No formula appeared with greater insistence in this period of time than "I am Yahweh" or "I am Yahweh your God" (Lev 18:5, 30; 19:2, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37; 20:7, 8, 24, 26. passim). And that was the basis for any and all demands laid on Israel. Her Lord was Yahweh, the God who was dynamically present. What is more, He was holy; therefore, Israel had no choice in the matter of good and evil if she were to enjoy the constant fellowship of one whose very character did not and would not tolerate evil.
To aid the young nation recently released by centuries of bondage into the privileges and responsibilities of freedom, God gave His law. This single law had three aspects or parts: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law.
The Moral Law
The context of God's moral demands were twofold: "I am Yahweh your God," and "I brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" (Ex 20:2). Consequently, the standard of moral measurement in deciding what was right or wrong, good or evil, was fixed in the unwavering and impeccably holy character of Yahweh, Israel's God. His nature, attributes, character, and qualities provided the measuring stick for all ethical decision. But there was, by the same token, an environment of grace - the free loving act of deliverance from Egypt. Israel did not need to keep the law in order to be released from Egypt. On the contrary, since she was so dramatically redeemed, the lever of obligation could not be easily rejected by Israel.
Should anyone doubt that grace was in the foreground of the law, let him carefully ponder the sequence of the Exodus, the journey to Sinai, God's graciousness to Israel during the wanderings, and His forgiveness of the idolatrous and sexually distracted golden calf cultists.
The form of the moral law as found mainly in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2-17; Dt 5:6-21) was overwhelmingly negative. However, this had nothing to do with either the tone or aim of that law. It was simply easier to express a believer's restrictions in a few words, for his freedom was so vast. Besides, all morality is double sided anyway - every moral act is at one and the same time a refraining from a contrary mode of action and the adoption of its opposite. It would make no difference if that law were stated negatively or positively. Further, when an evil was prohibited, as for example murder, that law was not fulfilled when men merely abstained from violently snatching away the lives of their fellow humans. It was only "kept" when men and women did all that was in their power to aid their neighbors' lives. Human life was viewed as valuable since mankind was made in the image of God, and thus life was based on the character of God. Therefore, human life must be preserved and enhanced - both! Nor could one refuse to do either, i.e., to refuse to preserve or to seek to improve the life of his neighbors. Inactivity in the moral realm could never be a fulfilling of the law; that would be equivalent to a state of death. More was required of Israel than merely refraining from doing anything forbidden.
The Decalogue did, however, contain three positive statements: "I am the Lord your God" (Ex 20:2); "Remember the Sabbath day" (v. 8); and "Honor your father and your mother" (v. 12) To each of these three statements having nonfinite verbal forms the other seven negative statements were in turn subordinated. These three positive injunctions introduced three spheres of man's responsibility:
1. Man's relationship to his God (Ex 20:2-7)
2. Man's relationship to worship (vv. 8-11)
3. Man's relationship to society (vv. 12-17).
In the first sphere of responsibility, man was told to love God with a proper internal and external veneration for His person and work. The second sphere declared God's sovereignty over man's time while the third spelled out the sanctity of life, marriage, property, truth, and internal desire.
The Ceremonial Law
The same law that made such high demands on mankind also provided in the event that there was a failure to reach those standards an elaborate sacrificial system. But that was only one of the three strands belonging to the ceremonial law. One had to take note of the tabernacle with its theology of the "tabernacling" God (see later for a development of this point) and the theology of uncleanness and purification.
To begin with the last first, it must be insisted that the "unclean" was not equated in the writer's mind with that which was dirty or forbidden. The teaching of this section of Scripture was not that cleanliness was next to godliness. That may be all well and good, but the word of the text was cleanness, not cleanliness.
Simply put, cleanness meant the worshiper was qualified to meet Yahweh; "unclean" signified that he lacked the necessary qualifications to come before the Lord. This doctrine was closely aligned with the teaching of holiness; "Be ye holy" urged the test repeatedly, for "I the Lord your God am Holy." Similarly, holiness in its positive aspect was a wholeness: a life entirely dedicated to God and set apart for His use.
Many of the basic actions of life left one unclean. Some of these acts often were unavoidable - such as caring for the dead or giving birth - but which nonetheless rendered one unclean. Instead of using this word as his rubric to teach hygiene or sanitary standards, Moses used it to fix in the worshipers' minds the "otherness" in being and morality of God as compared to men.
Had not God told Moses to remove his sandals from his feet because the ground on which he stood was holy? And why so? Wasn't Moses' inner heart attitude sufficient preparation for a proper meeting with God? Obviously not! Proper preparation for worship also led to external acts that involved the whole person and not just his heart. While pride of place is to be given to a repentant and open heart, mankind still must take a holistic view when preparation was being made to meet God. He was radically different from men in general.
But lawbreakers were not left without remedy. Fellowship with God was conditioned only on faith in Himself and what he had promised; if broken by sin, it was rectified by God's forgiveness on the basis of a ransom as ordained by God. The principle was "The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls" (Lev 17:11). Hence the means of dealing with sin was provided for by God Himself in the system of sacrifices.
Not all the sacrifices addressed the problem of the disruption of fellowship between God and man. Some, like the peace or fellowship offerings, were rich times of sharing with one another the gifts of God in His presence. But others, like the whole-burnt offering, sin offerings, or guilt offering, were specifically provided for the hiatus caused by sin's damaging effects.
Forgiveness was not and could not be cheap just as human forgiveness necessitated that someone pay if the reality of forgiveness were ever to be more than a cliche. In the same way divine forgiveness would necessitate the same. And that payment was wrapped up in the theology of atonement (Hebrew root kpr).
Now there are four basic Hebrew words using kpr: a "lion," a "village," to "caulk" or smear a ship with pitch as in Noah's ark, and "to ransom by a substitute." It is this fourth root of kpr, kipper, that interests us here.
Some argued that the fourth word was related to the third, "to caulk," and to Near Eastern cognate words meaning "to cover." But Hebrew usage dictated differently. The noun form clearly indicated that a substitute of one kind or another was always meant (e.g., Ex 21:30; 30:12; Nu 35:31-32; Ps 49:8; Isa 43:3-4). Thus the denominative verb likewise meant "to deliver or ransom someone by a substitute." Man, by his sin against God, owed his very life as a forfeit to God; but God had provided that animals' lives should serve for the time being until the God-man could later give His life as the only proper and final substitute.
How many sins could be atoned by such a system in Israel? All sins of weakness or rashness were capable of being atoned whether they were done knowingly or unwittingly. Leviticus specifically affirmed that the trespass offering was for sins such as lying, theft, fraud, perjury, or debauchery (Lev 6:1-7). And on the great day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), "all" the sins of "all" Israel of "all" who had truly repented ("afflicted their souls" [Lev 16:16, 21, 29, 31]) were forgiven. Indeed the most persistent phrase in the Levitical sacrificial instructions was the assurance: "And he shall be forgiven" (Lev 1:4; 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 16; 16:20-22). Therefore, the old but false distinction between witting, i.e., "sins done with a high hand," and unwitting, i.e., as it was explained, sins done in ignorance of what the law said on the matter, was unwarranted. The unwitting sins (bise gagah), or better still, sins "in error," involved all sin which sprang from the weakness of flesh and blood. But the sin of Numbers 15:27-36, the sin of a "high hand" (be yad ramah), was plainly that of rebellion against God and His Word. So Numbers 15:30-31 explained, "He blasphemed the Lord . . . because he has regarded with contempt the word of the Lord." This is what the NT calls blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or the unpardonable sin. It was high treason and revolt against God with the upraised, clenched fist: a picket against heaven! But this was not to be put in the same class as sins of murder, adultery, or the like. Treason or blasphemy against God was much more serious. Rather, it attacked God Himself.
If all sins, except the unpardonable revolt against God, were forgivable, what part did the sacrifices play and how efficacious were they? Subjectively, they were most effective. The sinner did receive complete relief. His sins were forgiven on the basis of the word of a faithful God and the God-approved substitute. Of course, the efficacy did also depend on the internal state of the sinner's heart (Lev 16:29, 31; and later, Ps 50:10-13; Pr 21:27; Isa 1:11-14; Jer 6:20; 7:21; Hos 5:6; 6:6; Amos 5:25; Mic 6:6-7). And he did get relief from the penalty and memory of his sins. On the day of Atonement there were two goats to indicate two parts of the same act - one goat slain as the substitute so that sins might be forgiven and the other goal led away ('az - "goat" - 'azal - "to lead away" - Lev 16:26) to picture the fact that those same sins were forgotten in the sense that God remembered them against Israel no more.
Nevertheless, man's sin was not objectively cared for as yet. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away or remove sin, and neither did the OT claim it did (Heb 10:4)! These were substituted animals, not people; hence, they could only be symbols of that real sacrifice yet to come. Thus in the meantime there was a "passing by" (paresis - Ro 3:25) of the sins of the OT on the basis of God's declared Word until He would later provide His own final substitute who was a true man, yet one who had not sinned.
The Civil Law
As far as the theology is concerned, this aspect of God's law was a mere application of the moral law to selected parts of the community's life, especially where tensions were likely to develop in that day. True justice and holiness on the part of the judges and rulers was to be measured by the demands of the Decalogue. Accordingly, the civil law illustrated its practice in the various cases or situations which confronted the leadership during the Mosaic era.
----
"The Law of God," Walter C. Kaiser, pp. 114-119 in Toward an Old Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1978.
