Emor “Say”

It is customary for religiously practicing Jews to read from an annual cycle of weekly Old Testament readings called Torah Portions. This is said to be the same reading schedule that was taught every Sabbath in the Synagogues during the times of Jesus in the first century.

As Christians exploring the Torah portion cycle we must maintain a balance of including the Old Testament, the prophets, and the gospels in our weekly bible study.

Torah Portion Name and Readings-

Emor is the Hebrew word for “say”, this is the name for the weekly Torah Portion reading for the Leviticus starting in chapter 21 verse 1 and going through chapter 24 and verse 23.

Prophets and New Testament-

It is also important to point out that along with the Torah portion readings and teachings, there are what are called Haftarah portions which are readings from the Bible in the books of the prophets. This week’s haftarah readings come from the book of Ezekiel in chapter 44 verse 15 through verse 31.

The gospel readings incorporated with the weekly Torah portion readings come from the book of Matthew in chapter 26 with verses 59 through verse 66.

Torah Portion Overview-

In this torah portion, we get mostly laws around the priesthood. We first get restrictions on who a priest may “defile” himself for when a relative dies and restrictions on his grieving practices, including tattoos and shaving the head. Next we get restrictions on who a priest may marry and the punishment of a priests daughter that becomes a sacred prostitute. There are restrictions on the High Priest and restrictions on priests who are “blemished”. Restrictions on the priests when they handle the sacred and the donations and restrictions on offerings. Next we get the the laws of the Feasts of the Lord; the Sabbath, the spring feasts, Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The First Fruits offering and the Feast of Weeks. We get a command to leave the edges of the field for the poor. Then we get the fall feasts; the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths). Then we get some commands related to the Tabernacle and worship; the lamps were to burn night and day and the Bread of the Presence. Finally we get the laws around a blasphemer, how a specific one was punished and the law of blaspheme punishment.

Today I want to focus on the High Priest and the tearing of his clothes for mourning. When anyone died in his family, he was not allowed to tear his clothes or exercise any other common expressions of mourning.

“The priest who is chief among his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil is poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose nor tear his clothes.”

Leviticus 21:10 (ESV)

This command goes all the way back to Aaron when he had just seen his two sons die! Even watching this severe judgement Aaron was not allowed to mourn in any common way, because he had been anointed with the anointing of Yahweh.

“And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, “Do not let the hair of your heads hang loose, and do not tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the congregation; but let your brothers, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning that the LORD has kindled.”

Leviticus 10:6 (ESV)

It is further qualified that this restriction to the tearing of clothing refers to all his linen garments.

“And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments.”

Leviticus 16:32 (ESV)

“These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests.”

Exodus 28:4 (ESV)

This is explained by Jacob Milgrom in Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3A of Anchor Yale Bible,

“The definite article on habbĕgādîm ‘the vestments’ means his prescribed officiating vestments. Other garments, even for such special occasions as the unique Yom Kippur rites, must be specified wĕlābaš ʾet-bigdê habbād bigdê haqqōdeš ‘He shall put on the linen vestments, the sacral vestments’ (16:32 [H]).”

So the High Priest could not tear his garments for mourning, but why was he restricted? He was restricted, as we have pointed out, because of the Holy anointing oil. Tearing the High Priests garments could be seen as very severe. As Nobuyoshi Kiuchi explains in Leviticus, vol. 3 of Apollos Old Testament Commentary, improper tearing of the garments could nullify his consecration:

“Dishevelling of the hair and tearing of clothes are gestures for mourning and grief, like the gestures in v. 5. Wenham (1979: 291) aptly comments, ‘His hair had been anointed and his clothes specially designed for him. If he disturbed them, it could serve to nullify his consecration.’”

Why does this matter to us? When a Christian reads of this we would naturally think of the High Priest at the trial of Jesus. When the High Priest asked Jesus about His Messianic claims Jesus answered him:

“The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death.”

Matthew 26:62-66 (NRSVue)

Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Daniel about a Son of Man who has the power of a God.

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

Daniel 7:13-14 (ESV)

The language used here is of a divine figure and the High Priest knew this. Jesus was telling him very plainly that He was divine, and that as the Messiah He was going to rule. But He said more than this, for He said He would sit at the right hand of Yahweh. The High Priest then, seeing blasphemy, tore His clothes. As Craig S. Keener explains in The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary,

“By whatever means they construe his words as blasphemy, the high priest stands to rend his cloak as custom required when one heard blasphemy (m. Sanh. 7:5; cf. b. Moʿed Qaṭ. 25b-26a; Sanh. 60a; p. Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:7, §§7–8; Sanh. 7:6, §7), following a traditional behavior for mourning (e.g., Gen 37:34; 44:13; 1 Esdr 8:71; 1 Macc 2:14; 4:39–40; 5:14; 11:71; ARN 4, 25A; Char. Chaer. 1.3.4; 3.5.6; 3.10.3; 5.3.4; 7.1.5; Sifre Deut. 43.3.8; p. B. Meṣ 2:11, §1; Sanh. 2:1, §4);126 Matthew shifts Mark’s undergarments to an outer cloak, perhaps implying the sacerdotal robe (Tasker 1961: 256; but historically cf. Lane 1974a: 538).”

There is some question however, if Jesus really committed blasphemy (in their eyes). We know as Christians that Jesus is Yahweh, thus, He cannot commit blasphemy. However, did Jesus commit blasphemy to a Jew? Was the High Priest right to tear His clothes? Grant R. Osborne explains in Matthew, vol. 1 of Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:

“He has blasphemed! Why do we still need any more witnesses? Look, you have heard the blasphemy just now” (Ἐβλασφήμησεν· τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων; ἴδε νῦν ἠκούσατε τὴν βλασφημίαν). This is the key charge and is quite debated. M. Sanh. 7:5 builds on Lev 24:15–16 and says the name of God must be uttered for blasphemy to occur. Technically, the name is not mentioned in Mark 14:62/Matt 26:64 (it is in Luke 22:69), though “Power” is a circumlocution for God and would be taken as such in all likelihood. Brown notes the possible meanings behind the Jewish charge:

1. His followers called him Messiah, but that would probably not be enough for the charge.

2. He called himself Son of God; Brown doubts Jesus or his disciples used that title, but the evidence shows otherwise, and it is certainly part of the solution.

3. He claimed to be Son of Man and to come on the clouds of heaven (Mark 14:62); but though part of the reason, this also is not enough in and of itself.

4. The destruction of the temple claim, but this was not linked with a charge of blasphemy.

5. He was a false prophet and as such deceived the people, but this is not centrally addressed in the trial.

Bock moves toward a solution:

1. Blasphemy per se did center on an inappropriate use of the divine name, but there were also acts of blasphemy, such as idolatry or disrespect toward God.

2. Few were allowed to approach the holy God; even the archangel Michael is never depicted as seated before God; so for Jesus to claim to “sit at [God’s] right hand,” as in v. 64, would be blasphemous.

3. This was not a capital trial but a hearing before the Sanhedrin, so they did not have to be technically correct.

4. Sources for information regarding this trial were plentiful (e.g., Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus), so there is no reason to think this a later fiction.

5. One finds two levels of blasphemy here: Jesus’ claim to have comprehensive authority from God, and his claim to be the future judge of the Jewish leaders themselves (violating Exod 22:28 on not cursing God’s leaders). This latter could also be used as a socio-political challenge to Rome’s authority.”

The debate of a valid conviction is on either side. Yet it seems that Jesus did not commit technical blasphemy but the High Priest, and the Sanhedrin were motivated to obtain a conviction of Jesus and so used this as a reason to convict. Craig S. Keener explains this possibility in The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary:

“Such a claim might have been offensive, but at least later the Pharisees, careful to err on the side of leniency in capital cases (contrast the Sadducees—Jos. Ant. 20.199), would not have construed it as technically blasphemous (m. Sanh. 7:5). Uninfluenced by Pharisaic details, the high priest might be far less cautious about what he would admit as blasphemy, but messianic claims were not themselves blasphemous (Sanders 1985: 298; idem 1990: 64; Mack 1988: 294). Because the priestly aristocracy perceives Jesus as a political threat to the temple establishment and the peace of the nation, however, and because the charge of threatening the temple (which could also function as blasphemous; cf. 1 Macc 7:35, 38) remained unproved by strict standards of investigation, they need a charge quickly. Thus choosing (probably correctly) to construe Jesus’ words as associating himself with God’s majesty, they may imply that Jesus has lowered God’s majesty to his own level (cf. Sanders 1990: 64–67; b. Sanh. 63a). Most uses of “blasphemy” in fact were nontechnical (Brown 1994: 522–23; see comment on Mt 9:3). Then again, this may simply represent another example of twisting the rules to get the job done, so frequent in the rest of the narrative; it does fit what we know about some ancient aristocracies dealing with potential troublemakers (cf., e.g., Hanson and Oakman 1998: 94–95).

One could reasonably argue that the Gospels emphasize a Sanhedrin trial so that Jesus dies for religious rather than political reasons (Fredriksen 1988: 117); but the admission of claiming Messiahship in some form would naturally lend itself to the Roman charge of treason; Roman authorities would understand the messianic category in political terms. A messianic claim could be construed as a threat to Rome (cf. Sanders 1985: 55; Schneider 1984: 414); if the Gospels do portray the leaders of the aristocracy as seeking a charge that was more religious than political, their portrait may err by portraying these leaders as more pious (at least outwardly) than they actually were at the trial, rather than less so (a portrait that may fit Matthew’s understanding of his own community’s opposition; cf. 27:6).”

But did they follow the law when they convicted Jesus? No, they did not. As David L. Turner explains in Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:

“It is clear that this trial was not carried out according to the just legal procedures that are found in the Mishnah (m. Sanh. 4–7; R. Brown 1994: 357–63), which specifies that trials were not to be held at night and that capital cases could not be decided in one day. Additional details in Matthew’s narrative conflict with mishnaic laws for trials. One explanation for this conflict downplays the mishnaic traditions as idealistic and theoretical, written down more than 150 years after the trial of Jesus. But the Mishnah purports to record oral tradition from earlier times. Another explanation is that Matthew created the story as propaganda (Beare 1981: 519–20) to blame the Jews and exonerate the Romans in order to gain Rome’s favor for Christians. But this argument breaks down if Matthew and his community still identified themselves as Jews. A better view is that Matthew’s narrative presents accurate historical information to show that the religious leaders do not follow Judaism’s just standards in dealing with Jesus (cf. Acts 6:11–14; 7:57–58). It is expedient to ignore these rules in order to be rid of Jesus before the crowds become aware of what is happening. Matthew does not blame his Jewish contemporaries for this injustice, let alone the Jews who have lived since then. Rather, the trial narrative continues Matthew’s bluntly negative portrayal of the Jerusalem establishment as corrupt shepherds who scatter the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 9:36). Their interpretation of the law does not focus on the weightier matters (23:23). They follow human traditions that obscure the law’s righteousness (15:1–14). When Matthew’s narrative highlights the corruption of the Jerusalem establishment, it is not anti-Semitic but prophetic.”

We can see then that the conviction of Jesus was not just or legal. What is the importance of this? Well, if Jesus did not commit blasphemy then the High Priest had no right to tear his clothes. Although I do not believe that the High Priest tore his special priestly garments, I think the Gospel writers are making it clear that the meaning they are presenting is a High Priest that is corrupt and twisting the law to wrongfully convict Jesus and murder Him. Thus, the tearing of his clothes represents the greater sin, the twisting of the law and murder, which, combined together would invalidate him as a High Priest. His pronouncement was not just, or valid, yet God used it to accomplish His goals. With the death of Christ comes the invalidation of the High Priest and a greater High Priest, Jesus Christ.

“Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.”

Hebrews 4:14 (ESV)

We do not have a High Priest who is a man, and we do not need one! We have a greater High Priest, one that is able to serve where a man cannot, in heaven. Let us look to Jesus as our Great High Priest and not look to man. Let us worship Him!

Torah Portion Scriptural Highlights-

• Leviticus 21:1 Restrictions on who a priest may “defile” himself for when a relative dies and restrictions on his grieving practices.

• Leviticus 21:7 Restrictions on who a priest may marry.

• Leviticus 21:9 The punishment of a priests daughter that becomes a sacred prostitute.

• Leviticus 21:10 Restrictions on the High Priest.

• Leviticus 21:16 Restrictions on priests who are “blemished”.

• Leviticus 22:1 Restrictions on the priests when they handle the sacred and the donations.

• Leviticus 22:17 Restrictions on offerings.

• Leviticus 23:1 The laws of the Feasts of the Lord.

• Leviticus 23:3 The Sabbath.

• Leviticus 23:4 Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

• Leviticus 23:9 The First Fruits offering.

• Leviticus 23:15 The Feast of Weeks.

• Leviticus 23:22 Leave the edges of the field for the poor.

• Leviticus 23:23 Feast of Trumpets.

• Leviticus 23:26 The Day of Atonement.

• Leviticus 23:33 The Feast of Tabernacles (Booths).

• Leviticus 24:1 The lamps to burn night and day.

• Leviticus 24:5 The Bread of the Presence.

• Leviticus 24:10 A blasphemer is punished and the law given of blaspheme punishment.

Haftarah (Prophets) Scriptural Highlights-

• Ezekiel 44:15 The Zadokite Priests are chosen (excluding all other priests from service) and given laws on their clothing, marital restrictions, actions and told to teach the people.

Brit (Gospel) Scriptural Highlights-

• Matthew 26:59 The Chief Priests and Sanhedrin seek false testimony against Jesus, but when Jesus refers to Himself as the prophesied “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13-14, they judge that He has committed blasphemy.

References-

• Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3A of Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 1813.

• Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus, ed. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham, vol. 3 of Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Nottingham, England; Downers Grove, IL: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2007), 395.

• Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 651–652.

• Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2005), 430–431.

• Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, vol. 1 of Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 999.

• David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 641.

To Watch an overview of this week’s Torah Portion CLICK HERE