Biblical Horizons Newsletter
No. 13: A Male Without Defect
by Peter J. Leithart
May, 1990

BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 13
May, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons

Under the Levitical law, whole-burnt offerings from the herd and flock had to be male. No such specification is made with respect to birds (cf. Lev. 5:7-10). Why did the Lord demand that only males be offered as whole-burnt offerings? The easy answer is that the whole-burnt offering typified Christ, and Christ was a man. Another easy answer is that of Kellogg, who says that the male is offered because it is "the stronger, the type of its kind."

But these answers are too easy. Females could, after all, be offered for other kinds of sacrifice. Peace offerings typified Christ as much as did whole-burnt offerings, but females could be offered as peace offerings (Lev. 3:1); females, in fact, were required for certain kinds of sin or purification offerings. Andrew Bonar recognizes this difficulty, but tries to work his way around it: the peace offerings "typified rather the effects of Christ’s atonement on the receiver than Himself atoning." In other words, the peace offering typified Christ’s work, but not His Person. Such an artificial distinction is wholly unsatisfactory.

Harrison suggests that "The choice of a male [for the whole-burnt offering] may reflect the dominance of that sex in other than matriarchal societies, but it may well have embraced a more pragmatic purpose also. Where a choice was involved, male animals were more expendable than females in a society in which livestock was equivalent to both capital and income. Fewer males than females were necessary for the survival of the herds and flocks, since the male was utilized only periodically for purposes of breeding. By contrast, the female functioned as a continual provider of milk and its byproducts in addition to producing new livestock from time to time." Again, this does not explain why God would permit females to be sacrificed as peace offerings.

Perhaps the answer to this question lies in understanding that these sacrifices and animals symbolized different strata of the Israelite socio-liturgical order. These parallels are clearest in Leviticus 4, which describes the sin offering. The data can be summarized as follows:

Note that a female was required from a commoner, not simply, as in the case of the peace offering, permitted.

What are we to make of this? Initially, it seems plausible to suggest that the sex of the sacrificial animal represented the offerer’s symbolic "gender." Thus, the priest, as a "husband" of Israel, is appropriately represented by a male; so also for a leader of the people. A commoner, as a representative of the "bride," is appropriately represented by a female animal. The anomaly in this explanation is Leviticus 4:14, which requires that a bull be sacrificed as a sin offering for the congregation. Wenham argues that the "congregation" was "a sort of parliament with representative and judicial functions" that represented the whole nation. One would expect that a sin of the entire "bride," or of the representatives of the bride, would be atoned by a female animal.

It may be possible to explain this anomaly by noting that the Israelite community as a whole is always represented by males. Blood of a male lamb that was spread on the doorposts at the Passover (Ex. 12:5). Males alone were circumcised. The firstborn sons were selected to minister before the Lord, and were later replaced by the sons of Levi. This explanation of Leviticus 4:14 becomes more plausible when we note that the bull in that verse is called a "son of the herd." Also, the elders of Israel laid their hands on the bull’s head (Lev. 4:15). In other words, it is fitting that the congregation as a whole was represented by males. (It is also fitting that both the congregation and priest be represented by bulls; this shows a parallel between the priesthood and the priestly character of the congregation.)

Can we use this same scheme to explain the permission of female animals in the case of the peace offering? It would seem not. The law of the peace offering does not connect the gender of the animal with the office of the offerer. Rather, it permits either male or female for any offerer. Another kind of explanation seems necessary to explain the peace offering.

Perhaps we can explain the gender of the whole-burnt and peace offerings by considering who "ate" them. The whole-burnt offering was consumed entirely on the altar, wholly "eaten" by God (cf. Num. 28:2). It was appropriate that the Lord, the True Husband of His people, should "eat" a male animal. By contrast, the distinctive part of the peace offering was the fact that the lay worshiper was permitted to eat from it. In the peace offering, God and the Bride ate together. Thus, either male or female animals were appropriate. (Alternatively, we might say that the flesh of the peace offering was shared by the priest [male] and worshiper [female]).

Can be apply this same logic to the sin offering? Who "ate" the sin offering? That depended on whose sin was being atoned. In each case, the fat was burned to the Lord, as in the peace offering (Lev. 4:10). But the hide, flesh, head, and legs had different uses. The disposal of the flesh is summed up in the chart below:

In the case of the sin offering, there is no correlation between the sex of the animal and the disposal of the flesh. The gender of the animal is not related to the "eater."

Finally, we can perhaps relate all of this to the tabernacle structure, as follows:

Thus, it would appear that we can discover no single rationale for the gender of sacrificial animals. My tentative conclusions are as follows:

1. The sex of the animal is always determined by the socio-liturgical status either of the offerer or of the "eater."

2. In the case of the sin offering, the gender was determined by the offerer’s socio-liturgical status.

3. In the case of the whole-burnt and peace offerings, the sex of the animal was related to the status of the "eater."

Biblical Horizons Newsletter
No. 13: He Shall Be Called A Nazarene
by Peter J. Leithart

BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 13
May, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons

Matthew 2:13-23 has a tripartite structure, reporting briefly three events of the early years of Jesus’ life. Matthew ends his narrative of each event with a "fulfillment formula." Jesus’ flight to Egypt and His Exodus back into Israel was a fulfillment of Hosea’s words, "Out of Egypt I call my Son" (Mt. 2:15, cf. Hos. 11:1). The slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem was the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy about Rachel weeping over her children (Mt. 2:18; cf. Jer. 31:15). Both of these fulfillments strike the modern reader as somewhat forced, but explainable. The underlying assumption about the fulfillment of Hosea’s prophecy is that Jesus was the true Israel, and that He "recapitulated" and reversed the history of God’s people. Similarly, the parallels between Jeremiah’s prophecy and the slaughter of the innocents are evident, though the event in Rachel’s life to which Jeremiah (and Matthew) referred is obscure, if indeed a reference to a particular event in Rachel’s life was even intended.

The problems with the third fulfillment formula are more acute. The most obvious problem is that there is no Old Testament reference to Nazareth, or to the Messiah being a resident of that town. As commentators have pointed out, however, Matthew’s language suggests that he is pointing to a prophetic theme, rather than a particular prophecy; he says that Jesus’ residence in Nazareth fulfills "what was spoken through the prophets," not "what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet," as in 2:15. That is, the plural "prophets" used in verse 23 indicates that Matthew was not claiming to provide a quotation from a particular prophecy.

Even if we are correct that Matthew was referring not to a single prophecy, but to a prophetic theme, we are still confronted with the question of where this theme appears. Since Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament, it evidently represents something else. But what?

Commentators have given a variety of answers to this question. R. T. France points out that the title "Nazarene" is sometimes a title of contempt in the New Testament, and the fact that Jesus was from Nazareth of Galilee was treated by the Jews as definitive proof that Jesus was not the Messiah (cf. Jn. 1:46; 7:41-43, 52). Thus, to say that Jesus was a Nazarene is to say that He was a suffering and rejected Messiah, in fulfillment of such Old Testament prophecies as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

Similarly, H. N. Ridderbos suggests an alternative translation of hoti in 2:23: it does not introduce the content of the prophecy, but rather should be translated "for." Thus, the verse does not imply that the prophets foretold that Jesus would be a resident of Nazareth, but rather implies that Jesus’ residency in Nazareth fulfilled something that the prophets foretold. Like France, Ridderbos suggests that "Nazarene" is a "badge of inferiority" that fulfills the meaning, though not the letter, of the prophecies about the humble status of the Messiah.

Barclay connects Matthew 2:23 with Isaiah 11:1, where the Messiah is called a branch (nezer) from Jesse. He suggests the possibility that Matthew was making a pun on the Hebrew word for branch, but admits that no one really knows which prophecy Matthew had in mind. France dismisses this interpretation because the pun works only in Hebrew, but not in Greek. But if, as is commonly supposed, Matthew’s original audience was Jewish, Barclay’s interpretation cannot be so readily dismissed. More serious is the objection that it is not clear what a "nezer from Jesse" has to do with residence in Nazareth, apart from the (vague) verbal similarity.

Others have suggested that Matthew was referring to the institution of the Nazirite. There is no direct reference to the Messiah as a Nazirite, but the Greek word in Matthew 2:23 (Nazoraios) differs by only slightly from the LXX description of Samson the Nazirite in Judges 13:5 (some texts of LXX have Nazeiraios; others have Nazir). Moreover, one might argue that Matthew needs no direct Old Testament quotation to affirm that all the Old Testament types are fulfilled in Jesus. Against this interpretation, the objection has been raised that it seems, like the reference to the branch, to have little to do with the historical event that Matthew is describing.

Is it plausible to argue that Matthew believed that Jesus fulfilled certain Old Testament types only because He lived in places that had a verbal similarity to Old Testament types? If Matthew is simply using the "charades" method of Old Testament exegesis ("A sounds like B, therefore A fulfills B"), what implications would this carry for Matthew’s concept of fulfillment?

I believe that a way can be found out of this dilemma by recognizing the partial truth of the various interpretations described above. I believe that France and Ridderbos are correct that Jesus’ residence in Nazareth fulfilled prophecies about the Messiah’s humility, and His people’s contempt for Him (cf. Jn. 1:11). This interpretation anchors the fulfillment formula of 2:23 firmly to the historical event described in the previous verses. France and Ridderbos err, I believe, in not recognizing that 2:23 points at the same time to Jesus as the Greater Nazirite. In other words, there is an "inner connection" between the humiliation of living in Nazareth and Jesus fulfillment of the type of the Nazirite. In order to understand this "inner connection" we need to understanding something of the character of the Nazirite vow.

The word nazir means separation, and in particular the nazir was separated to a particular task. Often this task involved the prosecution of holy war. Thus, the Nazirite was a temporary priest consecrated to carry on holy war. The Nazirite’s uncut hair points to his special consecration to the Lord (Nu. 6:5). The Nazirite’s abstinence from alcohol should also be seen in this context. Wine has a sabbatical-eschatological character; the Nazirite was forbidden to drink wine, to rest from his labors and to enjoy their fruits, until his task was complete, until the holy war was won. (For a fuller discussion of the Nazirite vow, see James B. Jordan, Judges: God’s War Against Humanism, pp. 221-28).

There is, of course, much more to the Nazirite vow, but these few details shed light on Matthew 2:23. As France and Ridderbos indicate, Jesus’ residence in Nazareth was a part of His humiliation. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Nazirite institution points in the same direction: As the True Nazirite, the True Separated One, Jesus Christ took up the task set before Him on behalf of His people. Nazareth is a sign of self-denial, of kenosis; so also, the True Nazirite denied Himself the joy that He had had with the Father from eternity, and took on the form of a servant. Jesus Christ was willing to empty Himself of glory, to become a Nazarene, so that He could, as the True Nazirite, prosecute the holy war against Satan. As both Nazarene and Nazirite, He was a Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief. As both Nazarene and Nazirite, He endured the cross for the joy set before Him, the eschatological feast that He would enter upon the completion of His task, where He could sit to eat and drink among His people.

This interpretation may seem directly to contradict those passages of the gospels in which Jesus is called a drunkard (cf. Mt. 11:19). There is no reason to believe that the rumors about Jesus’ drinking were fabrications (though, of course, the rumors of drunkenness were false); Jesus, after all, did not defend Himself against these rumors by denying that He drank wine. But if Jesus was known to drink wine, how can He have been a Nazirite?

There are two answers to this question. First, though Jesus drank wine throughout His life, He was still "spiritually" a Nazirite because He fulfilled the meaning of the Nazirite vow: total consecration to the Lord in holy war.

Second, it seems that Jesus took a literal Nazirite vow at a specific moment in His ministry on earth. At the Last Supper with His disciples, Jesus said that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine "from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom" (Mt. 26:29; cf. Lk. 22:18). When He was offered wine mixed with gall before His crucifixion, He refused it (Mt. 27:34; Mk. 15:23). On the cross, it was only when He knew that "all things had already been accomplished" that Jesus accepted a drink of sour wine (Jn. 19:28-30). It makes sense to see all this from the perspective of the Nazirite vow. Facing the culminating battle of His holy war against Satan, Jesus took His Nazirite vow to abstain from the fruit of the vine. And He was faithful to that vow until He was victorious. Following His faithful fulfillment of "all things," He accepted wine and gave up the ghost. Now He enjoys it with His disciples in His kingdom.

On this interpretation, we might reconstruct Matthew’s thinking as follows: Jesus lived in Nazareth of Galilee, a place held in contempt by the Jews; this fulfilled Old Testament prophecies about the suffering Messiah; and the suffering Messiah is the consecrated Nazirite who denies Himself until His task is done. Jesus was from Nazareth, and hence was a Nazarene; the fact that He was a Nazarene indicates further that He faithfully carried out His Nazirite vow to deliver His people (cf. Jud. 13:5), though it cost Him His life.

Biblical Horizons Newsletter
No. 13: Advice From a Sojourner, Part 6
by James B. Jordan

BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 13
May, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons

10. Do not slander [tattle on] a slave to his master, Lest he curse [denounce] you and you be found guilty.

The Sojourner of Proverbs 30 is a humble man. He makes this clear in verses 2-4, where he says that he is stupider than anyone else on earth, but he does know who God is. The theme of humility continues in verses 5-6, where Agur the Sojourner says that man must rely totally on God’s Word, and not on his own. The humble man then asks God to keep him away from lies and vain philosophies, and to keep him from extremes of poverty and wealth, lest he fall into sin (vv. 7-9).

We now come to verse 10. A humble man will not be so arrogant as to meddle in other people’s business. He will not try to drive a wedge between a man and his servant or employee.

The verb "slander" actually means "use the tongue." Here and in Psalm 101:5, the only other place this verb is used, the implication is a bit broader than lying. It could be something true that you are telling. The Bible forbids going up and down the land as a talebearer, even if the tale being borne is true (Lev. 19:16). Slander is any form of damaging gossip, true or false.

Like so many proverbs, this one is quite pithy, and meditating on it can carry us in more than one direction. I see two implications here. First, don’t meddle in other people’s business; and second, don’t tell lies about poor and defenseless people.

On the first point, even if what you report to the master is true, it makes him look foolish when you criticize his servant. It makes it appear that he does not have his house in order. There are people who take it as an insult if you offer them a suggestion. "Are you implying that I don’t know what I’m doing?" they ask. This is especially true of people who are powerful and vain, who are accustomed to getting their way — in other words, the "masters" of this present world. They take any suggestion as a criticism. If you think things could be improved, you are implying that they have not been doing a perfect job.

Of course, if you know someone well and have a good relationship, you might be able tactfully to report to him if an employee is doing a bad job. It all depends on circumstances. In the main, however, Agur’s advice is sound: Mind your own business. Meddling in other people’s affairs does not improve things, and only creates more conflict. If the master does not care enough to keep tabs on his servant, he’s not going to appreciate it if you report things about him.

The second implication of this proverb is that we are not to tell lies about servants to their masters, because the servant may curse us and we may be found guilty. There are several different words for "curse" in the Bible. The "curse on the soil," for instance, uses a term meaning "banish, or separate from." The idea is that man is isolated from the blessing of the soil. Here, however, the word used means "make light of, ridicule, embarrass, dishonor, denounce." It is the opposite of "honor." The best way to translate it here is "denounce." (See Herbert C. Brichto, The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible [Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1963], p. 128.)

The servant, being a poor man, might cry out to God Himself, and the law warns us that if we oppress a poor man and he cries out to God, He will take action against us (Ex. 22:27). On the other hand, if he is an ungodly man who wants revenge, the embarrassed servant will lie in wait for us. When we slip, or when we do something that can be construed as bad, the servant will be quick to tattle on us, just as we tattled on him. He will denounce us, and we may be found guilty.

The word "guilt" here is the word used for the guilt or trespass or compensation offering of Leviticus 5-6. It implies feelings of guilt, true moral guilt before God, and also the penalty and punishment for guilt. Thus, the meaning of the proverb can embrace several scenarios. For one, the servant may denounce you to God, and you may come to feel guilty and be led to make an expensive compensation sacrifice according to the provisions of the law (a ram without defect from the flock — a heavy price to pay for gossip; Lev. 5:17-19).

Another possible scenario: The servant may lie in wait until you do something bad, and then denounce you. You may be found guilty in court, or at least in the court of public opinion. Or again, the servant may stir up enmity against you in the eyes of his master, and you may become guilty in his eyes with the result that you lose a friend, perhaps an important friend.

The most dangerous scenario, however, is the first one. You have meddled in another man’s business, unwisely. Worse, you have tattled on a defenseless poor man, and brought trouble upon him and his family. Being a Godly man, he cries out to God, denouncing you. God stands up to defend the poor, who are His special property. You have sacrilegiously laid hands on God’s property, and that requires you to bear guilt, or else to bring a trespass offering. This is a dangerous position to be in. It is best to avoid it.

(On the poor and defenseless members of the covenant as God’s property, and the trespass offering for attacks on them, see my discussion in Jordan, "The Law of Forbidden Mixtures," pp. 7-8, available from Biblical Horizons .)

Finally, a word about how this relates to Jacob, who is perhaps the author of this passage. Jacob was clearly a poor servant of Laban for many years, and Genesis 30:27 through 31:16 show that Laban and his sons changed Jacob’s wages repeatedly. Doubtless people were reporting to Laban, and Jacob was suffering because of these talebearers. At the same time, however, God saw it all, and protected Jacob. Jacob cried to God, and God appeared to Laban and threatened him (Gen. 31:24). Thus, Jacob well knew this proverb from the inside out.

Copyright © James B. Jordan 1989 - 2007