Chapter summary

260

[ 19 J The Clean and the Unclean Foods

The food regulations contained in the book of Leviticus highlight two important theological principles. The distinction between clean and unclean foods emphasizes the divine calling of Israel to be a holy nation different from the other nations of the earth; the clean and unclean animal~ symbolize Israelites and non-Israelites respectively. The law prohibiting the eating of blood derives from the idea that all life, both human and animal, is sacred. Although God sanctions the eating of meat, due respect must be shown for the life of any animal slaughtered for food; blood, as the symbol of life, must not be consumed by humans.

Introduction

As we have already noticed, most of Leviticus consists of divine speeches me- diated through Moses to the Israelites. Although these speeches cover various topics, a major unifying theme is God' s concern that the peo~le should b_e a holy nation. To this end Leviticus contains regulations governmg the offering of sacrifices (chaps. 1-7) and the procedures for being purified from various forms of uncleanness (chaps. 12-15). This latter block of material is imme- diately preceded by rules concerning the animals that the Israelites may an_d may not eat (11:1-47) . These regulations divide all living creatures o~ the basis of specific criteria into two groups: clean and unclean. Only the animals ~hat belong to the clean category may be eaten by the Israelites. These regulations are repeated later, in Deuteronomy 14:3-20.

T111: CL l!A N AND T Ii t u N C LL AN Foons -. 1 t it is difficult to see any connection betwe h i:: ·t s1g, . 1 en t ese food

At urs h divine desire that srael should be a holy . regu- d t e . nation. In wh

I (ions an . of particular animals fulfill Israel's calling to b h 1 at way

o 1,c caring ea o Y people) docs r .

d Regulations Summarized 'fhC foO

I . ns defining clean and unclean animals are di "d d . gu atlO d . h h . h v1 e into three 1t,c re h. h correspon wit t e1r t ree main regions of h b" . . ns, w ic d . (11·13 2 . a itation: land sectto (11 ·9-12), an air . - 3). All ammals are .

11 8) sea . b . f . 1 . . 1 categorized as (1 : - ' lean on the as1s o a smg e pnnc1p e governing ea h I . clean or unc c ocat1on:

1 cloven-hoofed, cud-chewing land animals are clean· all oth 1 On Y , ermam- . rnals are unclean.

I fish with fins and scales are clean; all other fish are un 1 2 On Y . . h c ean. · . d of prey and flymg msects t at walk rather than hop are

1 3 Bir s . l unc ean· · all other birds and msects are c ean. '

. . 11 clearly states the general principles for land animals fish and fl · Lev1ncus f b. d . . 1 cl ' ' ymg . but in the case o 1r s, prmc1p es nee to be deduced from the differe t insects, . . 1 . . f h cl n

I. ted. Even when a prmc1p e 1s given, urt er etails are usually added to types is . d. 1 d . 1 f . 1 .fy parucular cases. Regar mg an anima s, or example, special attention

c ar_i to the camel, the hyrax ("coney," NIV 1984; "rock badger" NRSV) 1s given . , , rhe rabbit, and the pig; they are _all decl~red ~nclean even though they meet one of the two criteria for clean animals given m the general principle (11:4-8).'

The Function of the Food Regulations

Various explanations have been offered to account for the dietary rules in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Some commentators have suggested that rhe classification of the animals into two types symbolizes people and their behavior. An animal that chews its cud resembles a human who meditates on the divine law. The sheep is designated clean because the ancient Israelites view God as their heavenly shepherd. The pig is unclean because of its dirty habits, which are reminiscent of a sinner's behavior. Although the arbitrary nature of such explanations has led contemporary scholars to reject them, the basic idea that the two types of animal are symbolic of people is probably correct.

1. Three basic ideas unde rlie Jewish dieta ry laws: (1) it is forbidden to consume blood (Deur. 12:23) ; (2) meat and da iry produce must not be eaten together (Exod. 23:19); (3) certain types of animals, birds, and fish are class ified as unclean and should not be consumed (Lev. 11:1-47; Deut.14:3-21) . Food that meets these requirements is described in Hebrew as k.aser (kosher; cf. "kosher" ), "ritually fit," "wholesome."

261

2

T11 c i\l,\I N Tllt:MI. S 0 11 TIii. P U NT ,\l"l:IICII

Other writers have proposed that these ancient food regulati . d' I . Th ons ant' .

rhe findings of modern science regar mg ~yg1ene. e clean animals \V 1c1Pate , human consumption, the unclean an11nals were not. Two f ere safe ior . h'I k . f . actors gainst this proposal. First, w I e por 1s o ten cited as an ex argue a I I I I . . ample

unclean meat that is dangerous to rnman 1ea t 1, tlus 1s true only Wh of an meat is nor properly cooked. Thoroughly cooked pork is as safe t en the

S any of the meats classified as clean. Similarly, camel meat poses 1. 0

1 consu111c

a . . di' . ltted to health; indeed, Arabs view 1t as a e 1cacy. Second, 1f a dang anger

f, d I . . . er to h I was the reason behind the oo regu anons, 1t 1s strange that thi ~a th B·bJ M' 1 h s tnot1v · never mentioned in the I e. 1g 1t we not ave expected that th I ~ is d f h . d . d e srae) would have been warne o t 1s anger m or er to encourage th •tes

ear the unclean meats? In the light of these factors, the hygiene exe~ no~ to • • • 1 P anat1on 1s unconvmcmg.

Some commentators suggest that the Israelites were instructed to . . f h . I . . . h avoid th unclean ammals because o t e1r c ose assocrntton wit non-Israelite r I' . e

I . I 'd h h . e ig1ons For example, archaeo og1ca ev1 ence suggests t at t e pig was eaten . · h·1 1 . 1 I I

10 Ca-naanite rituals. Yer w I e some unc ean amma s were c ear y used in the 1

. . I' . hb . . ' bl cu tic activities of ancient Israe s ne1g ors, It 1s not poss1 e to demonstrate th'

for all the animals d_esignated u~dean._ f'.urther~~re, if this is the rationa;: behind rhe classificat10n of the ammals, 1t 1s surpnsmg that the bull, which w prominent in both Egyptian and Canaanite religious rituals, was not includ: among the unclean animals. Although the rationale of religious associations might account for certain cases, it fails to explain all the distinctions made between clean and unclean animals.

The most satisfactory explanation of the food regulations rests on the ob- servation that for the Israelites the animal world was structured in the same way as the human world. The dean and unclean animals parallel clean and unclean people (i.e., Israelites and non-Israelites). Within the category of clean animals, two further classes may be observed, sacrificial and nonsacrificial; these correspond with the human classes of priestly and nonpriestly.3 By restricting their diet to clean animals, the Israelites were reminded of their obligation to be a clean people, distinct from others.4 Consequently, each meal at which meat was served had religious implications for the Israelites; it spoke of their divine calling to be a holy nation. This link between the food

2. From a Christian perspective, a further reason can be added. How could Jesus Christ have abolished rules that were supposed to protect the health of those who abided by them?

3. We have already noticed the importance of the three categories of holy, clean, and unclean (in chap. 17 above). It therefore is not surprising that they should reappear in the context of the food regulations. In the correspondence between priests and sacrificial animals, Lev. 21 and 22 parallel each other: Lev. 21 deals with blemished priests and Lev. 22 with blemished sacrificial animals.

4. The dietary rules are placed immediately after material dealing with the separation of the priests from the rest of the Israelites. As the priests are set apart as holy from the rest of the Israelites, so is Israel set apart as holy from the rest of the nations.

Ur,; c L1 .-.N 1: 000s

nd Israel's divine election is clearly reflect d. . ns a h I e in Lev· . rcgulat10 LoRD your God, w o 1as set you apart from th . 1~1cus 20:24--26: rhc . • · b I c nation v "I 11nl ke a d1stmct1on etween c ean and uncle . s. 1ou must

c c ma ' d an animal db rhcre

1ord clean birds. Do not efile yourselves by . s an ctween n un h d any an1m I b' •Jean a h t moves along t e groun -those that I h a or 1rd or

c . t a ave set ap ,111yth111t are to be holy to me because I, the LoRo h I arr as unclean • ,ou , am o y d I h (or you, f m the nations to be my own." 'an ave set

Part ro I . d . d'ffi You a the food regu at1ons ma e It I cult for an I 1

. , , eover, . srae 1te to p . . J.,or rovided by non-Israelites. They not only symbolized th art1c1pate

in incals 1 P nation in contrast to other nations· they al h d at Israel was

c can . ' so a the · co be af

1 . iring contact with other people, which might co . practical

effect o im mprom1se Israel's • I status.

spec1a

. nale behind the Clean/Unclean Classification fhe Ratio

. 1

he distinction between clean and unclean peoples ac f Wh1 et I . . . ·11 counts or the

Of the food regu anons, 1t 1s stI necessary to exp! • h urpose . l d h am w y some P . 1 were considered c ean an ot ers unclean. Why for ex 1 anuna s . b . . ' amp e, was a

ategonzed as clea n, ut a pig unclean? Was this classificat· 1 sheep c . l 1011 mere y b. rv or were there particu ar reasons for designating some ani·rn I l ar 1tra ,, a s c ean d [hers unclean? Although most scholars accept that some rau· l an o . . f . ona e must

h governed the categonzation o the ammals as clean and un l ave . c can, no lanation commands unammous support. One factor however d exp . . , , eserves

special cons1derat1on. A common factor among ma~y of the unclean animals is that they depend

on the death of other creatures m order to survive.5 A survey of animals that are declared unclean r:veal~ one feature that is common to most of them: they eat meat. ~II the birds listed as unclea~ in verses 13-19 are birds of prey; their diet c~ns1sts of the m:at of other ammals. The same is true regarding the land ammals; those designated unclean have claws (e.g., cats and dogs) and such animals are carnivorous. In marked contrast, cloven-hoofed animal; do not eat meat. This distinction between carnivores and noncarnivores (or ruminants) is emphasized by including the criterion of chewing the cud. The idea that animals associated with death should be viewed as unclean is in keeping with what we have observed in chapter 17; in Leviticus, death and un~leanness are_ generally linked, being the opposites of life and holiness. By eatmg clean ammals, the Israelites distanced themselves from death which was perceived as the source of uncleanness. '

S. As if to highlight this association with death, much of Lev. 11 focuses on the uncleanness t~at occurs through touching or carrying the carcasses of unclean animals (cf. vv. 24-38). Even : 0 ecarca~ses of clean animals-those that die by some means other than ritual slaughtering- mmumcate uncleanness to humans (vv. 39-40).

I

263

,4

TIii. MAI N Tll liMl:S 0 1· T11l1 Pl, N TATH l i.:" 11

The Blood Prohibition

Before concluding our discussion of the food regulations in L .. I . b h h 'b ' . ev1t1cu 1 important to say somet 1mg a out t e pro 1 1t1on against eat' s . l, it .

ing) blood,_ which_is_ highlighted i_n 17:1-16 (cf. 3:17; 7:26-27: 1 ie(or drink~

23-25). This proh1b1t1on 1s so serious that anyone who eats bloott. tt:1 6

cut off' (17:14). Is to "b~ To understand the ~a~on for this, we need to . refer back to the

Genesis. Although God 1111t1ally created human beings to be ve . book of 1:29), one result of Adam and Eve's rebellion in the Garden of i~:~1an (Gen. humanity thereafter desired to eat meat. As a result, humans k'll Was that for food, apparently adding to the general violence of humank:n~dt anilllals mately caused God to send the flood (6:11-13). After the flood G d hat Ulti. to make a concession to Noah and his descendants regardin~ th

O a~Pears

meat. They are permitted to do so, on the condition that they .. e eating of meat char has i~ lifeblood still_ in it" (9:4). Although God allow~~~: not eat of an animal's hfe, the proh1b1t1on against eating blood draws t taking

h I II l'f Th . a tent1on the importance that e p aces on a I e. e Israelites' attitude to th k' . to of animals, even for food, is required to differ from that of their ~ htblhng

. fl . . ne1g 0 They are to behave in a way that re ects their belief that God is the rs. d . h . d . f l'f h source of all life. Since Go 1s t e giver an sustainer o I e, e alone has the • h

· aki f I 'f 6 ng t to sancnon the t ng o a I e. In passing, we need to recognize that meat did not form part of the re I

diet of the Israelites, especially during the wilderness wanderings. The ab~ ar . £ I . . G d ence of meat was a recurring reason or comp ainrs against o . When meat

eaten, it often appears to have been within the context of religious celebrati::'.

Old Testament Summary

From the preceding discussion it is clear that the food regulations contained in Leviticus reflect important theological ideas. On the one hand, the distinctions between clean and unclean animals emphasize the special calling of Israel to be a holy nation. On the other hand, the prohibition against eating blood underlines the value that God places on all life, animal as well as human. In a remarkable way religious truths are reflected in the daily routine associated with eating.

New Testament Connections

The concept of clean and unclean foods appears in a number of New Testament passages. In the Gospels, the parallel passages in Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark

6. On the significance of blood within the sacrificial system, see chap. 18 above.

------- -.'...T:.'._11 ~, _:C-':_'-:_:' '~"'...2_N "-ND T Ii t; ll Nt'LtA.N F

O a ti s

son Jesus's attitude toward eating som h' ,1 focu .6 II et 1ng th t. 7, l-""' es it is not spec1 ca y stated that them . a ts unclean 1 Passag h d' • 1 .. . eat 1s und • n rhese on how t e 1sc1p es are eatmg food w'th h ean; rather th centers k 7 2) I , ands th , e

issue ashed" (Mar : . n response Jesus at Were defiled . s unw d 61 ' comments h ,

rhat 1 '. outside a person can e e them by going into to t e people: "Nothing out of a person that defiles them" (Ma k

7 1 them. Rather it is

cornes . h. . h' . . r : 5· cf ., ' what J us explains t e saymg to 1s disciples· "D , ' · •viatt. 15:11)

r es · on t you h · Late ' a person from the outside can defile them, F . see t at nothing

h t enters h . h d h • or it doe , . r a_ rt but into t e1r stomac , an t en out of the bod sn t go into rhetr hea rson is what defiles them. For it is from w'th' y. · · · What comes

of a pe h I in out of out h t evil thoug ts come-sexual immorality: th ft' a person's

rt t a I d I ' e , murder d I hea d' rnalice, deceit, ew ness, envy, s ander, arrogance, and f , a u tery, gr~e ' from inside and defile a person" (Mark 7:18-23 . f M oily. All these evils tris the brief but significant observation: "In sayin~ ~hi aJtt. 15:17-20) . Mar a I " (7 · 19) s, esus declared II foods c ean . . .

a ...-i. topic of clean and unclean foods also anses in the ,ue G d f . G ·1 account of Pet ,

. . Cornelius, a o - earmg ent1 e (Acts 10:1-ll·lS) Tu· . . er s v1s1t to . h' h b k f A b · · 1s 1s an impo

. cident wit in t e oo o cts ecause it marks th fi . . r- cant in h l . l . e rst s1gmfica t

•on on which t e gospe 1s proc aimed to Gentiles Be£ b . n occas1 . . .. p . · ore emg asked

. it Cornelius, in a v1s1on eter 1s commanded by God k'll co vis I Al h h to I and eat

. als that are unc ean . t oug Peter strongly obi'ects G d . antm . . h d , o warns him

t to "call anything impure t at Go has made clean" (Acts lO·lS) L no 1. p • . ater hen he visits Corne ms, eter comments on the sigru' ficance f h . . ' w h • • • o t e VISlon· •Y,ou are well aware t at tt 1s against our law for a Jew to ass · . h ·

h oc1ate wit or visit a Gentile. Bur God has s own me that I should not call an . ,, 28) yone impure or unclean (Acts 10: •

Previously God had introduced the concept of clean and unclean foods in Order to separate the Israelites from other nations· now 1· n the Ne -r . . . ' w ,estament Period the d1snncnon between clean and unclean foods is abando d · d . . . ne mor er co show tha~ God no longer d1stin~mshes between "clean" Jews and "unclean" Gentiles. With the death, resurrecnon, and ascension of Jesus Chrt'st th G _ . . . f G d' ' e en

ttles are now rec1p1ents o o s grace and mercy. In the light of this it is l 1 h h d. . I . . d ' on y natura t at t e 1vine y institute regulations concerning clean and unclean

foo~s should be ab,ando_ned; they no longer serve any meaningful purpose. So s1gmficant ts Peter s v1s1on in shaping the outlook of the early church that it is recorded twice in Acts (10:9-16; 11:5-10) . Later, at the Jerusalem Council Peter defends his action in taking the gospel to the Gentiles by commenting tha~ God no longer makes a distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:7-9).

Although the early church abandoned the distinction between clean and unclean foods on theological grounds, they still insisted that Gentiles should adhere to the principle of not eating blood . This is seen in the conclusion reach_ed by the Jerusalem Council, which was called to clarify the position of Gennles regarding circumcision and the law of Moses. James summarizes the

26.

TH E M A I N TH E M E S or- TH E P ENTAT EU C H

council's findings by declaring that Gentile believers should be. 1 db 'd 1 f 1 · . tnstruq d' abstain from food pol ute y i o s, rom sexua immorality, from h e 't

strangled animals and from blood" (Acts 15:20; cf. 15:29). Altho t ~rneat 0~ Testament regulations concerning clean/unclean foods are no lonug the Old under the new covenant established by Jesus Christ, the theologi:e{~el~vant the Old Testament prohibition against the eating of blood remains a hasis for

f A r:) h unc an as a result of the new covenant (c . Gen. 9:-ro . T us there is good ged . d ·1 b 1· h reason£ insisting that both Jewish an Genti e e 1evers s ould adhere to it 0r

Remarkably, although the early church insisted on maintainin~ th Testament regulation concerning the eating of the blood of animals e Old

. 1· b ' several New Testament passages contam start mg statements a out eating the bl of Christ. The most striking of these is John 6:53-56: "Jesus said to th~~d 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink h'' blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood his eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food a:~ my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him."' These comments, which highlight a special relationship between Jesus and those who eat his flesh and drink his blood, are dearly re- lated to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, or Eucharist.7 In commemorating the new covenant, believers are to eat bread and drink wine, representing the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Matt. 26:27-28; Mark 14:23-24). By doing so, they acknowledge their association with Jesus and participate in the benefits derived from his death (1 Cor. 10:16-21; 11:23-26). At the very heart of the meal instituted by Jesus Christ is communion with God.

266

h of Christ 7. Cf. P. M. Hoskins, That Scripture Might Be Fulfilled: Typology and the Deat

(La Vergne, TN: Xulon, 2009), 103-9.