Shemini or Sh’mini “Eighth”
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-
Shemini is the Hebrew word for “Eighth”, this is the name for the weekly Torah Portion reading for the Leviticus starting in chapter 9 verse 1 and going through chapter 11 verse 47.
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 2 Samuel in chapter 6 verse 1 through chapter 7 verse 17.
The gospel readings incorporated with the weekly Torah portion readings come from the book of Matthew in chapter 3 with verses 11 through verse 17.
Torah Portion Overview-
In this torah portion, we see the inauguration of the Levitical Priesthood! We see them offer atonement and peace offerings for the priests and for the people. Fire them comes from the Lord and consumes the offerings, symbolizing His acceptance of the offerings and that they are pleasing. Tragedy then strikes, for Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu offer strange fire with incense before the Lord and He consumes them with fire. They die and are carried out by their relatives and are buried. Aaron and his sons are not allowed to mourn, and so they continue the ceremony. The priests are then instructed not to get drunk, perhaps hinting at the reason that Nadab and Abihu committed this offense. Instead of getting drunk, the priests are to teach the difference between what is holy and what is common. Drunkenness is common, priestly service is not. The priests are then instructed on their portions of these sacrifices. Because of the tragedy the goat of purification was not properly consumed by the fire. Lastly we get the laws of the clean and unclean that are to help keep the sacred and holy clean.
In this Torah portion we get an interesting concept that is easy to miss, it is the priests who get to interpret the law. The Torah says that it is they who are to instruct Israel in how to distinguish between the clean and unclean. This makes sense, for the clean and unclean structure was designed to protect the sacred space of the Tabernacle/Temple. The priests, having the charge over the house of God, would logically be the best choice to protect this sacred space with the instructions of the law.
“You are to distinguish between the holy and the common and between the unclean and the clean, and you are to teach the Israelites all the statutes that the LORD has spoken to them through Moses.””
Leviticus 10:10-11 (NRSVue)
However, the priests were not the final authority. When Aaron did not complete the sacrifice, Moses objected and Aaron explained his reasoning. Moses, hearing his argument, agreed with him. This shows that Aaron was able to decide the proper execution of the sacrificial commandments, however, he was still subject to Moses.
“Then Moses made inquiry about the goat of the purification offering, and it had already been burned! He was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s remaining sons, and said, “Why did you not eat the purification offering in the sacred area? For it is most holy, and God has given it to you that you may remove the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement on their behalf before the LORD. Its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.” And Aaron spoke to Moses, “See, today they offered their purification offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, and yet such things as these have befallen me! If I had eaten the purification offering today, would it have been agreeable to the LORD?” And when Moses heard that, he agreed.”
Leviticus 10:16-20 (NRSVue)
Furthermore, it is important to note that the tragic event of the death of Nadab and Abihu shows that the priestly authority comes with a cost. They are able to make decisions (under the authority of the lawgiver), but if they act in a way that violates the law, or goes against Yahweh, they will experience judgement.
By the time of Jesus this was not exactly the case. Each city had a Lesser Sanhedrin, which consisted of 23 members. The Great Sanhedrin, made up of 71 members, was the central authority (like a supreme court) that met in Jerusalem. It was made up of priests (Sadducees), Levites, and Pharisees. The Gospels speak of the High Priest, elders and scribes, which would also be a reference to the Sanhedrin. The priests were no longer the only interpreters and instructors of the law.
It was this group that Jesus referred to as those who sit in Moses seat. But what does this mean? To sit on Moses seat is to interpret the law. However, there may be much to this than just a reference to teaching.
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’s seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it, but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others, but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by others, for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to have people call them rabbi. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father, the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted. “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in you stop them.”
Matthew 23:2-13 (NRSVue)
There are some that view the seat of Moses as a figure of speech, [i] [ii] or a metaphor that referred to their knowledge of the law, [iii] or perhaps to the authority they took to teach the law.[iv] However, it has been discovered by archaeologists, that the Seat of Moses, teaching chair, was a real chair located in the synagogues, [v] although some hold that this was a later addition to the synagogue. [vi] As Ulrich Luz explains in his commentary on Matthew 21-28: A Commentary, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible:
“The “teaching chair” is not, as was consistently thought in the church’s interpretation, a pure metaphor; there is archaeological evidence for it from various ancient synagogues—of course, without the designation “seat of Moses.” It was a marble seat near the Torah shrine on which the learned man sat and taught facing the people… The “teaching chair” in the synagogue is probably associated with the idea of Moses’ authority that came down to the scribes by way of elders and prophets (m. ʾAbot 1.1). Thus the archaeological-realistic and the metaphorical meanings of the term belong together. The aorist “sat” (ἐκάθισαν) can definitely be understood literally. The scribes and Pharisees put themselves on the seat of Moses. That is, in the time to which Matthew looks back, they appropriated for themselves the teaching authority in the synagogues.” [vii]
Thus, the Scribes and the Pharisees “sat in the seat of Moses”, that is, they had the authority to interpret the law. [viii] Of note the Greek word for “sat” is aorist, which can be translated into English as a past tense, although we cannot be certain for the reason of this, a possible explanation will become clear. Either way it is clear that the reference to sitting in the seat of Moses, whether figurative or literal, was a reference to the ability to interpret the law.
However, in the Kingdom, the ability to interpret the law, specifically when it comes to who shall enter or not, was given to Peter, not the Priests or Pharisees.
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:18-19 (NRSVue)
Jesus is using a play on words, identifying Peter, which is the Greek word Petros, which means stone, [ix] with a petra, a Greek word for a bedrock or massive rock formation. [x] He says that on this bedrock Christ will build His church. It is of note that He does not say that God will build, but that He will build. The word for church here is ekklesia, which is the same word used in the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 18:16 for the assembly of Israel at the mountain. Of note it is the Assembly of Israel, but it belongs to Yahweh. Thus, by saying that the church is His, Jesus is equating Himself with Yahweh.
The gates of hell/Hades are synonymous with the gates of sheol, the place of the dead. [xi] The gates of hell will not prevail against this assembly that Christ will build on Peter. Gates, as has been pointed out many times, are defensive. This I believe is a reference to the Gospel and the resurrection! For the gates of the dead will not be able to hold the dead, for Christ will resurrect them. However, it is the task of the church to share the Gospel, and in so doing, rescue people from the kingdom of Hades. Thus the church is in conflict with Hades, and the church will overcome! The gates of Hades have keys, and so does the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus then tells Peter that He will give Him the keys to the kingdom. This could mean that Peter will be the chief rabbi, able to make rulings (halakha), [xii] or perhaps to his teaching authority. [xiii] Keys gave Peter the right to admit or deny entry into the kingdom of God, which was referred to as “binding or losing”. [xiv] As is explained by Donald A. Hagner in Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B of Word Biblical Commentary,
“The words are better taken in the wider sense of wrong and right conduct, on the rabbinic model of specific, practical interpretation of the Torah, the determination of what was permitted and what was forbidden (so too B. H. Streeter, The Primitive Church [New York: Macmillan, 1929] 63; Derrett; Zahn; Davies-Allison; Luz), or somewhat more generally “teaching authority” (Bornkamm, Perspective 11 [1970] 37–50). This interpretation may by extension be construed to include the forgiveness or nonforgiveness of sins (Schlatter; Basser) and thus the determination of salvation or damnation (A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus [New York: Macmillan, 1910] 371; Falk). That is, admission or nonadmission to the kingdom is now to be determined by the disciples’ proclamation of what may be called the Jesus tradition—his proclamation and his teaching (see Korting). cf. the commission of 28:16–20.” [xv]
Thus we can see that binding and losing is a reference to the authority of halakha, interpretation of the law or Torah. However, as Craig S. Keener explains in his commentary on Matthew, it is more than just halakha, it is also about admittance to enter the Kingdom of God.
“In Jewish texts “binding and loosing” (ʾasar and hittir or shera) could refer to authority to interpret the law, hence to evaluate individuals’ fidelity to the law (see comment on 18:18). Some therefore interpret this authority as administrative authority over the church (cf. Bultmann 1968: 138–39n.1). In this context, however, the nuance may be somewhat different than in 18:18: Peter and those who share his role (cf. 18:18) evaluate not those who are in the community, but those who would enter it (a role assigned to the mebaqqer of the Qumran community—cf. 1QS 5.20–21; 6:13–14). In both functions—evaluating entrants and those already within the church—God’s people must evaluate on the authority of the heavenly court; the verb tenses allow the interpretation that they merely ratify the heavenly decree (see comment on 18:18; cf. Mantey 1973; idem 1981; Keener 1987; see more fully comment on 18:18).” [xvi]
Thus we can see that Peter was given the right to admit entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, and also to make rulings. These can be seen to work together. He is to make decisions in order to admit those into the Kingdom.
Originally the authority to bind and lose, to make rulings was with the Priests, and later with the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat in the seat of Moses. However, the authority of the Kingdom was taken away from the Chief Priests and Pharisees,
“Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them.”
Matthew 21:43-45 (NRSVue)
Although some believe that this verse is speaking of taking the kingdom away from the Jewish people, and given to the church (Jew and Gentile), [xvii] [xviii] or the leaders and the Jews both, [xix] I do not see this here. This is because He is speaking about the Pharisees and Priests (the Jerusalem leadership), [xx] [xxi] [xxii] [xxiii] [xxiv] not the Jews in general.
It is interesting though that it says that it will be given to a nation, [xxv] and not to any specific leaders (like Peter, for instance). Many scholars take this to be a reference to the church. However, as David L. Turner explains in Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, this is a bad exegesis, because the entire narrative is referring to the Jewish leadership, not the Jewish people as a whole.
“But if 21:43 speaks of kingdom authority being taken away from the religious leaders, to whom does the text say kingdom authority will be given? Many scholars take 21:43 as teaching that a new “nation,” the church, has replaced the nation of Israel in God’s plan.13 But this view is dubious if the kingdom is taken from the leaders, not from Israel. The parabolic antecedent of the pronoun “you” in 21:43 is the recalcitrant tenants, not the fruitful vineyard. According to 21:45, the Jewish leaders realize that Jesus is talking about them, not Israel as a whole. It is thus a mistake to view 21:43 as indicating the replacement of Israel by the gentile church (Hauerwas 2006: 187).
Nor does Matthew’s use of the word “nation” (ἔθνος, ethnos, 21:43) clearly support this view (A.-J. Levine 1988: 187–89, 207–11; Saldarini 1994: 58–63, 243–47). If the Gentiles were in view here, one would expect the plural, “nations” (4:15; 6:32; 10:5, 18; 12:18, 21; 20:19, 25; 24:9, 14; 25:32; 28:19). The singular ἔθνος would remind Christian Jews of their nation’s lofty role in redemptive history. Although generally the Hebrew Bible uses גּוֹי (gôy, nation) or גּוֹים (gôyim, nations) for Gentiles and עַם (ʿam) for the Jews, many texts use גּוֹי for the nation of Israel, and the LXX usually translates גּוֹי in these texts by the word ἔθνος.14 In Gen. 12:2 God promises to make Abraham into a great nation;15 in Exod. 19:6 Israel’s vocation as a holy nation is stressed at the giving of the Torah (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9). In 2 Sam. 7:23 (cf. 1 Chron. 17:21) David thanks God for the promise of his dynasty by reflecting on Israel as a unique nation. In Ps. 33:12 the psalmist extols the blessedness of the nation whose God is the Lord. Isaiah 1:4 laments the sinful nation. Isaiah 26:2 envisions a day in which the gates of Jerusalem will be thrown open for a righteous nation. Jeremiah 31:36 affirms that Israel will cease to be a nation only if God’s decrees for the sun, moon, and stars cease. Ezekiel 37:22 envisions Israel as one nation.16 The cumulative weight of some fifty such texts indicates that one should not assume the word ἔθνος refers to Gentiles as opposed to Jews. Matthew’s Christian Jewish community would more likely understand ἔθνος as an echo of many biblical texts that call on Israel to fulfill its unique covenantal role (Keener 1999: 515–16). Those who keep covenant (produce fruit) will replace the tenants who refused to do so. Matthew’s community, with Jesus as its ultimate Torah teacher (Matt. 5:17–48), will bear such fruit and will replace the current Jerusalem religious establishment as the leaders of Israel. In this view, “the parable offers a sharp prophetic criticism of the temple establishment and a warning that its days of administration were nearing an end” (C. A. Evans 1995: 406).” [xxvi]
The kingdom is taken away from them because they shut the Kingdom of Heaven up, and thus, failed in their mission to spread the Kingdom of Heaven.
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in you stop them.”
Matthew 23:13 (NRSVue)
However, just as the priest answered to Moses, so too Christ that has the ultimate say. Peter is appointed on behalf of Christ, but the ultimate authority is in Jesus Christ Himself! When He makes a ruling (binding and losing, open and shut) no one has the right to override His ruling.
“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of the Holy One, the True One, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens:”
Revelation 3:7 (NRSVue)
The point of this is that authority, which originally resided in the priests, and was taken by the Pharisees, was transferred to Peter (and later church leaders). Thus, we are to submit to “Peter” and his rulings. What does this mean in every day life? It means that we should submit ourselves to our local church and their authority. This does not mean the church as a right (or need, or hopefully, even a desire) to dictate every day matters. But when it comes to the worship of Jesus, we are to submit to them and follow their judgements.
Torah Portion Scriptural Highlights-
Leviticus 9:1 Atonement and well-being (peace) offerings are offered for the Priests and the people and the fire of the Lord consumes the offerings.
Leviticus 10:1 Nadab and Abihu offer strange fire before Yahweh and He consumes them with fire and they die.
Leviticus 10:8 The priests are not to get drunk and are to teach the difference between the holy and common.
Leviticus 10:12 The priests are commanded to eat portions of the sacrifices.
Leviticus 10:16 The goat purification offering was mishandled because of Aaron’s grief.
Leviticus 11:1 The laws about clean and unclean food.
Haftarah (Prophets) Scriptural Highlights-
2 Samuel 6:1 David tries to brings the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.
2 Samuel 6:5 Uzzah dies because he touched the ark and David stores the ark at the house of Obed-edom.
2 Samuel 6:12 David brings the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem properly and sacrifices and celebrates.
2 Samuel 6:16 David’s wife Michal shames David because he humbled himself before the Lord and she was barren for the rest of her life.
2 Samuel 7:1 David wanted to build a Temple for Yahweh and Yahweh says no, but makes a covenant with David that David’s son will always sit on the throne.
Brit (Gospel) Scriptural Highlights-
Matthew 3:11 Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
Matthew 3:13 Jesus is baptized by John.
References-
i. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 859.
ii. David B. Capes, Matthew through Old Testament Eyes: A Background and Application Commentary, ed. Andrew T. Le Peau and Seth M. Ehorn, Through Old Testament Eyes: New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2024), 283.
iii. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005), 922–923.
iv. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 572.
v. Charles L. Quarles, Matthew, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 572.
vi. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 659.
vii. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2005), 99.
viii. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 541.
ix. William Arndt et al., in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 809.
x. ibid
xi. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 471.
xii. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 429–430.
xiii. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 429.
xiv. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 472.
xv. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 473.
xvi. See footnote: “After surveying views (635–39), Davies and Allison 1991: 638–39 point out that “binding and loosing” apply directly to excommunication only in b. Moʿed Qat. 16a, and conclude in favor of teaching (halakic) authority in this text, seeing Peter as “the authoritative teacher without peer.” France 1985: 256 and Lachs 1987: 257 also find legislative authority here. Cf. also comment on Mt 20:23 (e.g., Emerton 1962).”
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 430.
xvii. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 623.
xviii. Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 231–232.
xiv. Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, vol. 1 of Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 790–791.
xx. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2005), 42.
xxi. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 816.
xxii. David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 516.
xxiii. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005), 878.
xxiv. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 543–544.
xxv. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 816.
xxvi. David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 517–518.
To Watch an overview of this week’s Torah Portion CLICK HERE