Biblical Terms for “Ritual”

English Bibles rarely employ the words “ceremony,” “rite,” or “ritual” to translate biblical terms. The NASB, for example, uses the words “ritual” and “rite” in only three instances, all having to do with the Passover (Exodus 12:25-26; 13:5). The Authorized Version uses the word “ritual” only at Number 9:3. The NIV uses these terms in six passages (Genesis 50:11; Exodus 12:25-26; 13:5; Acts 21:24; Hebrews 9:21), and the Revised Standard Version five times (Exodus 12:24; Number 3:38; John 2:6; Hebrews 9:6, 23), as well as several times in the Apocrypha (Wisdom 12:4; 14:15; 3 Maccabees 6:36). In the New King James, these words appear with somewhat greater frequency, some 15 times in 12 verses (Numbers 9:3, 14; Deuteronomy 23:17; 2 Kings 17:26-40; 23:7; Jeremiah 34:5; Ezekiel 20:26; Hosea 4:14). Among English translations, they are used most frequently in the New Revised Standard Version: 22 uses, plus six in the Apocrypha. Surprisingly, none of the other translations uses these English words in Leviticus, but the NRSV does so thirteen times (Leviticus 6:9, 14, 25; 7:1, 7, 11, 37; 13:59; 14:2, 32, 54, 57; 15:32). Most of these translate torah, which the NASB gives the more usual rendering of “law.” It should be said that not all of these uses of “ritual” are felicitous. Leviticus 6-7 does not provide a full description of the sequences of actions for the various sacrifices, concentrating instead on proper disposal of the “leftovers.” The NASB’s broader and more literal translation of torah in these chapters is well-warranted.

Initially, the relative paucity of uses of “ritual” and “ceremony” in the English Bible seems odd. A great deal of the Pentateuch, after all, is concerned with what theologians call “ceremonial law,” what we would instinctively identify as “ritual” matters. It is possible that certain translations have been influenced by the anti-ritualist bias that characterizes much of modern Christianity, to the extent that even the term “ritual” is avoided. On the other hand, this peculiarity of English Bibles may accurately reflect the reality of the biblical picture of things. None of the Hebrew words translated with “ritual” or “ceremony” have the same range of meaning as our terms. To take the example cited in the previous paragraph, the Hebrew word torah is sometimes used in contexts where English speakers would tend to use the word “ritual.” But torah, of course, has a much broader connotation and usage. The same is true, as we shall see, of other biblical terms whose semantic fields overlap with that of our word “ritual.” While it is risky to infer too much out of lexical data, the lack of a specific biblical vocabulary of “ritual” raises the suspicion that the Bible does not isolate ritual as a distinct sort of activity in the way that we do. In anthropological theories of ritual, it is often assumed that ritual activities are symbolic and expressive forms of action, distinct from the functional and pragmatic activities of daily life. Almost by definition, “ritual” has come to mean “merely symbolic” or “non-functional.” The fact that the Bible does not employ a distinct vocabulary of ritual suggests that it assumes continuities between ritual and other types of activity that moderns find hard to grasp. The biblical evidence thus lends support to “deconstructive” or “genealogical” approaches to modern concepts of ritual.^[1]

Recognition of the historically relative character of our notions of “ritual” does not mean, however, that we need to abandon use of the term altogether. “Ritual” names a set of practices that exists in the real world. The meal that the Church shares as eucharist is different from the common meals of the weak, and since we need some term to highlight this difference, there can hardly be objection to calling it a “ritual” meal. Indeed, rituals generally mark themselves off from other activities through appointment of times, and often through the use of special clothing or music.^[2] To use the term is not necessarily to accept the biases that have constituted its current usage. Diligence must be exercised lest the terminology exert a kind of gravitational pull on theological formulation, lest the terminology function like railroad tracks that force theology to travel in prearranged directions — directions that, while familiar, often lead to dead ends. Indeed, one of the values of examining the biblical terminology of ritual is that its vocabulary, precisely because it is different, can free us from our own prejudices.^[3]

Though the Bible has no distinct language of ritual, it does, especially in the Old Testament, have a rich variety of terms concerned with worship and ceremonies at the house of God. In addition to terms that name specific rites and actions (olah, mincha, terumah, tenupah, etc.), there are several that are used more generally, and thus approach the semantic field of the English word “ritual.” A study of these terms will suggest the contours of a biblical account of “ritual” activity. As noted above, none of these terms is confined to ceremonial contexts, and this study proceeds on the assumption that the meaning of these terms in ritual contexts can be illumined by an examination of their use in other contexts. As the few “secular” uses of cohen (“priest”) help us understand the nature of the Aaronic priesthood, so the non-liturgical uses of liturgical terms will help us understand the liturgical uses and the meaning of the actions that these terms describe.

Ordinance (choq; chuqqah).

These nouns are related to several other words. chaqah is used in the pual only three times in the Old Testament: in Ezekiel 8:10, the prophet “digs” or “scratches” through the wall of the temple in order to see its abominations; in 1 Kings 6:35, we are told that gold was overlaid on the cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers that were “engraved” on the temple walls; Ezekiel 23:14 uses the word to refer to the relief carvings of Chaldeans that incite Israel to lust. The verb is used only once in the hitpael, in Job 13:27, again with the connotation of “carve” or “scratch.”

A number of the uses of chaqaq have a similar meaning. It is used to describe hewing of a tomb (Isaiah 22:16) and inscribing words on a scroll (Isaiah 30:8), a book (Job 19:23), or the palms of God (Isaiah 49:16). Ezekiel scratched an image of Jerusalem on a brick (Ezekiel 4:1). The verb is used twice in Proverbs 8 to describe God’s activity in creation (vv. 27, 29). From these senses arises the meaning, “to decree” (Proverbs 8:15; 31:5; Isaiah 10:1). A “decree” is what has been “scratched” or “inscribed” as a permanent law. As as substantive, the word sometimes takes on the meaning of “leader” (Judges 5:9, 14; Isaiah 33:22), “sceptre” (Genesis 49:10; Numbers 21:18; Psalm 60:9), or “lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22).

The noun choq is used in a few instances in the sense of “boundary,” perhaps in relation to the idea of lines or boundaries “scratched” or “carved.” Because of Israel’s lack of knowledge, Sheol opens his mouth without “limit” (Isaiah 5:14). The Lord’s promise through Micah is that Jerusalem’s boundaries will be extended (Micah 7:11). Job 38:10 describes the creation as a house-building project, in which the Lord bounded the sea with doors and bolts (cf. Proverbs 8:29). According to Jeremiah 5:22, the Lord established the sand as a boundary for the sea, keeping the sea within bounds. In context, Jeremiah is comparing Israel unfavorably with the sea: unlike the sea, Israel bursts all bounds in her rebellion (vv. 23-24). In this comparison, the boundary established by the sea evidently corresponds to the “boundaries” established by the laws and statutes of God. Thus, from the sense of “boundary,” choq sometimes has the connotation of “custom,” which guides behavior by placing limits on it. It became a choq for the daughters of Israel annually to commemorate the story of Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11:39), David’s decision that those who kept the baggage should share the plunder with those who fought became a choq and a mishpat in Israel (1 Samuel 30:25).

The word can also take the somewhat stronger sense of “statute” or “decree.” Psalm 94:10 condemns kings who enact trouble by choq. We shall see below that in ceremonial contexts choq sometimes has the meaning of “assigned portion,” and even when the word means “statute” in a secular sense, it can refer specifically to a statute having to do with the apportionment of land (Genesis 47:26) or to a “production quota” (Exodus 5:13-14). God’s determinations are sometimes denoted by choq: In Psalm 2:7, the Lord grants the whole earth to His royal Son by decree (choq), the heavenly bodies have been established by God’s creative decree (Psalm 148:1-6), and the Lord’s decision to bring judgment on His unfaithful people is described as the birth of the choq (Zephaniah 2:2). Job acknowledges that God does all He pleases, and that He brings His decree to completion (Job 23:14). God’s revealed law is also characterized as choq, frequently in combination with mishpat (“judgment” or “statute”) or with mishpat and torah as a summary of the whole law (cf. Leviticus 26:46; Ezra 7:10; Psalm 79:7). This combination is especially prominent in Deuteronomy, where choq and mishpat are used, sometimes with other terms, to describe the teachings of Moses, which are contrasted with the “ten words” that were directly spoken and written by the Lord (Deueronomy 4:14; cf. Leviticus 10:11; Nehemiah 9:13-14).^[4] The choqim revealed through Moses have no lesser authority than the words spoken directly by God to the people; Israel’s life depends on her adherence to the choqim and mishpatim (Deuteronomy 4:1), and even the choqim, though mediated through Moses, are “commanded” (tzwah, Numbers 30:17; 1 Chronicles 22:13; Nehemiah 1:7) and “written” by the Lord (2 Kings 17:37)

In Jeremiah 32:11, choq and mitzwah refer to the terms and conditions of Jeremiah’s deed of purchase. This secular usage is very illuminating, since the Lord’s commandments, statutes, and ordinances are “conditions” of Israel’s retention of the land of promise (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:7-8). The choqim are the terms of God’s land-lease contract with Israel, and if they fail to keep the terms they will be evicted. Similarly, for Solomon, walking in the Lord’s paths and guarding His statutes and commandments were the conditions for long life and the continuance of his dynasty (1 Kings 3:14; 9:4-6; 2 Chronicles 7:17). Zechariah reminded the restoration community that the words and choq “overtook” their fathers (1:6). This seems to involve a personification of the choqim of the Lord: Israel failed to guard the statutes and words of the Lord, and the word turned from being a protector to being an adversary, pursuing Israel and driving her from the land. The promise of the New Covenant is that the Spirit will enable Israel to walk in the Lord’s statutes and thereby remain in the land (Ezekiel 36:26-28).

Used of God’s revealed commandments, choq at times continues to imply the idea of “boundary.” Because God’s law places boundaries on human behavior, it forms a pathway in which His people are called to walk (Ezekiel 11:12; 20:18-26). The choq and torah revealed through the hand of Moses teach Israel how to “walk” and “work” (Exodus 18:20). In some passages, choq covers the entire law (Deuteronomy 16:12), and is used in parallel with berith, “covenant” (Psalm 105:8-10). Telling of God’s choqim is the same as taking the berith into one’s mouth (Psalm 50:16). Isaiah 24:5 states that the earth has become polluted because the people have transgressed laws, violated statutes, and broken the covenant (‘bru torah, chalfu choq, and hafru berith). To walk in the pathway established by the Lord’s decrees is to keep the covenant.

Israel may draw near to the Lord’s presence only by walking in the pathway He has delimited by His decrees. In this way, the sense of “boundary” extends to the sense of “ritual ordinance.” The use of choq in several passages thus emphasizes that there are not many ways to approach God in worship, but that He is to be worshipped as He has decreed. Jacob Milgrom has argued that “P scrupulously distinguishes between hoq (masc.) ‘due’ and huqqa (fem.) ‘statute.’” He concedes that in Leviticus 7:36 the word choq might be translated in the latter sense “because the Lord’s command to assign these prebends to the priests automatically becomes an everlasting statute,” but, comparing this verse with 7:34, concludes that both should be understood as granting “a due for all time.”^[5] The soundness of this point depends on one’s acceptance that the existence of a “P document” is a meaningful concept, since it is clear that, outside of “P,” the Old Testament does use choq in the sense of ritual ordinance or statute. Israel was instructed to “observe this thing” (shamar dabar) as a choq for all generations (Exodus 12:24); here choq can hardly be translated as “due.” Likewise, it was a perpetual choq that Aaronic priests wash their hands and feet before ministering in the Lord’s tent or at the altar (Exodus 30:17-21). Twice this passage warns that failure to observe this ordinance will be punished with death (vv. 20, 21). Approaching God’s house of altar with hands or feet defiled by the cursed earth results in death. Again, it makes no sense to translate choq as “due” here. The tithe is a choq (Malachi 3:7). It is a statute for Israel that they should worship on the new moon with singing and music (Psalm 81:4), and Jeremiah’s lamentation for Josiah became a choq for Israel (2 Chronicles 35:25). It is not clear in the latter case whether the chanting of this lament involved a regular commemoration of Josiah’s death, or simply implies that Jeremiah’s lamentation was added to the stock of Israelite hymnody. On either interpretation, choq in 2 Chronicles 35:25 may be translated “liturgical ordinance.”

In a number of cases, choq, when used in ceremonial contexts, has the meaning of “portion” or “due.” These uses can denote either the grant or apportionment itself or the portion granted, and there is often little reason to choose between the two meanings. Perhaps these uses are still related to the notion of “boundary.” A “portion” is what lies within certain boundaries: When the priests are ordained, they are given rights to certain portions (choq) of the peace offering: the breast of the tenupah and the thigh of the terumah (Exodus 29:28; Leviticus 7:34), but they were not permitted to take portions beyond those assigned. It is clear, moreover, that these uses of choq emphasize that the portion is “authorized.” After the rebellion of Korah, the Lord gave new instructions and privileges to the priests and Levites, and in enumerating the particular portions assigned to them the Lord calls them “choq” (Numbers 18:8, 11, 19). Speaking of the tribute (grain) offering for the priestly ordination, the Lord said, “by a permanent choq it shall be entirely offered up in smoke to the Lord” and none was to be eaten (Leviticus 6:22 [Hebrew, 6:15]). Leviticus 6:14-18 (Hebrew 6:7-11) states that only a handful of the tribute (grain) offering is to be burned on the bronze altar, the remainder being reserved for Aaron and his sons to eat in a holy place. Verse 18 summarizes: “Every male among the sons of Aaron may eat it; it is a permanent choq throughout your generations, from the food offerings of the Lord. Whoever touches them shall become consecrated.” On the one hand, choq here may refer to the portion of the tribute offering reserved for the priests; but it is possible also to translate choq, as the NASB does, as “ordinance.” In the latter case, the sense would be, “it is a perpetual ritual ordinance that the priests should eat the tribute offering in a holy place.” Perhaps both nuances are meant to be implied. The same is true of the instructions concerning the exchange of the bread of the presence in Leviticus 24:5-9. The passage details the arrangement of the twelve loaves on the golden table, the addition of frankincense to each row of bread as a “memorial,” and the exchange for new bread each sabbath day. Aaron and his sons are given the old bread, which must be eaten in a hold place; it is considered as most holy food because it has been reserved from the Lord’s food offerings. The passage closes with, “it is most holy to him from the Lord’s offerings by fire, choq forever” (24:9). Again, choq may refer to the portion given to the priests, or to the ceremonial rules governing the arrangement and disposal of the bread of the face, or both.

The usage of chuqqah overlaps considerably with that of choq. chuqqah can refer to the statutes or customs of a ruler or a nation (1 Kings 3:3; 2 Kings 17:8). And it is used to describe the fixed time of harvest (Jeremiah 5:24); here the use of chuqqah seems to place emphasis on the fixity of the time of harvest. The word is also used in the sense of “allotment” or “due”; Leviticus 7:36 summarizes the preceding chapters as a designation of the priests’ “due” from the offerings of the sons of Israel. In several passages, the word comes close to meaning something like “ceremonial ordinance”: the Passover is to be celebrated “as a permanent chuqqah” (Exodus 12:14).

From these uses, we can infer the following dimensions of the word group: 1) in its original sense, the verbs refer to the physical action of writing, inscribing, carving, which gives a permanent form to words and images; 2) the words are used in secular contexts in the sense of “boundary”; 3) by extension of the first meaning, the words take on the sense of “authoritative” or “fixed” decree; 4) by extension of the second meaning, the words can be used to way laws place limits on human behavior, and thus form a pathway in which a people is to walk; 5) in liturgical contexts, the words thus can refer to the rules that govern a worshipper’s approach to God; 6) the words can also refer to assigned portions of sacrificial food. It is noteworthy, however, that choq does not cover any particular area of life; though it can mean “ritual ordinance,” it does not have an exclusively cultic connotation, a fact that suggests that in biblical thought there is an unbroken continuum between life and liturgy, and between God’s commandments for daily living and His commandments concerning special worship.

^[1]See Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1993), chapter 2: “Toward a Genealogy of the Concept of Ritual.”

^[2]Stephen Buckland, “Ritual, Bodies and ‘Cultural Memory,’” Concilium (1995/3) 49.

^[3]A great deal of effort has been expended in attempting to formulate a general definition of ritual. See Caroline Humphrey and James Laidlaw, The Archetypal Actions of Ritual, for a recent attempt. I suspect that these efforts are doomed: Since they inevitably proceed by abstracting from the particular cultural contexts that give meaning to rites in the first place, it is no wonder if they conclude that the rites in fact have no meaning. Definition is a perennial theoretical problem, and it is hopeless to suspend analysis until it is solved. I operate here on a vague and common definition of ritual.

^[4]Choq and mispat may be used together in other senses as well. In Exodus 15:25, the content of the “statute and regulation” is a promise that faithfulness will be blessed with deliverance from the diseases of Egypt (v. 26). After the covenant renewal at Shechem, we are told that “Joshua made a covenant (berith) with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance (choq umishpat) in Shechem” (Joshua 24:25).

^[5]Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anthor Bible #3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 435.