Roy Blizzard III © 2024
In this passage in Matthew 26 and the corresponding passages in Mark 14:3ff and John 12:1ff, we read that Jesus goes from the Mt. Of Olives where he had been teaching in Matthew chapter 24 to Bethany and visits a “Leper” named Simon. It appears his disciples were there and they were socializing when a woman came in and anointed his head with oil. This story seems really odd, not just to me but to many others throughout history, because lepers were unclean and no one was to be around them. They were to be relegated to a camp site outside the city. Here is the passage in Matthew:
Matthew 26:1-13
26 1) And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples, 2) Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. 3) Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4) And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. 5) But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people. 6) Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7) There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 8) But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9) For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. 10) When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11) For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. 12) For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. 13) Verily I say unto you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
It is not known if Bethany today is the same as the Biblical Bethany. We know that Bethpage today is the same as Bethpage in the Bible and is just across the Kidron Valley to the East of the Mt. of Olives. We know that many important individuals lived there who were doing work in and around the Temple, like priests and Levites, but we can’t say the same about Bethany.
Bethany today is now associated with a village called al-Elzariya and it is just a short walk down the road on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives from the Temple and from Bethpage. In the first century it was a small community where many important individuals lived but no known leper colony was established. It is only related to us today as having a leper colony there because of this passage. They supposedly had a poor house there but a poor house is not a leper colony. The poor house in Bethany may be the reference to the disciples telling Jesus to sell the ointment and give to the poor, but not the leper colony. These communities of fairly well to do individuals and just plain old regular guys wouldn’t have tolerated a leper colony in their “subdivision” then, any more than a community today would have tolerated one.
At issue is also this fact, Lepra, variously transcribed into English and frequently translated as leprosy is actually not Hansen’s disease, the disease known as “leprosy” in modern times. It is a Biblical term used to describe various ritually impure, dis-figurative conditions of the human skin,clothing, and houses.Tzaraath in Hebrew or Lepra of the skin generally involved patches that are white and contain unusually colored hair. Tzaraath or Lepra of clothing and houses consists of a reddish or greenish discoloration usually associated with mold, etc.
Bethany was also known as a community where many Galileans who were traveling to Jerusalem for the feasts stayed at as it was less than two miles from the Temple.
The account of this event in the Gospels is odd in a number of ways. First you have Jesus, either two days in Matthew and Mark or six days in John *, before the Passover sitting in a house with his disciples and other guests eating dinner with a leper. This act alone renders Jesus, the disciples, and the guests ritually impure for as long as they are around him. We see nothing that says he is a cured leper. Plus, calling a person who is cured, “Leper”, would be a derogatory insult and no one would want to be known as the man who used to be a leper. We see no indication of this leper living outside the city, away from society. He is in his own house, a house large enough to accommodate at least 14 guests. This scenario just doesn’t make a bit of sense. Many scholars just insert their own opinions here and say, “Well, Simon was a cured Leper”. How would we know as there is Zero mention in the text that he is “cured”. *(John is probably correct as his timeline is very exacting and The Gospel of John wasn’t cut up and put back together like the Synoptics were.)
In a related story in Luke 17 we see ten lepers outside the city calling to Jesus from a distance outside the city as the Law prescribed.
12) “And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off. 13) And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. 14) And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. 15) And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16) And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. 17) And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? 18) There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. 19) And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.”
This story in Luke 17 makes sense. The lepers are where they are supposed to be and Jesus is where he is supposed to be. When I read something like this story in Matthew 26 et al that makes no sense logically, I think there must be something wrong with the either the text itself or the story transmission. If Jesus was a Jew, then there were certain things he wouldn’t be doing two / six days before Passover. Hanging out at the house of a leper is probably about the most illogical act I could think of.
Medical texts from the ancient Near East blame disease either on black magic or the sufferer’s sin (as we see the questions from people concerning medical conditions in the New Testament as to who sinned) (R.C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts (1923); A.L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (1977, 288–305). In contrast to the Mesopotamian beliefs, in which priests are able to be healers, the Bible always attributes the healing of individuals to the actions of prophets (e.g., Gen. 20:7; II Kings 5). The priests themselves only rule on the purity or impurity of the sufferer (Kaufmann). Kaufmann, Y., Toledot, 1 (1937), 539–58; Kaufmann, Y., Religion, 103–10;
It is important to note that in the case of Miriam’s healing, it did not come through Aaron the priest, who was a party to the offense, but only through the prophet Moses after he prayed. In the Bible, we see that healing only comes from directly from God (Ex. 15:26) or through his prophets (e.g., Moses, Ex. 15:25; Elisha, II Kings 2:21; Isaiah, II Kings 20:7–8).
We also see that there are few references in the Tannaitic period (when Jesus ministered) to actual cases of leprosy. The Tanna were Rabbis from approximately 10 CE to about 220 CE which were at the Beginning of Jesus’ ministry. The root tanna (תנא) is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew root shanah (שנה), which also is the root word of Mishnah. The Hebrew verb shanah means “to repeat [what one was taught]” and is used to mean “to learn”. Jesus represents one of the earliest Tanna. Hillel and Shammai were the two last Zuggot- pairs, preceding the Tannaim. Tosefta Negaim 6:1 includes the “house affected by leprosy” (Lev. 14:34–53) among those laws which “never were and never will be,” their purpose being merely “to expound and receive reward therefore”. Eleazar b. Simeon, however, adds that there was a site in the vicinity of Gaza which used to be called “the enclosed ruin” (which was presumably a house affected by leprosy which had been destroyed in accordance with the law (Lev. 14:45).
Leviticus 10:10 provides us with some orientation on these matters of “uncleanness”. It states that the priest must distinguish between two pairs of overlapping categories (expressed in chiastic parallelism):
A. The holy things (qodesh) and
B. The common things (chol);
b. The unclean (tame’) and
a. The clean (tahor).
That which is “holy” is set apart to God, and must also be “clean.” All that is not “holy” is “common”. That which is common can be either ritually clean or unclean. Hence there are actually three categories: (i) holy and clean, (ii) common and clean, (iii) common and unclean. There is a close connection between “cleanness” and “holiness” and an incompatibility between “uncleanness” and “holiness.”
How Uncleanness Was Contracted
According to the laws of the Pentateuch – first 5 books of the Old Testament, the Israelite was to regard most things as “clean,” but a person or thing could contract uncleanness in a variety of ways.
Skin diseases are classified as #1 most serious of all defiling issues. Leviticus 13-14
Skin Disease. Anyone with a scale-like skin disease (tsaru) was regarded as unclean (cf. Leviticus 13-14). The term tsra’ath has been traditionally translated “leprosy,” but the consensus of scholars is that the term is not limited to modern clinical leprosy, now recognized as Hansen’s disease; instead, this term covers a variety of skin diseases. If a garment or leather object in a household, or the house itself, contracts mold or fungus which looks like scale disease, it is likewise deemed unclean (Leviticus 13:47-59, 14:33-57).
Leprosy brought permanent uncleanness unless declared healed by a priest. The afflicted was to wear rent or torn clothes, disheveled hair, and call out “unclean, unclean” as a warning to others, stay away from contact with others, and to live outside the camp (13:45-46). If healed, the purification ritual lasted eight days (14:1-32). On the first day there is a ritual outside the camp involving two birds, cedar wood, crimson yarn, hyssop, and spring (or “river”; literally “living”) water; then, after washing his clothes, washing his body and shaving, he may enter the camp but may not yet sleep in his tent. On the seventh day he shaves and washes his clothes and his body to remove symbolically another layer of impurity, and may enter his tent. On the eighth day he brings to the sanctuary oil and offers a reparation (guilt) offering, a purification (sin) offering, and a whole burnt offering in which blood from the reparation offering and some of the oil is placed on the right ear, right thumb and right big toe of the man, and then the whole person is anointed. He is then fully “clean.
So we can clearly see that if this man is a Leper then all the disciples and Jesus are ritually unclean until evening every day they are around the leper. An “unclean” person could not bring offerings before the Lord, nor could he participate in the festivals. This means no contact with anyone inside the city.
Joseph Frankovic writes, “However, the term “Tameh” or unclean, does not convey a sense of moral judgment unless the state of impurity has been achieved by an act proscribed by Torah. The term may simply mean incompatibility with or unreadiness to enter God’s sphere (e.g., the temple sanctuary). Perhaps a helpful way to grasp one nuance of the term’s meaning is by analogy. In designing a house, one does not put the dining room next to the bathroom. The activities of the bathroom do not complement those of the dining room. Neither bathroom nor dining room activities are, however, sinful, just incompatible.”
So this then is the situation we are left with deciphering. The act of dining with Simon as a “Leper” isn’t “sinful”, just incompatible with the Judaism of the first century and incompatible with the life of Jesus and the disciples. This action would also mean incompatibility with or unreadiness to enter the temple sanctuary just a few scant days later. So if this is true then how can Jesus be ready to be compatible with the impending holy act of redemption?
So, with this unlikely scenario, we’re left with logically investigating this text first in the Greek to see what is happening. The curious Greek word in the text is the noun λεπρα (lepra), meaning leprosy or some sort of skin condition and it occurs 4 times. It supposedly stems from the verb λεπω (lepo) which means to peel, strip or de-bark (of trees). The experts have all stated that the origin of this Greek verb obscure. Earlier experts had suggested links with the Latin libet, pleasing, hence our word love, or the noun lepos, meaning grace, however later experts refuted all this, and suggest the possibility that the verb isn’t even Indo-European. And that takes us back to the Semitic language arena as well. However, if the original word in the text is Lepra, meaning leper, this then means Jesus and the disciples are thus unclean and incompatible with his mission just prior to Passover. There is no other way to interpret the Greek text.
In my studies, I’ve learned that there is a high probability of the New Testament being originally penned in Hebrew but we simply don’t have a copy of it. No less a scholar than Dr. Willam F. Albright has stated the same. Dr. Albright saw that when the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kochbah letters were discovered being in Mishnaic Hebrew, that none of the earlier form criticism or existential interpretations of Paul and John that are attributed to a Greek or Hellenistic background can withstand the torrent of Jewish material in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Erwin R. Goodenough, in his book Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, states, “And it is a likely hypothesis that on the completion and dissemination of the Talmud, and with the beginning of Christian persecution of the Jews, a great reaction set in which abolished this Judaism (a Judaism that borrowed symbols, etc., from Hellenistic sources) and destroyed its writings. This possibility is heightened by our knowledge of the efficacy of Jewish censorship. If we were dependent upon Jewish tradition and Jewish preservation of records, we should never have heard of Philo and the Jewish Hellenism of his day. Philo and Josephus were both preserved by Christian copyists…”
I personally have found and written about many of these places in the text where a Greek transcriber simply messed up and failed to recognize the Hebrew words he was working with and either mistranslated them or left the words un-translated but simply transliterated them into the Greek text with zero recognition of their meaning. Maranatha is one such word. Sons of Thunder is another example. How Saul became Paul is yet another.
Dr. William McDonald, in his book A Hebrew Text in Greek Dress, makes the assertion that, “From the mid-twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, renowned scholars published innovative studies suggesting a Semitic foundation for interpreting the New Testament.”
David Biven and Dr. Roy Blizzard Jr. in their book, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus state, “Many scholars in Israel are now convinced that the spoken and written language of Jews in the Land of Israel at the time of Jesus was indeed Hebrew; and that the Synoptic Gospels were derived from original Hebrew sources. These scholars, fluent in both Greek and Hebrew have proposed impressive solutions to major problems of the New Testament interpretation. ”
The best Hebrew New Testament text we have today was written by Dr. Franz Delitzsch and is based upon the Old Testament words in the Greek text. When the Septuagint – a Greek translation of the Old Testament – was composed in 250 BC, each Hebrew word was codified or set to only one specific Greek word. For example, take the word Torah in the Hebrew Bible, translated as Law in English, the Greek translation only used the word Nomos anytime the Hebrew word Torah was seen. No other word. Each Hebrew word, no matter the word, had a corresponding Greek word that was only used for that word. This is how Dr. Franz Delitzsch was able to take the textus receptus Greek Text and put it back into Hebrew.
Surprisingly, that text of Delitzsch formed perfect Hebrew. The Grammar, syntax, and wording were all exactly as Hebrew should be, quite unlike the poor Greek style and grammar of the Textus Receptus – the generally accepted text of the New Testament. However, because of the method used by Franz Delitzsch, to go from Greek to Hebrew, we are not surprised to see the Hebrew word for Leprosy here because Delitzsch would have seen the Greek word Leper λεπρα and then just used the codified Hebrew word that was commonly used for Leper and that is Metzorah .
However, as I’ve discovered many times before there may be an issue with the Greek translator not understanding the text he was working on and simply transcribing a Hebrew word into what he thought was the Greek equivalent when in fact the Hebrew word had multiple meanings or totally different meanings, so they just got the words wrong. A perfect example is the word Maranatha. It isn’t Greek, it isn’t Aramaic and it absolutely doesn’t mean O Lord Come.
Unfortunately, most scholars in the New Testament work from Greek not Hebrew and they don’t go looking at Hebrew words or Judaism to solve textual problems. Even though the New Testament text itself says they spoke Hebrew as in John 5:2, Matthew 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19, Acts 22:2, etc. Some scholars will just say they made a mistake and meant Syriac or Aramaic even though there are separate words for those languages. Because you see, if it’s not Greek then it’s not a problem. Because, they won’t look for it. If by some off chance they do look for it, they’ll go to a Strong’s or Young’s concordance and look up a few words to see if they match. Since the perceived problem is that the Hebrew word for a Leper is Metzorah and the Greek word for leper is Lepar this then means there is no apparent issue here for most New Testament scholars since they don’t know Hebrew. But they just dismiss the issues of “uncleanness” and “unprepared” as unimportant. To me that is a critical mistake. These issues are the seminal issues of Jesus’ day and they must be addressed in every situation.
But wait. What if you believe the New Testament was really written originally in Aramaic and not Hebrew nor Greek. OK. Here’s the issue with this. In the Aramaic text there are two different words. Very similar, but a bit different. The Aramaic word in most texts is Garba, which only means Leper. The other word found in other texts is Garaba, which only means Potter. This is easily explained by seeing that the early transcribers saw the words in a Greek text and wrote Garba which means Leper. The later transcribers saw the saw issues with Jesus at the house of a Leper and figured it was a transcriber’s error and so wrote Garaba meaning Potter to try and solve all the issues with Jesus at the house of a leper.
But the issue of some Aramaic texts saying Potter not Leper isn’t complete unless we investigate this issue from a Hebrew standpoint just to cover the bases. A word in Hebrew that could be misconstrued in this passage is Parur with a meaning of a one handled cooking pot. The way you would say the house of the one for the pot or the pot’s house is Leparur, so very much like Leper if you were translating. But this really doesn’t work as Simon the owner of the pot doesn’t really fit. Also, the word for Potter is Yotzer in Hebrew not Parur. So to translate this passage as the Potter’s house you would have to say Beit HaYotzer. So again we are left to determine the meaning of this passage based upon the base text Hebrew words, not Aramaic or Greek words because the context of the passage demands it.
For you see if we try to see Jesus at the House of the Pot or the House of the Leper this is just another proof that the text was originally in a Hebrew text because we have to have something in context that fits the story and the Greek and Aramaic translations just don’t.
Rivkah Slonim in her article on the Jewish Woman, explains this:
“The status of a Jew — whether he or she was ritually pure or impure — was at the very core of Jewish living; it dictated and regulated a person’s involvement in all areas of ritual. Most notably, tumah (or uncleanness) made entrance into the Holy Temple impossible and thus sacrificial offering inaccessible”.
So knowing this important issue, I was curious to know if a Hebrew word that sounded like the Greek word Lepar was in use during Jesus’ day, which could have been mistaken for the Greek word. Maybe the transcriber had messed up. When I turned to both the Brown, Driver, Briggs & Jastrow’s Dictionary of the Talmud, I found the Biblical & Mishnaic Hebrew word Lepar -לפר. This Hebrew word is pronounced exactly like the Greek word that is used in the New Testament but it does not mean Leprosy it means Bull. That is quite different. It comes from the Hebrew root Parar פרר. So, if the text originally said that Jesus and the disciples were at the house of Simon the Bull or the place of the Bull, that would mean Jesus and the disciples were not unclean. This would actually make more sense in context.
Here is an example of the word in context. “לפר שק – Shek Leper was established in 1946 in the Binyamina settlement. Initially, the place was used for raising cattle.” ) Shek Leper meaning Market or place of the Bulls)
Here is where we can see a clear answer to the issue that has dogged people for years. There is the distinct possibility that Jesus wasn’t at a Leper’s house. There wasn’t some Leper colony in Bethany which would dispel all the wishful thinking about one of those existing there. Jesus and the disciples were not left unclean. There wasn’t any need for the text to forget mentioning a healing of the leper Simon because he wasn’t a leper.
“The Bull” actually is a Hebraic euphemism for YHWH. In Hebrew there are several words for Bull. One is Aveer אֲבִיר meaning a strong animal or person. It is used euphemistically as a Bull or sometimes a horse. Another is the word Shorr which means an older bull. Another word for a young bull is Parar פרר where we then see Lepar in Mishnaic Hebrew of Jesus’ day.
The relationship with God and Joseph and others as young, strong Bulls begins in Genesis 49:22-26;
22) Joseph is a young bull, a young bull by a spring, who strides with oxen.
23) They attacked him fiercely and fired arrows; the archers attacked him furiously.
24) But his bow stayed strong, and his forearms were nimble, by the hands of the strong one of Jacob, by the name of the shepherd, the rock of Israel,
25) by God, your father, who supports you, by the Almighty who blesses you with blessings from the skies above and blessings from the deep sea below, blessings from breasts and womb.
26) The blessings of your father exceed the blessings of the eternal mountains, the wealth of the everlasting hills. May they all rest on Joseph’s head, on the forehead of the one set apart from his brothers.
This passage is followed by Isaiah 49:26 where it says, “And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”
These passages and a few others cemented the concept that in the Bible YHWH was “The Bull”. He was seen as the strong one of Israel whether intimated by the Hebrew word Aveer or by the Hebrew word Leper. Both words in Hebrew carried with them the concept of strength and power, just the opposite of a sickly leper that will contaminate everyone and everything.
So, Jesus was at the house of Simon the Bull or Simon who belongs to the Bull, i.e. God, with the understanding that he was a righteous one like God. We have similar examples of other Rabbis having similar nicknames or acronyms such as Simon the Just who was a high priest, Nahum the Mede a famous Tanna, and Simeon HaPakoli – (the dealer in flax and wool) a famous Rabbi in the late first century who created the Shemoneh Esreh – the 18 Blessings as we have them today with the 18th being a curse against the believing Jews. We have Rabbi Hanina the Circle drawer, Rabbi Shlomo ben Isaac aka Rashi -RaSHI, Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon aka RaMBaM, Rabbi Isaac Luria aka HaAri The Lion or HaAri Zichrono Livraha aka HaArizal, and in the 12th century we have the Jewish Biblical scholar Joseph Ben Isaac Bekhor Shor aka Joseph The First Born Bull from Deuteronomy 33:17.
Akeidat Yitzchak 51:1:10 -written by the Spanish rabbi Isaac ben Moses Arama (c. 1420 – 1494), is a collection of philosophical sermons on the Torah and he comments, “The par, bull, represents the body that is to be dedicated to G-d.”
Simon most likely was a highly pious man who was as strong or righteous as God was thereby earning the nickname the Bull. While there are probably some people who might try to claim he kept bulls for the Temple, thus earning the nickname, Simon the Bull Keeper, given the nearness of the Temple to Bethany and the need for many cattle, it is really not conceivable that Simon kept cattle for use in the Temple services. Why, because the area around Bethany was not really suitable for the keeping of cattle. It was rocky hill sides of terraced farmland not pasture land. There weren’t any nearby hay fields to provide food for them. However, maybe Simon was both, a keeper of bulls and a righteous man like God.
We often forget that Jesus was a part of a group of Rabbis, many who were from the Galilee, who were outside the traditional rabbinical circles in Jerusalem. They were known as Hasids or Hasideans. These Hasid rabbis were so scary to the traditional Jerusalem group that the Jerusalem led rabbis would send children to them to ask questions so as to not fall into the realm of seeming unrighteous next to such holy men and thereby garner the wrath of God. Righteous rabbis like the Hasid Chanina probably gave support to Jesus as they ministered around the land. He’s about to deliver the result of “a Time will come when you will worship the Father in spirit and in truth”. He went to a true worshipper of God, Simon the Bull, who was not in Herod’s control, who worshipped the Father in spirit and in truth. He couldn’t go to John the baptizer for support as he was dead. Jesus’ disciples were chastised because they couldn’t even stay awake to pray so He went to a strong Godly associate to support him.
We often forget that Jesus wasn’t some Lone Wolf Rabbi out here doing some new thing as a part of some new religion but was a part of this group of very righteous Rabbis, many of whom were from the Galilee, who were outside the traditional rabbinical circles in Jerusalem. Righteous rabbis like the later Galilean Hasid Hanina ben Dosa probably gave support to Jesus as he ministered around the land. Rabbi Honi the Circle Drawer was another such Hasid Rabbi who lived just prior to Jesus’ time and died in another dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees. We don’t see many references to these Rabbis in Jewish writings such as the Talmud and Tosephta as the writings were controlled by the Jerusalem Scholars who had a disdain for these other Rabbis who often disagreed with their particular vein of interpretation This is why the Gospels are such a tremendous window into the lives of these Hasid Rabbis.
We need to understand that the top two most common names in Israel in the 1st century were Joseph and Simon making up 15.6%, while inside the Bible they are 18.2%. While it is possible that there is a connection with the Simeon in Luke 2:25 as a young man of about 30 being the same as the father of Gamaliel, there would need to be much more corroborating evidence to have any grounds to claim that they are the same person as Simon the Bull.
There was a Shimon ben Gamaliel (10 BCE – 70 CE) who lived during the run-up to the First Jewish Revolt. He was the president of the Great Sanhedrin during his last years, and he died when the Romans beheaded him, along with the High Priest, Ishmael ben Elisha. Rabbi Shimon saw his world disintegrate through terrible divisions in Jewish society and under the cruel rule of Rome. But we have no evidence to corroborate this man as Simon the Bull. What’s interesting to note is that once we see Jesus in the house of a Rabbi “the Bull” instead of the leper, right before he is anointed by the lady, then we can begin to see the relationship between Jesus and the concept of a bull.
The Bible’s first reference to a bull or bullock as a symbol is found in Genesis 4:4, where Abel, as a shepherd, presents God with a sacrifice from the “firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.” The bullock was not just any sacrificial animal; rather, it was often used in large, more significant sin offerings and symbolized atonement and propitiation for sins. As mandated in Leviticus 4, a bullock was the stipulated offering when high-ranking persons, like priests or the entire community, committed a sin unintentionally. The elaborate ritual depicted the shedding of the bull’s blood as a substitute for the sinner, thereby restoring the breached relationship between God and His people. More importantly the sacrificial bull served as a consecration of the priests (Lev 8:18, 9:2). By seeing this relationship between the Bull Sacrifice and Jesus we can then understand Jesus’ words on the cross, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)
In the symbolic ritual of the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur, as described in Leviticus 16, a young bull played the central role. The High Priest would bring the bull as a sin offering for himself and his family, symbolizing the purification of the priestly order before interceding for the people of Israel.
Hebrews relates Jesus’ role as the Great High Priest who entered the heavenly sanctuary once and for all with His own blood, obtaining eternal redemption for all (Hebrews 9:12). Jesus’ sacrifice as a Bull of redemption replaced the sacrifices of earthly bulls, having a more powerful effect (Hebrews 9:13-14).
The Bull – the merit of Joseph, who was called a bull, was found. That is what is written: “A firstborn bull is his majesty” (Deuteronomy 33:17). Esther Rabbah 7
Vayikra Rabbah 27:5 – Commentary on Leviticus
“The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘The bull is pursued by the lion, the goat by the leopard, the sheep by the wolf; do not sacrifice before Me from the pursuers, but rather, from the pursued.’…That is what is written: “A bull, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born.”
However Simon got his moniker “The Bull”, Jesus is anointed at his house, not for his burial as the English says, but the meaning of the word in Hebrew has the connotation of fruit ripening getting ready for harvest as he is undergoing purification and sanctification as he prepares to be a Bull Sacrifice. Through this act, Jesus represents a sacrificial Bull that at his rejection by the priests for the 30 pieces of Silver (not coins) that would equal 1 Temple Shekel and his crucifixion; this then would consecrate him to the priesthood forever and purify the priestly order before he intercedes for the people of Israel. By Jesus not being at the House of a Leper but being at the house of the righteous Bull, this would then render Jesus Holy and Clean and not Common and Unclean as the law proscribes. This complex explanation recognizing the Hebrew background of the New Testament text answers questions biblically, theologically and historically and brings a truth to the story that one doesn’t have to try and create some cockamamie story that makes no logical sense.