in his mind the risk of pursuing his hypocrisy further. For a Pharisee to defend himself as a guileless witness, when it was obvious to all involved that he was not, would be to subject himself to the possibility of receiving her punishment. To abandon his own claim as a valid witness would be tantamount to a confession that he was malevolent. The Pharisees had attempted to trap Jesus, but now they were trapped by the same Law. So each Pharisee, in his desire to avoid the very stones he had suggested for another, overcame his pride and walked out of the temple area.[38]

John was probably indicating more than that they simply filed out from the eldest to the youngest. The word “eldest” when applied to the chief priests and Pharisees,[39] implied their position of honor.[40] The older ones, who would have been especially familiar with the Scriptures, recognized more quickly their guilt under the very Mosaic Law by which they had proposed to convict another.

After the false witnesses left, Jesus “was left alone,” that is, He was the only one left of those involved in her prosecution. Only one witness remained, and it was Jesus. He was the only objective, nonmalicious witness.

When Jesus “straightened up” the second time (v. 10), He applied the Law just as He had done after He “straightened up” the first time (v. 7). He asked the woman where the witnesses were who had come to accuse her, for the Law required two or three witnesses. Verse 11 records the only time this woman spoke in this incident. She simply said, “No one, Lord.”[41]

When Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more,” He was demonstrating His allegiance to the smallest point of the Mosaic Law.[42] He was the only witness left, but according to the Law one witness was not enough:[43] “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness” (Deut 17:6). And yet, though the Law prevented one witness from bringing forth a guilty verdict, Jesus, as God, could have judged her. However, He did not come to condemn, but to save (John 3:17).[44] The day of judgment would come, but it was not yet present (5:27–29).[45]

Christ had told the crippled man to avoid sinning (5:14). Here He told the woman the same thing. It would be expected of the One who claimed to be the Prophet to tell her to obey the Law. Someday she would come into judgment. She had a choice. Would she listen to the Prophet, as she was instructed to do in Deuteronomy 18:15, or would she not?

Conclusion

The Pharisees had brought a certain crime (the woman in adultery), had brought along the scribes to quote a certain judgment (stoning), and had claimed to be certain witnesses (“this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act”). The stage was set. Would Jesus agree with Moses and them and condemn her, or would He disagree and not condemn her?

Reviewing the case, Jesus brought forth the judgment, “Stone her.” Unfortunately for the Pharisees, He had required, as the Law had stated, that the witnesses be qualified.

The Pharisees who were accusing the woman, not for the good of Israel but to trap Jesus, were stuck. They knew they were malicious. Thus they had to step down or else incur the punishment required of malicious witnesses—the very stoning they desired for the accused!

Jesus pronounced the final decree. Since He was the only witness left, and the Mosaic Law required two, she was free. But the Prophet instructed her to avoid all guilt under the Law, since Deuteronomy 18:15 said the people were to listen to the Prophet. John 7:53–8:11 shows in numerous ways that Jesus is indeed the Prophet of whom Moses wrote.

Notes

1. S. T. Bloomfield, The Greek Testament, 2 vols. (London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1839), 1:440.
2. For a discussion of the textual evidence, see Alan Frank Johnson, “A Re-examination of the Pericope Adulterae, John 7:53–8:11 ” (ThD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1964), 31–284.
3. According to Deuteronomy 18:18 the greater Moses was identified by the fact that He would speak exactly the words God the Father told Him.
4. Many have recognized the Mosaic theme throughout the Gospel. Among these is Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 14 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967).
5. Moses and Elijah did many parallel deeds. Though Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000 is parallel to the feeding of the people in the wilderness in Moses’ day, it also parallels the feeding of 100 by Elisha (2 Kings 4:42–44). This suggests that Moses and Elijah/Elisha were Israel’s greatest prophets. The greater Prophet must be greater than they were (John 6:14). Christ’s walking on the sea, similar to Moses’ parting of the Red Sea, was also parallel to Elijah’s and Elisha’s parting the waters of the Jordan (2 Kings 2:8, 14). Further references on the Moses/Elijah/Christ parallel may be found in Ronald Barclay Allen, “Elijah, the Broken Prophet,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (September 1979): 201-2, and in this author’s “The Elijah/Elisha Motif in Luke 7–10 ” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985).
6. Alvin L. Thompson, “Jesus as the New Moses in the Gospel of John” (Paper for Bible 380, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1987), p. 9.
7. It is significant to note the setting of this chapter. Jesus ascended the mountain as Moses did when he received the Law. It was near the time of the celebration of Passover, the day when Israel had been freed through the leadership of Moses.
8. This Moses comparison is confirmed by the reaction of the people to this miracle as they said, “This is of a truth the Prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14).
9. There is a literary comparison here in the setting in Exodus 14:21 and John 6:18. In both cases a strong wind was blowing at night. In Moses’ case it dried up the sea so that he might walk on the dry land. Jesus simply walked on the blowing waves.
10. Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel (reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978), pp. 637-38.
11. Isaiah referred to Moses’ watering experience (43:20) and paralleled a future watering to the pouring out of the Spirit (44:3). Interestingly, Aileen Guilding has pointed out that these passages in Isaiah (as well as Deut 8:15) were lectionary readings during the Feast of Tabernacles (The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960], p. 105).
12. Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, p. 643. Godet observed that the Pharisees had made a mistake in pointing out that “no prophet arises out of Galilee” (7:52), since Isaiah 9:1 prophesied the preaching of the Messiah in Galilee. Also Jonah was from Gath-hepher in the region of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25).
13. It is appropriate to note that the context surrounding the foretelling of the Prophet is also concerned with the tests of a false prophet (Deut 18:20). The Pharisees may have felt that they were following the commands in Deuteronomy by exposing Jesus.
14. There is a question whether the feast lasted seven or eight days (Johnson, “A Re-examination of the Pericope Adulterae, John 7:53–8:11 ,” pp. 249-62).
15. This is a major theme in Luke, especially 9:53–62, where Christ spoke of discipleship and the need to subject everything to the purpose of the Messiah.
16. John seems to be making a comparison with Zechariah 14 and the Feast of Tabernacles described there as a result of the return of the Messiah. According to Zechariah 14 the Messiah will return and rid Jerusalem of her oppressors, and the Feast of Tabernacles will be celebrated during the Kingdom. According to John 7 the people seemingly wondered whether Jesus was the Christ, the One who would usher in that final Feast of Tabernacles. But while the wonderers seemed content to leave the question unanswered personally and went to their homes, Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, the exact place where the conquering Messiah of Zechariah 14 will make His appearance known (v. 4).
17. The Gospel of John includes only two references to early morning (8:2 and 21:4). John has seven references to night: three referring to Nicodemus’ secret night visit (3:2; 7:50 [Majority Text]; 19:39), one to Judas’ scheming departure from the last supper (13:30), one to the disciples’ unsuccessful fishing expedition (21:3), and two to the absence of the true Light (9:4; 11:10).
18. In the verse immediately following the pericope Jesus claimed to be the Light of the world. The Pharisees would be confronted by the light and would oppose the light, for their deeds were evil (John 3:19).
19. Zane C. Hodges, “The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11): Exposition” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (January-March 1980): 43.
20. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 887. Morris notes that the word “caught” properly denoted “caught in the act of stealing,” but came to be used of other offenses. It left no room for doubt.
21. Godet (Commentary on John’s Gospel, p. 647) and Morris (The Gospel according to John, p. 887), as well as others, have seen here a courtroom scene in which Christ was being forced to be a judge concerning the woman. However, it is clear from verse 4 that the Pharisees were confronting Him as teacher, not judge, and were asking Him to interpret. Since the Pharisees were on one side and the Lord on the other, they expected Him to offer an interpretation contrary to Moses. This refutes the idea that they were trying to trap Him against Roman authority so that He could not win, as in the question of tribute to Caesar (Mark 12:13–17).
22. Moses, after speaking of the Prophet (18:15–19), had given tests for false prophets (18:20–22). In view of the thorough use of the Deuteronomy context, it seems that the Pharisees felt it their obligation to prove that He was not from God.
23. Allison A. Trites proposes that this was a courtroom scene with Christ as the judge (“The Woman Taken in Adultery,” Bibliotheca Sacra 131 [April-June 1974]: 137). However, Christ was not being set up here as a judge. He most certainly had no civil authority granted to Him. It is questionable whether the Romans would have done anything if the Jews had stoned her. There is no indication that the Pharisees intended to carry out an assenting decision. Jesus had no civil authority to judge; only the Sanhedrin had that right. The Pharisees were simply asking Him whether He would affirm the Mosaic commandment as a Teacher of the Law.
24. See Leon Morris for a discussion concerning the necessity of the witnesses to observe the actual act (The Gospel according to John, p. 885).
25. The Lord also confirmed them as witnesses in His statement in verse 7.
26. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1983), p. 415. Bruce agrees that the test here was to pit Jesus against Moses.
27. Some suggest that Jesus wrote down Deuteronomy 22:22–24 (requiring stoning for those found committing adultery), and that the second writing was Deuteronomy 19:16–19 (on false witness). Morris (The Gospel according to John, p. 888) and Godet (Commentary on John’s Gospel, p. 647) review the various options.
28. F. F. Bruce gives this as a possibility (“The Woman Taken in Adultery,” The Witness 110 [August 1980]: 233).
29. Zane C. Hodges makes a similar point about the “finger of God,” and indicates a reference to Exodus 31:18 (“The Woman Taken in Adultery [John 7:53–8:11 ]: Exposition,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 [January-March 1980]: 46). It is interesting that Deuteronomy (from which all the references in this Johannine pericope are taken), when speaking of that event, also refers to “the finger of God” (Deut 9:10).
30. One of John’s themes is that Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament (see, e.g., 1:1 and 8:58). Christ’s claim to be the writer of the Law would not be curious in the argument of John.
31. Hodges points out that Exodus mentions the “finger of God” only in the record of the first writing of the tablets and not in the second writing (“The Woman Taken in Adultery [John 7:53–8:11 ]: Exposition,” p. 46). So also in John 8 the finger of Christ is mentioned only in the record of His first writing.
32. Jesus was not merely speaking “tongue in cheek” when He told them to cast the first stone. Stephen A. James points out that “the text clearly commanded any qualified witness to begin the execution by casting the first stone” (“The Adulteress and the Death Penalty,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 [March-May 1979]: 53).
33. The word for “malicious” is defined as “a witness that promotes violence and wrong” (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980). It is used in Exodus 23:1–2 to denote those who would pervert justice. In Ezekiel 22:6 and Zephaniah 3:4 the word is used to speak of the misuse of the Law by priests for their own selfish purposes.
34. Stephen A. James clearly pointed out that the content of the pericope is limited to the dialogue between Jesus and the accusers (8:4–9) and Jesus and the accused (8:10–11). He states, “There is no indication that Jesus directed any of his remarks to the crowd that overheard the exchange” (James, “The Adulteress and the Death Penalty,” p. 47).
35. The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament defines “malicious” (חמס) as perversion of justice in a variety of forms (4:478–87). The instigators of maliciousness are those who do violence to the Law, who use it for their own benefit (p. 479). The source may be either “greedy desire or hate” (p. 482). Here they had perverted justice by attempting to create a facade of being concerned about justice with regard to the adulteress while really attempting to try Jesus. They had been dishonest with their selfish purpose.
36. Morris holds that it is general sinlessness (The Gospel according to John, p. 889). Hodges (“The Woman Taken in Adultery [John 7:53–8:11 ]: Exposition,” p. 48) and F. F. Bruce (“The Woman Taken in Adultery,” The Witness 10 [August 1980]: 233), both hold that it is a specific sin. Bruce holds that it was adultery. Hodges agrees and adds that it was likely sin committed during the Feast of Tabernacles. However, there is nothing in the text to support the accusation of general imperfection in the Pharisees, nor is there any hint of their clandestine adulterous affairs. What is clear is that they were deceitful men, witnessing to a crime with which they were unconcerned, in order to bring about a transgression on the part of Jesus. The word here for “without sin” is used in the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 29:19 to denote “guiltless.” It is related in that context to one with righteous motives, contrasted to one with deceptive motives.
37. For an excellent discussion of the sin and its applicability to the Pharisees as witnesses in this context see James, “The Adulteress and the Death Penalty,” p. 48. James lists other suggestions as to the sins of the witnesses: (a) failure to warn her, (b) conspiracy between the woman’s husband and the witnesses to plot for her execution, and (c) failure to deliver both guilty parties for the trial. Morris adds that apparently there was a plot against her (The Gospel according to John, p. 887). However, there is no explicit textual evidence for any of these suggestions. The evidence in verse 8:5a is clear: they were not objective in their accusations.
38. Morris points out that the word καταλείπω (used here of Jesus being “left”) is used of Levi’s abandoning his position as tax collector to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28) and of a man’s dying and leaving his wife (Mark 12:19) (The Gospel according to John, p. 890).
39. Bruce agrees that it was likely in this group that some of the Pharisees present were members of the Sanhedrin (The Gospel of John, p. 414). In light of the preceding passage (7:45–52) it seems likely, especially with scribes present, that the Sanhedrin may have been involved personally and were present. This would account for the use of πρεσβύτερος (8:9).
40. Bloomfield, The Greek Testament, 1:440.
41. It is wrong to assume that these words suggest repentance on her part. The woman was simply the point of contention between Christ and the Pharisees. The meaning of κύριος has been debated. However, it should not be pressed too far. There is no contextual evidence that she recognized Him as anything more than a teacher who was giving an interpretation of the Law based on her case. She was probably showing respect in addressing Him as “Sir.” The woman of Samaria used the same term (4:11), and undoubtedly at that time she did not know Him as more than a respected man. The use of “Woman” (8:10) as a title of respect is Johannine. It is interesting that the Samaritan woman episode used the same terms “Sir” (4:11, 15, 19) and “Woman” (5:21) as are used in this pericope.
42. See R. D. Mawdsley, “Capital Punishment in Genesis 9:6, ” Central Bible Quarterly 18 (Summer 1975): 24, for agreement on this point.
43. Jesus Himself quoted this only six verses later, “Even in your Law it has been written, that the testimony of two men is true” (8:17).
44. This point about Christ not condemning her because of the stated purpose of His ministry (3:17) is noted by many including Bloomfield (The Greek Testament, 1:442).
45. John presented Jesus as the Bearer of grace and truth. The judgment that Christ avoided in John’s Gospel will come as revealed in John’s Apocalypse. It should also be noted that “judgment” or “condemnation” and Christ’s avoidance of such does not infer that He was not willing to point out sin and evil, but only that the day of eschatological judgment was not yet present (John 5:22–30).

The Divine Presence, Uncleanness, and Ezekiel’s Millennial Sacrifices

By Jerry M. Hullinger

[Jerry M. Hullinger is a Bible teacher in Pensacola, Florida.]

Covenant interpreters point out that if Ezekiel 40–48 is taken “normally,” as dispensationalists suggest, then blood sacrifices will be made in the future kingdom. This, covenant interpreters say, conflicts with the finished work of Christ. Ironically though, if dispensationalists do remain consistent with their hermeneutical method, the solution will be found.

The thesis of this article is that if the foundation for sacrifices in Leviticus is retained, it is not surprising that Ezekiel wrote that sacrifices will be reinstituted. In fact they should be expected. It would be disconcerting if Ezekiel made no mention of millennial sacrifices. To support this claim, it is necessary to discuss several issues, beginning with the theology of glory in Ezekiel.

The Theology of Glory in Ezekiel 40–48

Of significance is a notable parallel between Leviticus and Ezekiel 40–48. When the tabernacle was completed, Yahweh settled there to guide the new nation into the land of promise (Exod. 40). Because of God’s holy presence, it was necessary for the nation to have legislation and sacrificial rituals to permit Him to dwell in harmony with a sinful and unclean people. This tension is the rationale and purpose for the stipulations in Leviticus.[1] A similar event is recorded in Ezekiel. God removed His presence from the nation (Ezek. 8–11) because of their sin. However, Ezekiel foresaw the return of God’s glory during the millennial kingdom (Ezek. 40–48),[2] thus necessitating once again legislation to enable the holy God to dwell with sinful and unclean people.[3] The rationale for Ezekiel’s sacrifices is therefore the same as the rationale for sacrifices in Leviticus. In Exodus and Leviticus God was dwelling with unclean people. In Ezekiel 40–48 He will once again dwell with unclean people, because part of the millennial population will be in natural bodies and thus will be a source of uncleanness.

God’s glory[4] —the complete manifestation of His divine majesty—expresses His transcendence over natural phenomena.[5] Moreover, it points to His presence, which will be a visible reality in the millennium with its locus[6] in the temple envisioned by Ezekiel.

On three occasions Ezekiel related how he viewed the glory of God.[7] The final vision recorded in chapters 40–48, where the glory of God is said to enter the new temple through the east gate (43:1–5), views the same gate through which it departed. Since that gate through which He will pass will then remain shut (44:1–2), the city will be named “the Lord is there” (48:35).[8]

Since Ezekiel saw the return of the glory of God to the temple, one would expect a heavy emphasis on holiness as a result of His presence, and of course this is a dominant theme in the book, particularly in chapters 40–48. This point becomes significant as the need for reinstituting the sacrifices is contemplated in light of the divine glory.

These two words holy and common embody the purpose of all the architectural details and cultic regulations of 40–48.. .. But it was not enough to make the sanctuary in Jerusalem the one holy place. Its holiness and with it the holiness of Yahweh, had to be safeguarded (cf. 43:7); hence the principle of gradation in 40–42. First, the holy temple area is walled off from the secular world outside. Then, within it, secular men may come only so far—they may not go beyond the outer court—while the most holy place, where was the presence of Yahweh, might only be entered once a year, and that by the holiest of men, the high priest. Stringent regulations were also laid down to ensure the ritual holiness of the priests.[9]

The nature of this holiness can be illustrated from the Pentateuch. No one other than priests was allowed even to touch a piece of tabernacle furniture, no matter how insignificant. “A non-priest may not even look at any of the articles of furniture within the tabernacle.. .. The Kohathites are explicitly told not to look at the furniture while it is being covered up lest they die (Num 4:18–20). There is at least one article which even priests may not look at: the kapporet [the mercy seat]. The paroket-veil conceals it from them and makes around it, as well as around the ark, a mysterious hiding place. The high priest alone may enter there and that only on the Day of Atonement.”[10]

Ezekiel emphasized the same principle. For example garments are to be removed before the priests mingle with the people in the outer court to avoid any suspicion of contagion between what is holy and common (44:17–19).[11] In addition no wool was to be worn, possibly because this would cause the wearer to perspire (v. 18), and sweat was regarded as ceremonially unclean.[12] Also the priests were to cut their hair, perhaps to avoid the sign of mourning (v. 20; cf. Ezek. 44:20; cf. Lev. 10:6; 21:5; Deut. 14:1; Isa. 3:24; 22:12; Jer. 16:6; Ezek. 24:17; Amos 8:10). Also the priests were to teach the people to distinguish between what is holy and common (Ezek. 44:23–24), and verses 25–27 give regulations about necessary contact with the dead. “They shall approach dead bodies only of their nearest relatives.. .. From the defilement caused by this contact they must purify themselves before resuming their service in the inner court.. .. The length of time during which he shall remain unclean is not stated. In ordinary cases he who touched a dead body was unclean seven days (Num. 19:11). After his cleansing the priest must count seven days, which would imply exclusion from his official duties for fourteen days.”[13]

When the glory of God returns during the kingdom age, the unclean will again be present through nonglorified humanity. “The prophet was contemplating the future theocratic community, in which divine holiness would be the regulatory feature. As a reaction against the idolatry that had brought the collapse of the nation, Ezekiel emphasized that the new community must necessarily follow a rigid pattern of worship, with continual emphasis upon the concept of the sanctifying presence of God in their midst.”[14]

The Contagion of Impurity

Since God’s glory will reside in the millennial temple, tension will exist between God, who is holy, and an unclean people. Thus it is important to see how this tension will be worked out, and why this will call for animal sacrifices.

The Nonresurrected in the Millennium

One of the features of the millennium will be the presence of some who will not yet have received their resurrection bodies. When Christ returns to earth at His second advent, the judgment of the sheep and goats will take place.[15] One of the results of this judgment will be the admission of saved but nonglorified individuals into the kingdom.[16] This is indicated by the facts that there will be death (Isa. 65:20), different age-groups (Zech. 8:4–5), possible discipline (14:16–19), the need for the Messiah to rule with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9), and a mass rebellion at the end of the period (Rev. 20:8–9). Since these individuals will be present with the residing glory of God, the danger will once again exist that the divine presence may be ceremonially polluted. This danger relates to the common Levitical concept of clean and unclean.

Clean and Unclean

The issue of the clean and the unclean. To appreciate the purpose of sacrifices in general and the need for their being reinstituted in the millennium, it is important to discuss the concepts of clean and unclean[17] in the Old Testament.[18]

Smith has noted, “The distinction between what is holy and what is common is one of the most important things in ancient religion. Uncleanness is treated like a contagion, which has to be washed away or otherwise eliminated by physical means.”[19]

Certain animals (Lev. 11), childbirth (Lev. 12), swellings, eruptions, and discharges (Lev. 13–15), sexual misdeeds (Lev. 18), and corpses (Lev. 21) could cause one to be ceremonially unclean. Because many of the causes of uncleanness are not associated with ethics, every person at one time or another in his life would be in a state of uncleanness.[20]

Besides uncleanness, Leviticus introduces other categories such as holy and common. “Common” (or “unholy”) was the reverse of “holy.”[21] Common things were divided into two groups: clean and unclean. Cleanness was an intermediate state between holiness and uncleanness. While most things were considered in a state of cleanness, sanctification could elevate them to the status of holy, and defilement could lower them to a state of uncleanness. Furthermore, “something that was unclean could be made clean by purification, and then what was clean needed the blood ritual to make it holy.”[22]

The nature of uncleanness. To be clean meant that one was qualified for worship, while to be unclean implied the opposite,[23] for the taboos about purity were things God hated and were therefore to be avoided.[24] Since uncleanness could be transmitted by contact (11:39–40; 14:36; 15:4–12),[25] it was imperative that the unclean and holy not meet (7:20–21; 22:3). In the middle of Israel’s camp stood the tabernacle. Thus Moses was commanded to “send away from the camp every leper and everyone having a discharge and everyone who is unclean because of a dead person. You shall send away both male and female; you shall send them outside the camp so that they will not defile their camp where I dwell in their midst” (Num. 5:2–3). To neglect these rules was to pollute the tabernacle and would lead to the death of the offender (19:13, 20). “Uncleanness, once contracted, takes on a life of its own, as an invisible yet physical substance, impurity.. . seeks out contact with holiness, and once holiness has been attacked, it becomes contaminated by the impurity which remains stuck to it like barnacles on a ship.”[26]

The results or dangers of uncleanness. The first danger of uncleanness was that the unclean person (or thing) became unfit to fellowship with the rest of the community. As already noted, this was because of the contagious nature of uncleanness.

This uncleanness restricted the person from participating in worship activities.[27] God would not tolerate having His “habitation” polluted by human uncleanness. This would result in either the destruction of the people or the removal of God’s presence from the nation.[28]

The second danger that God’s presence presented concerned the penetration of pollution. “Sin is a miasma that wherever committed is attracted magnet-like to the sanctuary. There it adheres and amasses until God will no longer abide in the sanctuary. Hence, it is forever incumbent upon Israel through the indispensable medium of its priesthood to purge the sanctuary regularly of its impurities or else God will abandon it and the people to their doom.

The sum of individual sins leads inexorably to the destruction of the community.”[29]

This motif is traceable to Exodus 19:12 where Mount Sinai had become holy because of God’s presence and was fenced off in order to avoid any violation of its sanctity by the Israelites.[30] As Milgrom commented, “For both Israel and her neighbors impurity was a physical substance, an aerial miasma which possessed magnetic attraction for the realm of the sacred.”[31]

Degrees of holiness worked outward from the most holy place in the tabernacle. The nearer an item was to the most holy place, the greater degree of holiness it possessed by virtue of its nearness to God.[32]

It is also true that different types of pollution had varying degrees of ability to penetrate farther into the tabernacle. This defilement was envisioned in three stages. First, an individual’s inadvertent sin or severe uncleanness polluted the outer altar (Lev. 4:25, 30; 9:9, 12). Thus when a sin offering (better “purification” or “purgation” offering) was made, only the courtyard altar was daubed with blood. Furthermore a goat’s blood was used. Second, when the high priest or the entire community sinned or was unclean, blood had to be applied on the inner altar as well as before the curtain (4:5–7; 7:16–18). The priests “had to take precautions against contamination which would have resulted in the introduction of their own impurities into the sanctuary.”[33]

Third, rebellious sin defiled the mercy seat, which was purified annually on the Day of Atonement (16:16–19).[34] Thus the severity of the pollution varied in relation to the depth of its penetration into the sanctuary.[35]

The third danger was that of being consumed by God’s wrath because of impurities.[36] This was seen graphically in two incidents. The first is the incident in which Nadab and Abihu were consumed by the fire that issued from the most holy place when they offered an unacceptable sacrifice (Lev. 10:2). Aaron responded to this by “remaining silent” (v. 3), showing the strong impression this event made. The second incident was Korah’s rebellion, when fire destroyed the 250 who joined him (Num. 16:35). “God’s anger could strike out as a consuming fire. It is the same fire which under right circumstances indicated God’s pleasure in the sacrifice. Thus, according to Priestly interpretation, the fire on the altar represented Yahweh’s constant presence within the temple in terms of grace and/or wrath.”[37]

So the people, and especially the priests, were in danger of God’s wrath being unleashed on them if they violated His holiness. Thus the frequent formula “lest you meet death” was necessary.[38]

Ultimately, of course, sin polluted Yahweh’s dwelling place to such an extent that He was forced to remove His glory from the nation (Ezek. 3:23; 8:4; 9:3; 10:4, 18–19; 11:22–23). The theological point, then, is that for Israel to enjoy God’s continued presence and blessing they had to maintain purity in themselves and thus in God’s dwelling place. This was a primary purpose of the sacrificial system.

The cure for uncleanness. Since being in a state of uncleanness was viewed as “death” to the ancient Israelite because of separation from the community and the source of God’s blessing and presence,[39] there had to be a way for the unclean to become clean. This method included (a) cleansing with water, (b) quarantine, or (c) atonement with sacrificial blood.[40] Porubcan has observed that “sin and various imperfections are also regarded as dirt, a stain. .. making one unworthy of the sight of God. .. and therefore to be taken away, cleansed, washed off in special ceremonies.”[41] Wenham noted the same thing. “Anything that disrupted this order. .. was a potential threat to the whole community, and sacrifice was the principle means for remedying.”[42]

Thus one of the primary aims of sacrifice and atonement in Leviticus was to purify articles and people for worship.[43] This was necessary in the Levitical system because of the presence of uncleanness, and it will be necessary in the Ezekiel system for the same reason.

The Restriction of Human Impurities from the Sacred

Milgrom lists some restrictions from service in the tabernacle because of impurities. These include improper entry into the tabernacle (Lev. 16:2, 13), improper officiation (Exod. 28:43; Lev. 10:9), delinquent guarding (Lev. 22:9), and touching covered sacred objects (Num. 4:15).[44]

Great care was to be taken in these functions so that God’s wrath would not consume the nation. Hence Moses warned, “The Levites shall camp around the tabernacle of the testimony, so that there will be no wrath on the congregation of the sons of Israel. So the Levites shall keep charge of the tabernacle of the testimony” (Num. 1:53).[45]

Other significant unclean and impure states referred to in both the Pentateuch and Ezekiel 40–48 would bar one from God’s presence. First, if a priest misused the offerings by contacting them in a state of uncleanness, he would be cut off (Lev. 22:3). These impurities include skin disease, an abnormal discharge, contact with a corpse-contaminated person or object, pollution from touching a carcass, or a human-derived impurity (vv. 4–6).

Second, persons made impure from a corpse were banned from celebrating the Passover sacrifice until a month later (Num. 9:6–13). Significantly Ezekiel noted that in the millennium priests will be restricted from the temple because of contamination by touching a corpse (Ezek. 44:25–27).

Third, a war camp was under stricter conditions of purity than normal. This is why, for example, one suffering a seminal emission was to stay outside the camp until he bathed and evening came (Deut. 23:10–15). The reason for this is stated in verse 14. “Since the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you.”

Thus tabernacle worship was restricted because of impurities (and not necessarily sinful impurity). Moreover, contamination will be an issue in the millennial temple seen by Ezekiel,[46] not because of the reinstitution of the Mosaic Law but because of the divine presence.[47]

The Communicability of Impurity

In Israel one’s impurities[48] easily and rapidly contaminated other persons and objects. This shows how wholly other God is when dwelling with impure humankind and how necessary it will be during the millennium to deal with this problem, since many people in the millennium will be in nonglorified bodies.

The Menstruant [49]

A clean person who touched a menstruant became unclean until evening. A man who had intercourse with a menstruant acquired her impurity to the same degree and was unclean for seven days. And the object on which a menstruant would lie or sit became unclean. The person who touched her bed or chair became unclean and was required to bathe himself and launder his clothing.

A woman who had just given birth was in a similar state of uncleanness as was the menstruant. If she bore a male child, she was unclean for seven days, and if the baby was a female the mother was unclean for fourteen days. After a period of uncleanness the woman was to bring the priest a burnt offering and a purification offering in order to “make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood” (Lev. 12:7).

Semen

Semen was said to pollute the man who emitted it and the woman with whom he had intercourse. They were impure for a day and required bathing. Also objects became contaminated by semen including clothing and bedding, and anything else with which it came into contact (Exod. 19:10–15; Lev. 15:16–18; 22:4–7; Deut. 23:10–14; 1 Sam. 20:26; 21:4–6).

A Corpse

Persons who came into contact with a corpse by touching it directly (including a bone or grave) became unclean for seven days (Num. 5:2–3; 6:6–12; 9:6–14; 31:13–24; Isa. 65:4; Ezek. 39:11–16; 43:7–9; 44:25–27; Hag. 2:13). Significantly the person who was contaminated was in danger of defiling the Lord’s tabernacle (Num. 19:13) and was to be cut off until he was cleansed.[50]

A Carcass

Any person who touched a carcass became unclean for a day and required bathing and the purification offering. Also anyone who ate the carcass of an improperly killed animal became unclean. The same was true of one who touched or carried an unclean animal. Objects touched by a carcass became unclean and were to be broken (Lev. 5:2; 7:21; 11:31, 36; 22:5).

A House With Mold

If a person was quarantined in a house that was suspected of having mold or fungus,[51] or that was diagnosed with the same, was unclean (Lev. 14:36, 46). If a person remained in such a house or lay down there or ate there, he or she became unclean as did any object in the infected house (v. 47).

A Person With Skin Disease

Anyone who was suspected of having an infectious skin disease was to be shut up for seven days. This quarantine showed that the person was banished from society because of impurity. “Send them outside the camp so that they will not defile their camp where I dwell in their midst” (Num. 5:3). After the person recovered from the disease, he or she was to undergo purification rites including laundering, bathing, and offerings.

These impurities, which were communicable and endangered the community, were because of the human condition and not because of sin, and yet they required bloody sacrifices.[52] Furthermore, while the legislation was included in the Mosaic Law (which was necessary because it regulated the nation while God was present with them), its theological basis goes beyond the Law.[53] “Underlying this entire phenomenon is ultimately a theological concern. If communicably impure persons and objects were allowed full access to the community, other persons and objects would become contaminated.. .. With severe impurities running loose, the average impurity of the community would increase, causing a greater chance of defiling sancta. Consequently, severe impurities are restricted. The disposal of items with incorrigible, though non-communicable impurities stems from this same reasoning. If they were allowed to remain, the chance of defiling sancta would be increased.”[54]

Purification by the Sin Offering

The blood of the sin offering (or better, the purification offering)[55] was applied to the outer tabernacle (Exod. 29:12; Lev. 4:25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 16:18–19; see also Ezek. 43:20), the inner altars (Lev. 4:7, 18, see also Exod. 30:10), the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14, 15),[56] and the tabernacle itself.[57] This rite effected atonement by purifying and purging[58] objects from the impurities that had become attached to them.[59]

Ironically the very sacrifice that cleansed impurities itself became impure by virtue of its stripping away these impurities. For example the one who burned the offering on the Day of Atonement became unclean and had to launder his clothes and bathe (Lev. 16:27–28). Vessels in which the edible offering was cooked needed to be scoured and rinsed, unless they were made of earthenware, in which case they were to be broken (6:28). And a garment on which blood was spattered needed to be washed (v. 27).[60]

These brief comments on the function and impurity of the sin offering serve two purposes in this study. First, they show that the “purgation” offering in the Pentateuch and in the future millennial temple (Ezek. 40:39; 43:19, 21–22, 25; 44:27; 45:17, 19) cleanses and purifies objects from the impurities incurred in God’s presence. Second, they serve to illustrate the ease with which impurity is contracted by humans when God’s glory is present.

Conclusion

Some people, unfortunately, view the yet-future millennial sacrifices of Ezekiel 40–48 as a problem for dispensationalism. However, this sacrificial system is entirely appropriate and expected. This is because the foundational rationale of the Mosaic sacrificial system is the presence of the divine glory. The Mosaic system was instituted in Leviticus subsequent to the descent of the Shekinah in Exodus. Because of the communicability of uncleanness, the purity of God’s presence needed to be protected. Fittingly, as Ezekiel envisioned a future temple in the millennial kingdom with the resident glory of God, he saw the necessity of sacrificial blood once more because of the presence of nonglorified individuals who can be a source of communicable contamination.

Notes

1. This theological point has been captured by many. For example Rudolph Otto writes, “Man in his profaneness is not worthy to stand in the presence of the holy one, and that his own entire personal unworthiness might defile even holiness itself” (The Idea of the Holy [New York: Oxford University Press, 1958], 54). The design of the Book of Leviticus is for God to “train Israel. .. to keep them from defilements, and to sanctify them for holy fellowship with their covenant Jehovah who has deigned to erect his sanctuary in their midst” (C. D. Ginsburg, “Leviticus,” in Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959], 1:341). For statements on a sequential link between Exodus and Leviticus see C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 261; Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Vayikra (Leviticus), trans. Aryeh Newman (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1980), 1; Baruch Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), xxxi, 4; and Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 49. Allen Ross writes, “The material in Exodus, then, is the practical and theological foundation for the book of Leviticus.. .. the main concerns of the book. .. are how God’s people were supposed to order their lives now that the holy God dwelled with them” (Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 20).
2. The evidence favors seeing Ezekiel’s temple as a future millennial temple. Seven factors show that this is preferable to theories that explain it as ideal, historical, the church, or eternal: (a) the supernatural elements of the passage, (b) the many details of the text, (c) the emphasis in the passage on land distribution, (d) the promise of the return of the divine glory, (e) the difference between priestly functions in Leviticus and Ezekiel, (f) the provenance of Ezekiel 40–48, which is essentially an outworking of the New Covenant promises in the preceding context, and (g) many parallels between Ezekiel and other prophets.
3. Though this will be discussed more fully in a subsequent section, it should be noted that the issue here is not the reinstatement of the Mosaic system as such, but some regulations that are in common with the Mosaic system. For the principle of transference throughout varying dispensations see Charles C. Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (April–June 1967): 246.
4. Glory is “that asset which makes people or individuals, and even objects, impressive, and usually this is understood as something that can be perceived or expressed” (Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962], 239). See also Leslie Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1990), 256.
5. Ursula Niebuhr, “Glory,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (1984): 49–53. Niebuhr also pointed out that this glory had ethical demands which can be seen in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
6. In this section the glory of God is said “to sit, dwell.” For discussion of this concept see F. Dumermuth, “Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 70 (1958): 64–66; and A. Kuschke, “Die Lagervorstellung der priesterschriftlichen Erzahlung,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (1951): 84–86.
7. Common motifs and formulas in the three visions indicate that these three texts are related (H. Van Dyke Parunak, “The Literary Architecture of Ezekiel’s marʾôt ʾĕlōhîm,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 [1980]: 61–74). For example only these three visions are designated as marʾôt ʾĕlōhîm (visions of God: 1:1, 8:3, 40:2).
8. God’s glory will return in the future through the eastern gate of the new temple, and then the gate will be closed. This seems to express the permanence of His presence. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger wrote this about the tabernacle, but it is also applicable to the temple: “The passage in question does not really deal with a temporary visit, but with how the Lord takes possession of His sanctuary when it is completed.. .. The ultimate foundation of the gradations of sanctity associated with the tabernacle seems to be the permanent presence of the kabod in the Tabernacle. The access of the High Priest to the sanctuary is strictly regulated and is in fact first made possible by the use of incense, which obscures the mercy seat from human sight” (The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies [Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982], 88–89 [italics his]).
9. D. M. G. Stalker, Ezekiel (London: SCM, 1971), 285–86. “Not only the temple complex built on the mountain top (40:2), but also the surrounding reservation (45:1–3) partook of this holiness so far did its aura spread. The superlative expression grandiosely differentiates the area from the rest of the land (45:3–4)” (Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 257). Walther Eichrodt has similarly noticed the relationship between Ezekiel 40–48 and God’s holiness. “The declaration that the whole of the temple area is most holy is therefore put at the beginning as the presupposition of all the laws that are to follow: their aim is to preserve and assert the special character of the area” (Theology of the Old Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], 556). In addition the rest of the temple structure is in a sense a protection for the inner room which will “house” the divine presence; the temple gets progressively more narrow as one gets closer to the divine presence. See also Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 981; Peter Craigie, Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 5, 284; Moshe Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Interpretation 38 (1984): 193; Ralph Klein, Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 175; and John Taylor, Ezekiel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1969), 40, 250.
10. Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 178.
11. Taylor, Ezekiel, 272. The holiness of the inner court because of the divine presence is illustrated by the prescription of the belled robe of the high priest in Exodus 28:35. “The wording of the text, that the belled robe is to be worn ‘when he goes out’ as well as upon entry clearly indicated that it is the holiness of the interior itself rather than the cultic acts performed within that is responsible for this regulation” (Jacob Milgrom, The Encroacher and the Levite and the Term ‘Aboda, vol. 1 of Studies in Levitical Terminology [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1970], 39). Many people wrongly think that dispensationalists say the entire Mosaic economy will be reinstituted in the millennium. But this is not the case. The Mosaic sacrificial system dealt mainly with the issue of the divine presence at that point in Israel’s history. It must be understood that sin and uncleanness had to be purged before communion with God could be enjoyed. In the millennium God’s divine presence will necessitate the resumption of sacrifices. Thus the Mosaic Law is not to be reinstituted, but only aspects of the Law that focus on the subject of God’s presence.
12. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1904), 364.
13. Ibid., 366–67. The purpose in this section is simply to assert the facts and results of divine holiness in the future theocracy. The purposes of these regulations will be discussed in the following sections. The reason some people will die during this period is that many, having lived through the Tribulation period, will enter the millennium with natural bodies. Though physical life will be longer than is presently realized (Isa. 65:20), people will die either through natural means or supernatural discipline.
14. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 853. Another key verse relating to God’s presence in the midst of Israel is Exodus 25:8: “Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them.” God’s presence among His people became the single most important experience for this new nation. In fact one of the goals of Israel’s history was that Yahweh would be Israel’s God (Walter Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965], 103–12; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978], 119; and Walther Zimmerli, “Promise and Fulfillment,” in Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, ed. Claus Westermann [Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1964], 109). The tabernacle became God’s “throne room” or central locus from which He protected, guided, and blessed the nation (Angel Rodriquez, “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 24 [1986]: 138).
15. On the timing of this judgment see Eugene W. Pond, “The Background and Timing of the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats,” Bibliotheca Sacra 634 (April–June 2002): 219–20.
16. For the identification of “all the nations” see Eugene W. Pond, “Who Are the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31–46?” Bibliotheca Sacra 635 (2002): 293–301. See also J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), 314–315.
17. What made something clean or unclean? Writers have offered several answers to this question. (1) Jacob Milgrom said that the dietary laws were to tame the killer-instinct in man, that is, to show respect for life (“The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System,” Interpretation 17 [1963]: 288). (2) Others suggest that the laws were to separate Israel’s religion from the religions of her surrounding neighbors (Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 137; Baruch Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 224); Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism [Leiden: Brill, 1973], 1; and N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers [London: Thomas Nelson, 1967], 81. This view is problematic in that the Canaanites offered some of the same animals the Israelites did (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 718). (3) Others say the laws were hygienic (S. I. McMillen, None of These Diseases [Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1963]). (4) Another view was proposed by Mary Douglas, who says that animals were unclean if they did not have similar locomotive and digestive procedures of ordinary animals. In other words whatever did not correspond to its order was unclean (Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966], 53, 57. See also J. C. Moyer, “Cleanness, Uncleanness,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985]). (5) G. J. Wenham modified Douglas’s thesis so that instead of the holiness/uncleanness contrast being an opposition between normality and abnormality, the opposition is between life and death. He bases this on the occasions when the uncleanness is due to a loss of “life liquids” such as blood, semen, or open sores. Since life is in the blood (and other liquids such as semen), if one is discharging these, then that one does not enjoy perfect life. Thus it was viewed as polluting, since God, who is perfect life, can be approached only by those who are enjoying fullness of life. The unclean are those “who in some way have an aura of death about them in that they manifest less than physical wholeness.” These then, are debarred from worship (“Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile?” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95 [1983]: 432–34. See also N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function [Sheffield: Sheffield, 1987], 63). Before Wenham’s article appeared, this view was proposed by Emanuel Feldman (Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology [New York: KTAV, 1977], 35). He made this interesting suggestion about postpartum uncleanness: “Once she gives birth, the mother is no longer producing, creating, and nurturing life. Birth is the climax of a process of life-sustenance.. .. As for the leper, he, too, suffers a kind of death.. .. The proof passage showing the leper’s similarity to death is Numbers 12:12” (ibid., 37). While all of these suggestions could be shown to have flaws, the most convincing seems to be this view suggested by Wenham, Feldman, and Kiuchi. One of the major weaknesses of this view, however, is how to explain unclean animals. These three authors emphasize that the dead carcass passes on the uncleanness, as in Numbers 19:13–16 (see, e.g., Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, 63). However, the possibility always remains that the laws were simply arbitrary restrictions imposed by God in order to test obedience and ensure that His nation was distinct from those around them. “God is holy, and man, conversely, is contaminated and unfit, in and of himself, to approach a holy God” (Joe Sprinkle, “The Rationale of the Laws of Clean and Unclean in the Old Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 [December 2000]: 637).
18. The problem of uncleanness was also a common concern in other religions of the ancient Near East. See James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (New Haven, CT: Princeton University Press, 1969), 325, 329–30 (Egypt), 346, 351–53, 357–58 (Hatti), and 331–34; 334–38; 338–39 (Mesopotamia).
19. W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites (New York: Schocken, 1972), 140, 447. See also A. Noordtzij, Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 16–17. Roland de Vaux commented that “there was a mysterious and frightening force inherent in things which were impure and in things which were sacred, and these two forces acted on everything with which they came into contact, placing the objects or persons which they touched under a kind of interdict” (Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice [Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964], 460).
20. Neusner has pointed out that 64.3 percent of the Old Testament occurrences of the concept of “unclean” are found in Leviticus and Numbers, and 43.7 percent of the Old Testament occurrences of “clean” are found in Leviticus and Numbers (The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, 26). This observation should be instructive as to the purpose of the sacrificial system.
21. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 19.
22. Ross, Holiness to the Lord, 243–42. Mark F. Rooker correctly observes that the “purity laws cannot be isolated from previous laws concerning instruction for bringing sacrifices” (Leviticus, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000], 167).
23. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 154, 173. “Cleanness meant the worshiper was qualified to meet Yahweh; unclean signified that he lacked the necessary qualifications to come before the Lord” (Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 116).
24. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, 9; and Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 152–64.
25. Sin had serious social consequences during this time in Israel’s history. Sin or uncleanness affected God and also other people. For example when a master or ruler sinned, his family or kingdom bore the consequences of that action, whether good or bad (Gen. 6:18; 12:17; 19:12; 18:19; 20:9; Lev. 20:5; Num. 16:32; Josh. 7:24; 1 Sam. 15:3; 2 Sam. 3:28; 12:10; 1 Kings 2:32; 2 Kings 23:26; 1 Chron. 21:3). Members of a congregation were held responsible for each other’s guilt (Gen. 18:23–26; 26:10; Lev. 18:29; 20:2; Num. 16:22; 25:11; Deut. 13:6; 19:13; 21:1–9; Josh. 7:1; 2 Kings 3:14; Jer. 29:7; Ezek. 14:13–20). Also there was solidarity between fathers and sons (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:33; Deut. 5:9; 1 Sam. 3:13; 2 Kings 10:30) and solidarity between man and nature (Gen. 3:17–19; Lev. 18:24; 20:22; Deut. 24:4; 21:23; Jer. 7:20; Jon. 3:7). Sacrifices had social as well as spiritual benefits, for sacrifice would avert damage to other people if the sin or uncleanness was dealt with in this prescribed manner.
26. Megory Anderson and Philip Culbertson, “The Inadequacy of the Christian Doctrine of Atonement,” Anglican Theological Review 68 (1986): 309.
27. For a categorical listing of cases when someone was “cut off” from the community and for differing views regarding the meaning of this phrase see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 457–60.
28. For further discussion of these points see Anderson and Culbertson, “The Inadequacy of the Christian Doctrine of Atonement,” 309; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function, 15; Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology, 104; Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, 16; Noordtzij, Leviticus, 65; and H. Ringgren, Sacrifice in the Bible (New York: Association, 1962), 34.
29. Jacob Milgrom, “Atonement in the Old Testament,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 79. Rooker noted, “Holiness had a spatial dimension in the Old Testament, and contact of the unclean with the sanctuary was the ultimate defilement” (Leviticus, 209).
30. Angel Rodriquez has pointed out the similarity of this arrangement with the tabernacle. The fence around the mountain with an altar at the foot of the mountain would correspond to the court area and the altar of burnt offering. The limited group of people who could go up the next level of the mountain would correspond with the priests who could go into the holy place of the tabernacle. Finally the fact that only Moses could go up the highest point of the mountain would correspond with the high priest, who alone could enter into the most holy place (Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1979], 131–34).
31. Jacob Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray,” Revue biblique 83 (1976): 392. For examples of this in the ancient Near East see Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 325, 329, 331–34, 338–39, 346, 351–53.
32. For an excellent discussion of the concentric circles of holiness that emanated from the most holy place outward see Menahem Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” Hebrew Union College Annual 36 (1965): 206–22.
33. Baruch Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 74.
34. Leviticus 16:16 speaks of pollution caused by ritual impurities as well as pollution caused by “transgressions in regard to all their sins.” The noun for “transgressions” (פֶּשַׁע) means “rebellion” and the verbal form פָּשַׁע means “to rebel, to transgress” (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1955], 833). In the political arena פֶּשַׁע spoke of rebellion of a servant against his master (1 Kings 12:19; 2 Kings 1:1; 3:5, 7; 8:20, 22), and it was used in the spiritual realm to speak of Israel’s rebellion against God (Isa. 1:2; 43:27; Jer. 2:8; 33:8).
35. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 393; Page Kelley, “Israel’s Tabernacling God,” Review and Expositor 67 (1970): 490; and Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, 15. “The more horrendous the offense, the greater the threat to purity of the sanctuary and the surrounding community by the presence of the offender” (Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 74).
36. For illustrations of this point see Exodus 20:5; 32:10; 34:14; Numbers 17:11; 25:11; Deuteronomy 4:24; 6:14; 9:8; 29:17–19; Joshua 9:20; 22:20; 24:19; 2 Kings 13:3; 2 Chronicles 24:18; 28:13; Isaiah 9:11; 10:4; 12:1; 16:20; 26:11; 47:6; 51:22; 65:5; 66:15; Jeremiah 7:20; 23:19; 32:31; Ezekiel 22:9–22; 39:25, and others.
37. John Laughlin, “The Strange Fire of Nadab and Abihu,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 562. See also Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, 317; Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 165; and Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 70–72.
38. It is possible to understand that this punishment was institutionalized in the penalty of being cut off. Levine has noted this in regard to five offenses: violation of the Sabbath and improper observance of festivals, violations of certain laws of purity, certain prohibited sexual unions, cultic offenses, and failure to circumcise (Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 242).
39. This motif is traceable back to the garden in Eden. When God threatened the first couple with death, though including aspects of physical death, the emphasis was separation from God’s presence in Eden. This would have been noted by the generation of Israelites who were about to enter Canaan. (For Eden as a picture of the presence of God in the tabernacle, temple, and New Jerusalem see John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 100.)
40. Cleansing through blood would not always have been necessary if the other prescriptions of the Law had been followed. Yet if these cleansing prescriptions were not followed, and the unclean person came into contact with the tabernacle, then cleansing by blood became necessary.
41. Stefan Porubcan, Sin in the Old Testament: A Soteriological Study (Rome: Herder Roma, 1963), 360–61.
42. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 26.
43. “Every cleansing is ipso facto a hallowing or consecrating; and vice versa, every consecrating is ipso facto a cleansing.. .. The very act of presenting a thing to God consecrates it and therefore cleanses it” (S. C. Gayford, Sacrifice and Priesthood: Jewish and Christian [London: Methuen, 1953], 113).
44. Milgrom, The Encroacher and the Levite and the Term ‘Aboda, 7.
45. Milgrom noted that as a consequence of the Korahite plague, the people developed a phobia toward the tabernacle and would not come near it (Num. 17:12–13). To calm their fears, the assurance was given that from then on priests and Levites would serve at the tabernacle (18:1–7) (ibid., 22–23). This again shows that God’s presence made it necessary for some legislation to be implemented.
46. Ezekiel also stated that the clothes in which the priests will minister in the holy precincts are not to be worn in the outer court because they are holy. Presumably the purpose will be to prevent their becoming contaminated (Ezek. 42:14). Another instance of something retaining impurity is seen when the bull, which was offered for the purification offering, was to be burned outside the sanctuary (43:21).
47. Other examples of Ezekiel’s concern for purity are seen in his usage of the following words: “clean,” “to clean,” “cleansing,” “defile,” “unclean,” “filthy,” “separation,” and “sanctified.”
48. Regarding the various conditions in Leviticus 11–15 Ross wrote, “Lev. 11–15 seems to be an insertion specifying the impurities that pollute the sanctuary for which the purgation rite of Lev. 16 is mandatory” (Holiness to the Lord, 243).
49. Leviticus 12:1–8; 15:19–33; 18:19; 20:18; 2 Samuel 11:4; Isaiah 30:22; Ezekiel 7:19–20; 18:6; 22:10; 36:17. Why certain things were unclean is unclear. For various theories see footnote 17.
50. For postwar purification from the Midianites in Numbers 31 see Wright, “Purification from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19–24, ” 211–23.
51. Moldy houses are probably said to be unclean because “scale disease” gives the appearance of death (see note 17, where it is suggested that something was branded as unclean if it represented a loss of life fluids). When Miriam was struck with scale disease, Moses prayed, “Do not let her be like one dead” (Num. 12:12). Thus the wasting of the body symbolized the death process as did the loss of semen or vaginal blood (see Milgrom’s discussion of this point in Leviticus 1–16, 43–49).
52. This reiterates the important point of this study. In the present church age God does not consider it necessary to deal with physical aspects of humankind’s fallen condition in relation to communion with Him. But when He dwells physically with humankind, however, the consequences of this fallen condition must be addressed. As Ross noted, “To speak of a fallen world is to speak of the human condition and its environment controlled by death with all the defilements and diseases as part of it” (Holiness to the Lord, 276). During the eternal state no temple will be present, since all will be glorified (Rev. 21:22).
53. See footnote 11 for a discussion of this point.
54. David Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 227–28. For the rabbinic view of defilement and sanctification based on Ezekiel and Leviticus see Avraham Holtz, “Kiddush and Hillul Hashem,” Judaism 10 (1961): 360–67.
55. This offering has traditionally been called the sin offering because the nominal form of the piel is rendered “to miss, go wrong, sin.” However, because of the occasion and purposes of this offering, a better translation of חַטָּאת would be purification or purgation offering (K. Koch, “חטא,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, vol. 4 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 316; Colin Brown, “θύω,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975], 3:419); and Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, 16, 162. Milgrom writes that “sin offering” is “incorrect on all grounds: contextually, morphologically and etymologically.. .. Purification offering is certainly the more accurate translation” (Jacob Milgrom, “Two Kinds of Hatta’t,” Vetus Testamentum 26 [1976]: 237). This sacrifice is chosen for illustration because Ezekiel referred to it fourteen times in nine chapters, thus making it one of the major sacrifices during the millennial kingdom. Also this is the one sacrifice that most clearly reflects the tension that will be present in the millennium which will necessitate the renewal of sacrifices, that is, it will cleanse impurities from that to which it will become attached.
56. On this rite see Jacob Milgrom and D. P. Wright, “נָזָה,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, vol. 5 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986), 322–25.
57. See Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray,” 390–99.
58. For a defense of this meaning of “atonement” see Raymond Abba, “The Origin and Significance of Hebrew Sacrifice,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 7 (1977): 1323; The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of Chicago, “kaparu,” 8:178–80; Bernard Bamberger, Leviticus (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1979); G. R. Driver, “Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch,” Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1956): 34–38; John Donahue, “Sin and Sacrifice: Reflections on Leviticus,” American Ecclesiastical Review 141 (1959): 8, 10; G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (New York: KTAV, 1971), 67–73; Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel, 101–2; Jacob Milgrom, “Sin Offering or Purgation Offering,” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 237–39; Rooker, Leviticus, 52; Ross, Holiness to the Lord, 54; J. E. Stein-mueller, “Sacrificial Blood in the Bible,” Biblica 40 (1959): 561; and Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature, 298, 162. See also Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 8:15; Ezekiel 43:20, 22, 23; 45:18, where the “sin offering” is used of purifying various sacred objects. Three other issues important to the atonement are these: (1) atonement is made “on behalf” of people, thus making them indirect objects (Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray,” 391; Karl Elliger, Leviticus [Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1966], 70–71; and B. Janowski, Suhne als Heilsgeschehen [Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982], 186–89); (2) the synonyms of “atonement” support the major idea of cleansing or purifying (Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” 194; and Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function, 94, 97–98); and (3) in atonement, propitiation does occur, but this sense alone does not take into account a great number of usages in Leviticus and Ezekiel, the syntax, and related synonyms.
59. For further examples of this see the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16:16 for the purification of the most holy place, and verses 18–19 for the purification of the outer altar.
60. Since blood is an impure substance, the leftover blood of this offering was to be poured out at the base of the altar. This does not seem to have any theological significance other than simply disposing of the impurities (Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature, 147.

Garland, Texas - The Work of the Holy Spirit by J. Edwin Orr

Garland, Texas - Complete Commitment by J. Edwin Orr

Garland, Texas - Forgiveness and Confession by J. Edwin Orr

Revival Is Like Judgement Day by J. Edwin Orr

Boy Cries Out for Help on Livestream, then THIS Happens | Voddie Baucham...