The latest release from the Apollos Old Testament Commentary series is this commentary on Leviticus. Haven't jumped into this one yet.

---

Product Description

The Old Testament Book of Leviticus is the sequel to Exodus in that it deals with a deeper dimension of the Sinaitic covenant, giving various rules for the life of the Israelites and for the sacrifices and offerings to be performed in the sanctuary. It addresses the question of how the Israelites--human beings--can live in proximity to the holy God who has promised to dwell in their midst.

In this excellent commentary, Nobuyoshi Kiuchi offers in-depth discussion of the theology and symbolism of Leviticus. He argues that its laws present an exceedingly high standard, arising from divine holiness, and the giving of these laws to the Israelites is intended to make them aware of their sinfulness, to lead them to hopelessness and ultimately to destroy their egocentric nature.

To be confronted by the laws in Leviticus is to recognize the vast distance that separates the holy from the unclean and sinful, and so to appreciate afresh the grace of God, ultimately expressed in the life and work of Christ.

---

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1198594 in Books
• Published on: 2007-04
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 538 pages

About the Author
Nobuyoshi Kiuchi is professor of Old Testament at Tokyo Christian University, Japan. He is the author of The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature (JSOT Press) and A Study of Hata' and Hatta't in Leviticus 4-5 (Mohr Siebeck), and a contributor to the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP). He studied in England for his Ph.D. at the College of St. Paul & St. Mary, Cheltenham (now part of the University of Gloucestershire) and the Oxford Centre for Post-graduate Hebrew Studies.

---

Customer Reviews

Interesting commentary, questionable definitions...
Nobuyoshi Kiuchi's commentary builds on recent studies he has done on ritual symbolism, sacrifice, and sin in the Priestly literature. This is both a blessing and a curse. Many of the themes he bases this commentary on have thus far proved unconvincing to the academy if a perusal of relevant journal reviews is any indication. However, this is a fresh perspective that will undoubtedly stretch you to think through the text from a different lens, enriching your own exegesis and application.

As concerns ritual symbolism, Kiuchi argues that the rituals in Leviticus have symbolic meanings that were never supposed to be divorced from the literal observance of the rite. There is therefore an inseparability between the symbols and what they symbolize. He illustrates this idea with appeal to various passages and the uses of different terms throughout Leviticus and non-priestly literature. One example he gives is of the cleanness and uncleanness regulations in between the Nadab and Abihu incident and the Day of Atonement, in Lev 11-15.

Literal observance of the rite, he points out, renders one clean. Yet if "uncleanness" symbolizes the existential condition of the party, which will be addressed below, "then to attend only to the literal observance of these rules would make a person a mere hypocrite." Thus, it is made apparent that "the Lord commands the observance of the symbolic meaning through one's involvement in outward actions." This is to make intelligible spiritual matters to humans who are often ignorant of such matters. Such an understanding also gets to the heart of what is meant by the prescriptions for the various rituals being statues forever throughout the generations (Lev 10:9; 16:29, etc.). If the symbolic meaning is what the ritual drives towards, then in light of Kiuchi's definition of `sin,' it makes sense that offerings and sacrifices could ever be rendered obsolete.

In order to understand this definition completely, Kiuchi's reassessment of the terms "hatta't" and "hata'," commonly translated "sin," needs to be mentioned. It would be pointless to go on at length about this, but he concludes that "the verb [hata'] means to `hide oneself' and that the noun [hatta't] means the state of hiding oneself." Under this definition, "hata'" does not refer to the conduct-oriented term `sin.' Under the more nuanced definition of `self-hiding,' Kiuchi proposes that the function of the sin offering is to uncover the offerer's heart.

Under this interpretation, the sinful actions themselves were not what incited the Lord to anger and required atonement. Instead, what the actions represent is the despising of God's word. They are representative of an "uncircumcised heart" (Lev 26:41). Ultimately, while the consequences of 'self-hiding' must be dealt with even after the 'self-hiding' has been pardoned by the Lord, a failure to have one's "hatta't" forgiven results in being cut off from one's fellowship with the Lord, which is an eternal consequence. The gravity of hiding oneself against the Lord is that it represents a fundamental disposition of one's entire existence, such that "hypocrisy is nurtured by believing that if one violates one commandment, he is observing the rest of the Lord's commandments, whereas in fact he is unaware of his whole existence being lost before the Lord."

Kiuchi also underscores what he sees as subtle and important differences between the terms "ish" (a person), "adam" (a man), and "nepes," which he translates as `soul' or `egocentric nature,' building on the concept of self-hiding. According to Kiuchi, these terms have often been simply translated as `man,' thus losing the nuances evident in the Hebrew text. He takes a more in-depth look at "nepes" before concluding that the human "nepes" is viewed as not only having a strong inclination towards sin and defilement, but it also serves as the agent, and not object, of defilement. He concludes that since "nepes" "refers to the invisible side of a human being, it should be translated `a soul,' with the understanding that, despite having a pure core, it ordinarily manifests itself with egocentricity that constantly reacts, consciously or unconsciously, against God (cf. Hab 2:4)." Thus, the various rituals in Leviticus are aimed at the wicked human soul that constantly hides one's self from the Lord.

Many of his theological conclusions drawn from these understandings are fascinating, but the understandings upon which they are based are problematic. I am not a scholar, but the basic imposition of modern psychology (conscious/unconscious/egocentrism, etc.) on Hebrew words and ANE culture is a bit anachronistic to say the least. To assume that findings from this type of hermeneutic are highly reliable would be a bit of a stretch.

For me, the reading of ritual symbolism is particularly insightful. I love this element of his commentary, especially when it does not depend too much on his definition of hata' and hatta't (which is by no means heretical, in fact his understanding of these words brings a profoundly orthodox view of depravity to the pages of Leviticus, but it's just most likely wrong). I do not think it is a stretch to say that there is more going on in the rituals than the literal observance of the cultic prescriptions.

This has been a good companion volume to Gordon Wenham's concise, intelligible, more sure-footed volume in the NICOT series. I recommend it for someone preaching from or interacting with Leviticus, but as with all things: discernment required.

N. Kiuchi's Leviticus (Apollos Old Testament Commentary)
Since I am writing my dissertation on Leviticus I am often asked what is the best commentary on Leviticus. Until now I have said that it is a combination of Wenham, Hartley, and Tidball. I have to say that Kiuchi actually brings together the best elements of all three. He draws on the best scholarship and his comments on the nature and unified whole of Leviticus although developed thematically through the book are excelleent.

yeah good, ooh well thats not good
First let me say that is a commentary that should be consulted for its unique perpective that it brings, and it rightly emphasizes the close connection to Gen 3 in regards to the curse.

But there is a fundamental word study debacle which is key to Kiochi's book. I am speaking of the Hebrew verb chata and the noun chattat as prounounced roughly in English. Anyone can do their own word study on this verb and noun and clearly see that "to hide" and "hiding" cannot be the definition of these words. As a test try to fit Kiochi's definitions in these verses where these Hebrew words appear, which I have in quotes, and see if it makes any sense.


Gen 31:39 That which (Jacob's flocks) was torn by wild beasts I (Jacob) did not bring to you (Laban); I "bore the loss" of it myself. rsv Kiuchi says that this form of chata (called by grammars the piel form) means uncover

Gen. 42:22 - And Reuben answered them (his brothers who threw Joseph into a pit and sold him to traders), "Did I not tell you not "to sin" against the lad (Joseph)? rsv This form is called by grammars the Qal whicn KIuchi translates as "to hide"

Gen 43:9 - I (Judah) myself will guarantee his (Benjamin's)safety; you can hold me personally responsible for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him here before you, I will "bear the blame" before you all my life. niv qal


Ex 10:16 - Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have "sinned" against the LORD your God, and against you. kjv qal Pharoah was doing anything but hiding he was challenging God!

Ex 29:36 - Sacrifice a bull each day as a "sin offering" (the noun form) to make atonement. "Purify" (Piel) the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it. niv noun and verb piel

Num 19:9 - "A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for "purification from sin". niv the noun

Something to cleanse is used to hide??!!


THe other major problem is that the unclean sea animals are unclean because, according to Kiuchi, they look like the cursed serpent of the GArden of Eden??!! A lobster looks like a snake??!!, maybe a cockroach, but not a snake> Is not it simply that the majority of these animals crawl along the sea bottom (the ground of Gen 3) which is cursed by God. which is also where dead carcasses end up in the sea.

I feel a better translation for chata and chattat would be "to stray" metaphorically speaking in relationships "to stray away from the trust built up" And the noun would mean "straying". It seems to fine that the piel form means to "compensate or "purify" and anohter meaning fo rthe noun would be "cleansing" Also Kiuchi rarely refences the LXX and the other forms of the word chata. The hifil form seems to mean "to make go astray" "to miss", and the hitpael form "to free oneself from sin" "withdraw" see Holladays lexicon