What this new Commentary gets Wrong - Part 2

Added: 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]There were parts of this commentary that I genuinely appreciate. Um, the gift language for offerings was great. Um, the emphasis on God dwelling among his people. And like I said, that section on leprosy was super helpful to me personally. And that video I made. Um, my main concern, however, is that sacrifice is consistently interpreted through a particular tradition rather than, in my opinion, a reading of the text that honors the ancient culture and context.

[00:00:32]And this tradition means that sacrifice is interpreted primarily as a penalty, which means sacrifice is viewed as violent and brutal. Um, ritual impurity, skin disease, childbirth, menration is viewed also through a penal lens, which means the sin offering is framed as dealing with an offense or a crime rather than ritual cleansing.

[00:01:01]And this changes the narrative of sacrifice from a gift that draws near to a payment that satisfies a penalty.

[00:01:10]And much of these interpretive issues hinge on how blood is conceptualized.

[00:01:16]And that's where part two will begin in Leviticus chapter 17. [snorts] Because the overwhelming message of Leviticus 17 is that blood represents life.

[00:01:28]Inevitably, however, viewing blood through a penal lens leads to a chain of subtle shifts.

[00:01:37]the focus shifts away from life toward a violent death and bloodshed. And ultimately this lens leads to questions around Jesus. Um is Jesus' blood purifying or punitive?

[00:01:54]Does Jesus sacrifice draw near to God or does it separate the son from the father?

[00:02:04]>> [music] >> All right, part two and we're going to jump straight into Leviticus chapter 17 and we're going to talk about blood. We know from the New Testament uh that Jesus blood cleanses uh and that almost everything is purified with blood. And Leviticus chapter 17 is notably and I think excitingly the chapter that reveals why ancient Israelites viewed blood as having cleansing and purifying properties. Four times in Leviticus 17 uh it says that blood represents life.

[00:02:43]The life of a creature is its blood.

[00:02:48]I struggled with how this commentary introduced the concept of blood from this chapter, Leviticus chapter 17. So this is from Davis's introduction to the chapter. She says, "The shedding of blood is a visceral reminder that the penalty of our impurity, rebellion, and sin is death when the presence of a holy God dwells in our midst."

[00:03:12]Really, if I'm being honest, if the claim is that blood is a reminder of death, I would have preferred to see this stated much earlier in the commentary. Um, because this is a bold claim. I understand the instinct to associate blood with death. Um, especially if someone isn't familiar with where their meat comes from and how their meat got from the farm to their fork. But the whole point of Leviticus 17 is to remind the Israelites that blood represents life. Um that they are not to consume blood because it is the creature's life and that God has given this lifeblood to them on the altar to make atonement for them because it is the blood. It is life that makes atonement. It's the life that removes the impurity of death and sin.

[00:04:10]There's nothing about death or a penalty associated with sacrificial blood. In fact, if you read from verse three in chapter 17, this is what you'd read.

[00:04:23]This is what the Lord has commanded. Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside it instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent to the tent of meeting uh to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord.

[00:04:41]That person shall be considered guilty of bloodshed. They have shed blood and must be cut off from their people.

[00:04:50]What this is saying [snorts] is that if an animal is killed away from the altar, it is bloodshed. And here bloodshed is used in the sense uh of murder. Um so away from the altar, he is guilty of shedding blood. The implication is that if an animal is brought to the tabernacle and offered at the altar, it is not bloodshed.

[00:05:17]Okay. I want to talk about a word or a phrase that's used repeatedly throughout this commentary. Uh it's the word bloodshed. Um or the phrase the shedding of blood. And David Davis uses this uh repeatedly to refer to a sacrificial death. [snorts] She says as they hand over the goats, they know that the only means by which their life as a community can be preserved is by blood being shed on their behalf.

[00:05:47]And again, I understand the sentiment, the word bloodshed or the shedding of blood. It links uh with the idea of slaughter. And on the surface, it might seem like appropriate Leviticus language to link blood and bloodshed and slaughter. [snorts] To our English ears, however, that term bloodshed, it conjures up images of violent killing or mass slaughter. One dictionary uh even describes bloodshed as killing and a violence.

[00:06:20]And I think that Davis is indeed associating bloodshed with death because elsewhere she says that it's through the death of the animal that saves.

[00:06:32]Okay, [snorts] first context. Um, talking about a woman menrating, Davis says, quote, [snorts] "She needs to ensure that her impurity is removed from God's presence through the shedding of blood or through death. [snorts] And for a man, she says, quote, his discharge is still a cause of impurity, and the man needs to ensure that his impurity is removed from God's presence through the shedding of blood."

[00:07:02]Right? in Leviticus. Um, sacrificial blood, like I've said, is overwhelmingly associated with life. Blood is life. I don't think you can get away from that fact. Read Leviticus chapter 17. Um, and so to substitute the idea of lifeblood with a term bloodshed that reminds us of death, I think is unfortunate.

[00:07:28]In Hebrew, however, there's a deeper layer. Blood being shed is a technical Hebrew ritual term and I just did a video on this so it's still fresh in my mind. Um but I'll try and quickly summarize it here. [snorts] Um firstly I do wonder if Davis is um I've lost my place. I do wonder if Davis is using the term shedding of blood to connect her readers to Hebrews. Um and I respect that. That's a [snorts] good thing to do. Um Hebrews says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

[00:08:05]Um and that word in Hebrews is a hapax sleon. Um which means that it occurs only one time in the whole Bible. Uh and in Hebrews it doesn't mean without the death of an animal. Um that Greek word that hapacomomenon um is a word that's related um sorry it's word that is used to translate the or related to a word that's used to translate the Hebrew word for blood being poured out. Um and that Hebrew term describes a deliberate pouring out or tipping or spilling. Um it can refer to murder like we read previously, bloodshed. Um, however, in Leviticus, whenever this word is used to refer to an animal or a sacrifice, it's a specific ritual term for pouring out blood at the base of the altar. The word, like I said, is used once to specify that if a person kills an animal away from the altar, then that person is guilty of bloodshed.

[00:09:13]Basically, if an animal that is ritually slaughtered at the altar, um, when an animal is ritually slaughtered at the altar, it's not bloodshed. When that blood is applied or poured out, that's that technical Hebrew word. When blood is poured out at the altar, the blood represents life, a life that cleanses and purifies.

[00:09:39]Okay. Now I want to read a quote from the first chapter of the book where Davis is discussing the burnt offering and this quote will be particularly significant um and it will take us to the end of this review.

[00:09:55]She says, uh, once the giftgiver, sorry, once the gift has been accepted, the giftgiver presses his or her hand on top of the living bull's head. The purpose of the hand pressing is for the giftgiver to identify with the living animal and for the animal to be identified with the giftgiver.

[00:10:20]This hand pressing continues as the giftgiver reaches to the neck of the bull with a knife and slaughters it. As the unblenmished bull is surrendered from life to death, the giftgiver's identification with the bull is so that the animal can be accepted on the giftgivers's behalf. The act of handpressing expresses, let this unblenmished bull be accepted in mystead.

[00:10:46]There's a lot in there, right? Um, and there's a lot that doesn't sit right with my understanding of Leviticus and ancient sacrifice in general. Um, so what I want to do to finish is I'll use that quote for some structure and I'll spend the rest of the time addressing four issues from that quote. [snorts] Um, first the knife in the neck. Um, second the hand pressing. Third that phrase surrendered from life to death.

[00:11:14]And for the phrase in mystead, that's enough to keep us going for the end of the video. Uh first up, I'll address the knife and the neck. Um because that's kind of easy to tick off.

[00:11:27]You won't find the word knife in Leviticus at all. Um this is because Leviticus never explains how to slaughter the animal, nor will you read about an animal's neck being cut.

[00:11:40]We do know that a knife was used. Um but we know this from extra biblical texts.

[00:11:46]Um but this unfortunately hasn't been acknowledged in the commentary. Um ritual texts communicate meaning. And if the method of slaughter was important to the meaning of the ritual, if a knife and a neck communicated meaning to the sacrifice, Leviticus would include that detail in the instructions. But it doesn't.

[00:12:12]A commentary needs to be careful. It needs to be careful and precise.

[00:12:17]And Davis has said that the hand pressing continues as the giftgiver reaches to the neck of the bull with a knife and slaughters it. But none of this is present in the text of Leviticus. We just aren't told that the hand pressing continues through the slaughter. No knife is mentioned and the neck isn't mentioned.

[00:12:41]Okay, the hand press [clears throat] um Davis said from her quote, "The purpose of the hand pressing is for the giftgiver to identify with the living animal and for the animal to be identified with the giftgiver."

[00:12:58]Leviticus never explains what the hand pressing represents. And again, I've got a whole chapter um on this in my book and I did a lot of research on this. Um but the upshot is that we don't really know what the hand press uh communicated.

[00:13:16]And I find it unfortunate that Davis doesn't acknowledge this. While she does provide a footnote um to support her claim, she overlooks the lack of scholarly consensus on the issue. And for me personally, I really appreciate it when a commentary admits that there's no scholarly consensus and when a commentary just presents the various interpretive theories. Um, for example, one thing I really love about Robert Alter's commentary on the Hebrew Bible is how he'll often acknowledge that we don't know exactly what a particular word might mean. Um, and then he'll explain why the context leads him to translate the word that way. Um, for me that's a sign of a wellressearched and honest commentary.

[00:14:03]Um, elsewhere in the book, Davis says this quote, "When the elders press their hands on the living goat's head, the goat is identified with the guilt of the people caused by their sin, and then the goat is killed as the penalty that their guilt deserves."

[00:14:24]So, here's that familiar penal language coming through. And if you haven't watched the first video, go back and watch the first video or you might be completely lost. This is part two. Um, so this is that familiar penal language.

[00:14:39]Um, and we've got substitutionary language here as well. Um, but here there's another popular tradition that's coming through as well. Um here Davis is introducing the idea of transference of guilt or penalty. Um she's suggesting that the guilt of the people is transferred to the animal and that the animal experiences the penalty that their guilt deserved.

[00:15:07]And again transference of guilt is a theory that's held by some scholars but I struggle to see any transference language in Leviticus. um except of course for the scapegoat when there is definitely a transferal of sin and iniquity and transgression.

[00:15:27]Um but not anywhere else in Leviticus.

[00:15:30]Uh Davis goes on to say quote atonement was achieved through the bull becoming sin for the culpable community.

[00:15:39]Here she says the bull becomes sin. And elsewhere she stated that a function of sacrifice was to quote bear the responsibility of guilt.

[00:15:52]Okay, I'm about to get technical, but first before I do, um, an animal could not become sin.

[00:16:01]All offerings in Leviticus and in the Bible were pure and holy. If a sacrifice became sin, they'd contaminate the altar or they'd defile holy space. And this is why nothing impure or sinful could be brought into holy space.

[00:16:20]But where I wanted to get technical, I want to address the idea of bearing the responsibility of guilt because bearing guilt or bearing sin is a profound and wellressearched Hebrew idiom. And I'm quite passionate about understanding this uh correctly because this way of understanding guilt and forgiveness, it's so foreign to our modern western minds.

[00:16:48]But I actually find this ancient Hebrew worldview quite beautiful. The Hebrew word is nasa and it means to bear or lift up or carry or lift off. Um and the Hebrew Bible frequently talks about bearing sin or bearing guilt.

[00:17:09]Um and the Bible is specific about who bears sin or technically who naron who bears iniquity. So a person might bear their own iniquity um if they remain in their impurity. So if they've sinned or they've touched something impure and they do nothing about it, then they nasar on they bear their own iniquity.

[00:17:38]But the beautiful thing is that someone else can nasa or lift off their guilt for them. So in this case we [snorts] translate Nessa as forgive or forgiveness. And this is what God frequently does in the Old Testament.

[00:17:56]He, Nasar Avon, he forgives iniquity or he removes or lifts off the burden of sin or guilt. Uh, who else? Uh, the suffering servant in Isaiah, Nasar Avon.

[00:18:11]Um, [snorts] priests in Leviticus and Exodus, they Nasar Aon. Um, but that is a whole rabbit hole. I won't go down there. Um so if a hand on the head of all sacrifices as Davis is suggesting if a hand on the head transfers guilt to all sacrifices um so that it becomes sin why is it only after touching the scapegoat that a person becomes impure and needs to wash and cleanse themselves?

[00:18:45]Well, it's because the scapegoat does Nasar. The scapegoat is the only animal in Leviticus that is explicitly said to bear sin. And so, it's the only animal that causes someone to become unclean after they touch it. [snorts] But the rest of the sacrifices, they receive a hand on the head, but they remain holy.

[00:19:08]They can be eaten. They can be eaten in a holy place and they ascend as a pleasing aroma to God. They ascend into God's presence. So they could not become sin.

[00:19:22]Okay. The phrase surrendered from life to death.

[00:19:27]Um Davis said, here's the quote, "The giftgiver slaughters the animal and the unblenmished bull is surrendered from life to death."

[00:19:37]I get what Davis is trying to communicate here. Uh I think she's trying to convey the idea of giving a gift and that gift goes through a transference from life to death as it becomes a sacrifice.

[00:19:51]However, transferal from life to death is not a concept present in Leviticus.

[00:19:58]Uh, the bull's blood is wiped onto the altar, but the bull's blood represents its life, not its death. And conceptually, it is the bull's life that's being applied to the altar to purify it. So, if anything, we could say that the bull's life is being transferred onto the altar. Um, and as I said before, death could not come into contact with God's holy altar because death would defile the altar. Death would defile sacred space. Um, however, in the words of Leviticus, there is a transference that happens on the altar, but it's not a transference from life to death. In Hebrew, the transference is in the smoke.

[00:20:50]And various scholars have noticed this.

[00:20:53]Um, in her book, Leviticus as Literature, Mary Douglas quotes another scholar, Jacob Mgrim, saying that uh, quote, "In Hebrew, the verb to turn into smoke is not the same as the verb to burn, which is used for non-sacrificial incineration.

[00:21:14]It means turning something into something else. Smoke. In Leviticus, the offering is not destroyed but transformed into smoke. It's a transformation from one kind of existence to another.

[00:21:31]End quote. Um and Michael Morales um in his commentary he says quote the burning right transforms the animal's flesh into a pleasing aroma transporting it to God's heavenly abode as the smoke ascends from the altar. End quote.

[00:21:53]What the Hebrew phrasing is communicating is that there is a transference.

[00:21:59]the offering is transformed into smoke.

[00:22:02]Uh a substance that's associated with the spiritual realm. Um and it doesn't go down towards shol. It doesn't go down towards the place of death, the place of the dead. It goes up, it ascends up into the heavens.

[00:22:19]And this is exactly why the burnt offering in Hebrew is called the Allah, which literally means that which goes up. Um, that's why many scholars call the burnt offering or the Allah an ascension offering.

[00:22:34]And I think this is one reason why you need to be so careful because sacrifice is directional. It's explicitly in the Hebrew directional. Um, when Israel's pagan neighbors offered sacrifices to the dead, their offering went down towards the dead. But Yahweh tells Israel to make his gifts ascend.

[00:23:02]Okay. Lastly, in mystead, and here we're quite obviously talking about substitution.

[00:23:10]Um Davis said this. Here's the quote just to refresh. She said um the giftgivers's identification with the bull is so that the animal can be accepted on the giftgivers's behalf. The act of handpressing expresses, let this unblenmished bull be accepted in mystead.

[00:23:30]So here Davis has interpreted an animal being accepted on his behalf to mean in hisstead.

[00:23:41]So on his behalf is language straight from Leviticus.

[00:23:47]The NIV, for example, in Leviticus chapter 1 says the burnt offering is accepted on their behalf.

[00:23:55]But does that mean the burnt offering is being accepted um instead of the giftgiver? Is the burnt offering being accepted in theirstead, in their place?

[00:24:07]Well, in Leviticus chapter 23 in verse 11 again, the NIV says, "When you enter the promised land and you gather its harvest, he is to wave the sheath before the Lord, so it will be accepted on your behalf." That's a sheath of wheat. And I'm not sure that wheat is being accepted instead of the giftgiver.

[00:24:32]What about in theirstead? What about that language? um is that language you'll find in Leviticus?

[00:24:40]Well, there is a Hebrew word that gets translated as in theirstead.

[00:24:47]Uh in Leviticus 16:32, for example, um it describes the high priest's son who quote shall be consecrated to be priest in his father'sstead end quote. Um, the same word appears in Leviticus 14:42 where it describes stones for a house [snorts] being selected in the place of the discarded stones.

[00:25:14]Um, and it shows up in Numbers 3:12 where God says, "I have taken the Levites in place of every firstborn Israelite."

[00:25:27]So, the word exists in Hebrew in theirstead. Um but that Hebrew word is never used to refer to an animal for sacrifice.

[00:25:37]Uh later in the book in this commentary when defining atonement Davis clarifies what she means by in theirstead. She says quote the life of another is needed to be sacrificed in thestead of the giftgiver. It is blood for blood life for life. In this way, the sacrifice ransoms the life of the Israelites. End quote.

[00:26:03]Then Davis links this to Jesus' death, saying that by shedding his blood, he was quote paying the penalty of death that our rebellion and guilt deserved.

[00:26:18]And look, I feel bad because this is in no way unique to Katherine Davis. Um, this is a common view among those who see sacrifice as satisfying a penalty.

[00:26:32]So, take what I'm about to say um, as a general comment on what it looks like to view sacrifice through a penal lens.

[00:26:41]What happens is the focus shifts from a gift to a payment. from blood representing life to a brutal death.

[00:26:52]From a pleasing aroma to a punishment, a penalty.

[00:26:57]And sometimes this view leads people to suggest uh that Jesus was punished by the father and that the punishment was so severe that the father and the son were separated.

[00:27:13]And Davis seems to head in this direction.

[00:27:18]Quoting from Douglas Moo, Davis says, "Christ suffered exclusion from the people of God and more terribly separation from God the Father himself."

[00:27:32]She immediately follows this by a quote um sorry follows this quote by saying quote as a new covenant community we are no longer under threat of the covenant curses or of being permanently excluded from God's presence because Jesus has become that curse for us. End quote.

[00:27:54]Now, I'm not sure if it's her intent, but to my ears, that reads as though Jesus and the father were separated.

[00:28:05]And this gets into really, really sticky theological ground. And it raises questions about how we understand the relationship between the father and the son and the eternal nature of the trinity.

[00:28:20]inevitably seeing sacrifice as a penalty leads to this kind of conclusion. Um, but that's actually the opposite of what a sacrifice is doing. A sacrifice by definition, by its very definition in Hebrew, a sacrifice is about drawing near to God. Um, so as I wrap up this review, I want to stress that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

[00:28:54]In Leviticus, presenting an offering is conceptualized as drawing near to God.

[00:29:01]The Hebrew word corban comes from a root meaning to come near, as I just said. So an offering is at its core about approaching God. So Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice could not have been a separation from God.

[00:29:20]An offering was a gift, an unblenmished gift which was given upwards which ascended to God that ascended into the heavens as a pleasing aroma.

[00:29:34]And this is how Paul describes Jesus sacrifice in Ephesians 5. He says, "Be imitators of God, therefore, and walk in love just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

[00:29:54]There's a lot more I could say, um, but I'll finish. Um, I hope this video was a fair critique and I hope it didn't come across as a hit piece. My goal wasn't to tear down a commentary or an author and so I I sincerely hope that I haven't done that. Um, I'm sorry if at any point I came across as disingenuous or if it felt like a personal attack. I tried really hard to be fair. Um, my goal in making the video is to basically just encourage everyone to take Leviticus seriously. Um, because I've discovered the beauty that comes from reading Leviticus carefully, from reading Leviticus on its own terms, um, within its ancient neareastern context. And I really want others to experience that beauty, too. I want people to read commentaries. I especially want people to read commentaries on Leviticus. And I want them to come away with a bigger and richer understanding of God's desire to dwell with humanity. I want people to experience the magnitude of God's plan to unite humanity to himself.

[00:31:07]That's basically what my whole YouTube channel is about. [snorts] Um about two years ago I started [music] with Leviticus chapter 1 verse one and I've slowly been working my way through most verses through the entire book. I think at the moment we're up to [music] chapter 15. Um so if this video has helped you um I'd love it if you'd subscribe. Um if you've got [music] any questions let me know. I'm happy to chat. Um or you'll probably find one of my videos >> [music] >> um on the subject if you check out my channel. Um, as I said at the beginning, I'm expecting push back because people have views, people have strong views.

[00:31:48]Um, and I welcome that. I [music] really do. Um, but please choose words that are kind and compassionate and slow to anger and abounding in love. [snorts] Peace.

[00:32:01][music]