STUDIES IN FOOD AND FAITH

by James B. Jordan

Biblical Horizons
P. O. Box 132011
Tyler, Texas 75713

Copyright © Biblical Horizons

August, 1989

1
 SECTION 01 - AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MOSAIC DIETARY LAWS

This series of studies is not about diet or hygiene. Such matters do not lie in my area of expertise, nor do I
wish to be put in a position of making public recommendations along such lines. Rather, these are studies
in Biblical Theology.

Because of the nature of the topic, however, the contents of these studies will be of interest to persons
concerned with diet. Many readers will be looking for a statement that we ought to keep the Mosaic dietary
laws for reasons of health, and these readers will be disappointed. Faithfulness to Christ—to His Scriptures
primarily, and secondarily to the voice of His Spirit as He has guided the Christian Church through two
millennia—compels me as a teacher and theologian to insist that the Mosaic dietary laws, as they are
written, are not relevant to hygiene.

First of all, as later essays will develop at length, clean and unclean do not mean, nor do they imp1y,
healthy and unhealthy. The distinction between clean and unclean animals, and persons, is religious-
symbolic and in no way whatsoever hygienic.

For the present, consider for instance that a person was unclean for seven days if he touched a human
corpse (Num. 19:11), but for only one day if he touched the carcass of a pig (Lev. 11:24-25). Hygiene does
not account for this difference.

Again, Leviticus 11:40 states that if an Israelite ate carcass meat, he was to wash himself and his clothes
and be unclean until the evening. If unclean means unhealthy, then this verse is saying that a person was
made ill but became suddenly well at sundown. As Ernest L. Martin puts it, “If hygienic uncleanness were
meant, how could the man be hygienically decontaminated simply by the setting of the sun? This would
mean he was in a completely unhealthy state just before the going down of the sun, but at the exact moment
the sun went below the western horizon, the man became perfectly healthy in a physical way.” 1 To which
we may add, how can washing one’s skin and clothing help remove the internal illness caused by eating
bad food? From these examples we can see very clearly that clean and unclean do not mean healthy and
unhealthy, and have nothing to do with hygiene.

Second, clean and unclean do not mean edible and inedible when it comes to food. As Genesis 9:3 makes
clear, Noah was free to eat the flesh of unclean animals as well as clean. It was only with Moses, and after
the erection of the Tabernacle and God’s putting His Name-presence in it, that the flesh of unclean animals
was declared detestable for Israel, which meant it was not to be eaten.

At the present time, multitudes of Christians are rediscovering the treasures of the Old Testament, and this
is a marvelous thing. From my reading and listening, I have noticed an increasing emphasis on keeping the
Mosaic dietary laws as laws for health. My concern in writing these studies is that this emphasis on hygiene
and health is diverting the Christian community from the real, powerful, Spiritual messages and truths that
are contained in the laws of Leviticus. It is to set out and safeguard those Spiritual truths that these studies
have been written, and in order to safeguard them, we must be clear that the reason for the dietary laws in
Leviticus is not health and hygiene.

Now, if I were a Christian dietitian I should certainly make it my business to examine the Biblical material
relating to food, in the interest of possible correlations with health. On the one hand, we know that God
never told the Jews to do anything unhealthy. On the other hand, God certainly cared just as much for Noah
and Abraham, yet He did not warn them against pork and shrimp. If the purpose of the dietary laws had
been hygienic, God would have given them to Noah and Abraham.

Still, it may be that we would be better off to eat relatively less pork and shrimp, and relatively more beef
and chicken. In fact, we might be better off to eat less meat altogether, like some ancient peoples. If the
flesh of clean animals turns out, after extended and careful research, to be slightly better food than the flesh

1
Ernest L. Martin, "The Dietary Laws of the Bible," Foundation for Biblical Research Exposition Paper (1974); available from
Academy for Scriptural Knowledge, P.O. Box 7777, Alhambra, CA 91802-7777.

2
of unclean animals, that is well and good, but it is not what the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are
concerned with. The Mosaic law did not say, “Eat less,” but “Never eat.”

We have to note also that the Bible gives no list of edible versus poisonous plants. Surely if health were the
criterion for the animal list, there would also be a plant list as well. There is no such list, however. God
expected the people to figure out for themselves which plants were good for food and which were not.. Just
so, God expected Noah and expects us to figure out for ourselves which animals are good for food and
which are not. The question of health is not relevant to the Mosaic dietary laws.

Let me say this as well: The Bible says that salt is good (Mark 9:50), and God commanded that His
sacrifices be salted (Lev. 2:13), but my family has a history of high blood pressure, and so I eat very little
salt. The Bible says that milk is good (Is. 55:1) --indeed, God’s land “flowed with milk and honey” (Ex.
3:8) --but my personal system is lactose-intolerant, and I consume very little milk. I personally seldom eat
shellfish or pork. Moreover, one of my children had a problem when he was young with “hyperactivity”—
now called “attention deficiency disorder”—and we successfully controlled it with a special diet that
avoided tomatoes and citrus fruits and also common food colors and preservatives. Now, I mention all this
to show that I am not writing this book as a defense of modern eating habits or because I have an
uncontrolled lust for pork. On the contrary, I have a high regard for dietetic medicine.

My concern is that the Old Testament laws are being misused by persons who, with the best of intentions,
want to find health hints in the Bible. My hope is that these studies will help redirect the focus of this
concern and put matters back into perspective. The food law of the New Covenant is the Lord’s Supper,
and sickness and health are indeed tied to its faithful observance (1Cor. 11:30). Sickness and health were
related to the dietary laws of Moses for the same reason, but that reason is the Spiritual efficacy of the
sacrament, not the biological mechanics of the human body.

Symbolism

The hygienic misuse of these laws arises, as do other misinterpretations, because of the pervasive influence
of non-Christian philosophical viewpoints in our culture. It is clear that the laws of clean and unclean in the
Bible are symbolic in nature. Peter’s vision in Acts 10 establishes a symbolic connection between the
unclean animals and the Gentile nations, an association already set forth in Leviticus 20:22-26. No one
denies this, but modern Christians are not accustomed to Biblical symbolism, with the result that full justice
is not done to the laws of uncleanness.

Let’s take an example that will show how differently people in the ancient world thought from the way we
think today. This story will show us that if we are to understand Biblical symbolism, we shall have to learn
to think in Biblical categories, and set aside our modern worldview.

When Jacob returned to the promised land after his sojourn in Mesopotamia, he was met by the Angel of
the Lord. God wrestled with him all night, and when the Angel “saw that he had not prevailed against him,
he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with
him” (Gen. 32:25). This dislocation, with Jacob’s subsequent limp, constituted a sign of Jacob’s victory. He
had wrestled “with God and with men” and had prevailed (Gen. 32:28). Like a father training his child, so
God had wrestled with Jacob for nearly a hundred years, using Esau, Isaac, and Laban as His tools to
strengthen His son for service. Now, as a token of His grace, He gave Jacob a limp. 2

What does this mean? For an explanation we can look to Genesis 3:15, where we are told that the serpent’s
head will be crushed, while the heel of the Seed will be bruised. It is possible to trace this imagery through
the scripture, and what emerges is that because of sin, all men must suffer some wound. The head wound is
for God’s enemies, while a mere foot wound is for His friends. Accordingly, Jacob’s limp was a sign of his
victory and salvation, a sign that, with God’s grace, he had crushed the serpents in his life. 3

2
For a more extended discussion of Jacob's wrestling, see James B. Jordan, Primeval Saints: Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis
(available from Biblical Horizons), chap. 8.
3
See ibid.; and on the theme of the head wound, see James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva
Ministries, 1985).

3
Now, would it occur to you or me to draw any culinary conclusions from this episode? Doubtless not. Yet
we read in Genesis 32:32, “Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is
on the socket of the thigh, because He touched the socket of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew of the hip.” Notice
what the verse does say: It does not say that God commanded the Israelites to memorialize this incident by
refraining from eating this muscle. Rather, it says that the sons of Israel drew an inference from the event:
They inferred that it would be improper to eat this particular muscle.

Does this inference make sense to us? Does it go along with the way we twentieth-century people think?
Clearly not.

My point is that twentieth-century readers are not at home in the worldview of the Bible. We do not
understand how people thought and reasoned, because we do not share their presuppositions and outlook. 4
The result is that we are prone to misinterpret the meaning of significant parts of Scripture, and this is
particularly true of the Mosaic dietary laws. If we are to understand the real meaning of the Levitical code,
we must acquire the mindset of the ancient Israelite, which is the mindset of the Bible. When such passages
as Genesis 32:32 begin to make sense to us, we will be in a position to investigate Leviticus 11, but unless
we become familiar with the “inner logic” of Genesis 32:32, the other dietary laws in the Bible will
continue to be somewhat obscure to us.

The perspective of the present writer is that of Reformed theology. Reformed theology teaches that the
creation is good, and that it is unfallen. 5 Only man is fallen, and only man needs redemption. For this
reason, Reformed theology has historically rejected any notion of “saving” or “consecrating” any part of
the creation except for human beings. Reformed theology insists that the created world is perfectly
designed to communicate God’s truth, and is in need of no restoration. The creation is in no sense
“inadequate” for this purpose.

As a result, the Reformed approach to the Old Testament ceremonial laws is radically symbolic. When we
see the Tabernacle and the Temple sprinkled with blood and consecrated with oil, we understand that these
actions have no meaning except in that they symbolize the redemption and consecration of human beings.
They have no other meaning. Wood, cloth, and stone are not fallen, and are in no need of blood-redemption
or oil-consecration. The same thing is true of the articles of furniture in the Tabernacle and of the various
altars of the Old Testament. These things symbolized human beings. That is why they were sprinkled with
blood, oil, and water.

Reformed theology maintains that these actions were types and shadows, and are abolished in the New
Covenant. Reformed theology does not countenance the consecration of church buildings, or even of the
water used in baptism and the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper. These material objects are
perfectly suited to their task already, being good by virtue of creation, and being unfallen. It is only human
beings who need to be consecrated, by baptism.

It is almost as if, when man rebelled against God, lion and tiger came to God and said, “This guy is a
criminal, and we’d like to take a bite out of crime!” God said, “Have at it. From now on you will be My
agents to bite man.” Sheep came to God and said, “This guy stinks!” God said, “You’re right. From now
on, you will by My agent to stink in the nostrils of man, to show him his sin.” Rose came to God and said,
“Why should this sinner have the beauty of my flower?” God said, “I agree. From now on you can grow

4
An extended introduction to Biblical symbolism is James B. Jordan, Throuqh New Eves: Developinq a Biblical View of the World
(Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988). On the re1ationship of symbolism to the Mosaic law, see Jordan, "The Death Penalty in
the Mosaic Law: Five Exploratory Essays" (Biblical Horizons, 1988); and Jordan, "Reconsidering the Mosaic law: Some Reflections"
(Biblical Horizons, 1988). This last essay was originally designed as the Introduction to the present series of essays, but I decided that
it went too far afield of the topic. Any student concerned with the broader hermeneutical issues involved in the Mosaic food law
problem will want to obtain it.
5
This is not to say that the expression “fallen creation” nowhere occurs in Reformed literature. In fact it does. What I am here
insisting, however, is that the creation is not fallen in any moral sense, and thus is in no need of moral renovation. The creation can be
said to be “fallen” in the non-moral sense that it is estranged from man, and thus “groans” because of the curse on man’s sin. After the
fall of man, creation shows not only God’s goodness but also His wrath. The creation prosecutes and executes the curse upon man’s
sin, and in the process “suffers” along with man (Rom. 8:18-23). Morally, however, there is nothing “unclean in itself” in the creation
(Rom. 14:14). Only man is vile. I shall discuss this at greater length in the course of the present series of essays.

4
thorns to make it hard for him.” Soil came to God and said, “I don’t think this guy should get away with
what he’s done.” God said, “Right you are. From now on, you will be My agent to remind me of man’s sin.
When I see dirt on a man, I will be reminded to reject him.”

The point is that creation is God’s friend. It is humanity that is God’s enemy. In Biblical religion there are
no taboo things, only taboo people. Those aspects of the law that appear to secular scholars to be taboos
against things (e.g., “leprosy” in garments or in the walls of a house, a defiled bed or chair or pot or tool)
are in reality only symbols of taboos against persons.

It will be important for us to keep this point firmly in mind as we proceed. Only Biblical religion starts with
a doctrine of creation, and therefore holds that all created things are good. All other religions start with a
doctrine of “nature, “ and hold that in “nature” some things are good and some are bad (some are “yin” and
some are “yang”).6 Thus, while other religions have laws of clean and unclean, in those religions the idea is
that some aspects of “nature” are dangerous and therefore taboo. In other words, clean and unclean are
impersonal forces (the “dark side of the Force”) or impersonal states of being. By way of contrast, Biblical
religion is exhaustively personal. Only persons can be clean and unclean. Anything else that is marked out
as clean or unclean is so designated only insofar as it symbolizes human persons.

An alternative view among world religions holds that uncleanness is caused by evil spirits who threaten
God and thus must be kept away from His house. Here again, humanity is absolved from blame, and made
victim instead of sinner. This viewpoint is totally at odds with Biblical religion. In the Bible, those spirits
who turned evil were created by God and are thus totally under His control. They can do nothing without
permission (Job 1-2), and thus are no threat to Him or His house. Although in the providence of God the
serpent (Satan) tempted man to sin, man is wholly accountable for his own sin. Man is sinner, not victim.
Men and angels can be clean or unclean, because both are personal, but there is no Biblical evidence that
fallen angels have any ability directly to defile God’s house. Man and only man can “defile” God’s house,
and since God’s “house” is His people, what this means is that only men can defile other men. 7 In order to
defile man—members of God’s house—fallen angels must work through other men. In the Bible,
defilement is always seen either as the result of deliberate human sin, or as an outgrowth of the sinful
nature of post-Adamic humanity. A man is defiled if he chooses to involve himself with something unclean
(wicked men, demons, unclean animals, corpses, etc.), or if some uncleanness arises from his inner being
(“leprosy,” issues of blood, etc.). Uncleanness and defilement never come to man, or to God’s human
house, apart from human sin.

Thus, the Biblical conception of clean and unclean is largely symbolic and totally personalistic. 8 Clean and
unclean have to do with human beings and angels, not with impersonal forces, or taboo objects. Thus, while
anthropologists such as Mary Douglas can find many superficial parallels between the symbolic system of
the Mosaic law and the symbolic systems of other religions—and offer challenging insights based on those
parallels—it has to be constantly kept in mind that the Biblical symbolic system means something utterly
and radically different from what is meant by the symbolic systems in other religions. 9 Because of their
doctrines of “being” or “nature,” other religions have an ultimately impersonal view of clean and unclean,
holy and common, and the like. In Biblical religion, the doctrine of creation means that all things are good,
and thus clean and unclean, holy and common, can have reference only to the personal life of mankind.

6
Louis Bouyer suggests that since angels run the world, there is a conflict in the lower creation that reflects the angelic conflict. I
agree that angels run the world (Through New Eyes, pp. 107-112). Whatever truth there may be to Bouyer’ s speculation concerning
strife in the lower creation, we have to bear in mind from Job 1 and 2 that fallen angels can only manipulate the lower creation to the
degree that and in the ways that God allows. Thus, the fallen angels are unwilling agents of God to bring chastisement upon humanity,
until the last day when they along with sinners will be cast into the lake of fire. From his remarks, I believe Bouyer would agree with
me in this. At any rate, while fallen angels may join with fallen humanity in subjecting the creation to “bondage” (Rom. 8:19-22), it
still remains that the creation itself is unfallen and in no need of redemption or consecration to do its proper tasks. Bouyer’s
ruminations are in his Cosmos: The World and the Glory of God, trans. Pierre de Fontnouvelle (Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s
Publications, [1982] 1988), pp. 194-217. My allusion to Bouyer in this note is not an endorsement of his book or of his speculations
regarding angels, particularly his view that humanity is a substitute creation for a primordial angelic world.
7
In other words, the Tabernacle as a physical object could not be defiled. It is only as it represented the human community that the
notions of defilement and cleansing were relevant to it.
8
In the Mosaic law, clean and unclean are wholly symbolic. In later passages of scripture, the language of uncleanness is used to refer
to human immorality.
9
See her essays in Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1969), esp. chap. 3: “The Abominations of Leviticus”; and Douglas, Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), esp. chaps. 16 & 17: “Deciphering a Meal,” and “Self-Evidence.”

5
Contrary to Bouyer10 angels were created as servants for humanity. They are mighty servants, and they
serve man at God’s direction, not ours; but they are still servants. It was this status against which Lucifer
revolted. This means that all the sinfulness and defilement in this world ultimately was caused by Adam,
not by Satan. Had Satan failed to persuade Adam to sin, there would be no “angelic conflict” in this or any
other world. God would simply have banished Satan and his companions to hell, and that would have been
the end of it. It is thus a Second Adam, not a “Second Lucifer,” whose atonement saves the entire cosmos.
My point is that whatever reference uncleanness may have to the world of fallen angels, its ultimate focus
of meaning is human. God does not save the fallen angels; He only saves men. Fallen angels cannot be
“cleansed.” The system of clean and unclean is thus exhaustively personal and ultimately only concerned
with human beings.

Part of the problem here comes from the use of such abstract nouns as “holiness” and “uncleanness.” It is
easy to forget that such terms in the Bible only refer to qualities of persons, and begin to think that they
refer to some kind of force or thing in themselves. In logic, this is called the error of “hypostatization” or
“reification,” treating a quality as though it were a thing. As I have read widely in the area of holiness and
uncleanness, I have encountered this error time without number. It is often hard to remember that such a
sentence as: “When holiness comes in contact with uncleanness, it is destructive, “ really means: “When
the Holy God comes face to face with an unclean man (whose sin nature is made visible in the
uncleanness), God will destroy the sinner.” We must discipline ourselves to bear in mind always that we
are discussing personal relations, not impersonal forces.

This point will be reiterated, with Biblical evidence, throughout the present series of studies, but I thought
it necessary to set it forth here at the outset, so that the reader will have an idea of the perspective from
which they have been written.

Today’s Prob1ems

While the primary purpose of these essays is positive—to understand God’s revelation better so as to get a
better grasp of the nature of our redemption from sin and restoration to Life—there is also a negative side
to the present study as well. It is directed against two errors. The first error is that the Mosaic dietary laws
were given for reasons of health, and so even though Christians are not “under” the Mosaic law, still it
would be wise to follow these laws as much as is reasonably possible, because the body is the temple of the
Holy Spirit. The second error is a more radical, and much less frequently encountered, form of the first. It
maintains that Christians are indeed required to observe the Mosaic dietary laws, because unlike the
sacrifices, the laws of uncleanness are moral laws and are binding on believers of all ages. 11

While these errors are not new, they seem to be circulating in the United States of America today more than
ever before.12 In the past it has been only a few individuals and groups on the outer fringes of Christendom
that have ever advocated keeping the Mosaic dietary laws. There is no evidence I know of to substantiate
Rushdoony’s unbacked claim that “the Mosaic laws of diet are basic to the patterns of virtually every
Christian country.”13 It happens that most of the animals declared unclean in the Old Covenant are animals
that would be infrequently eaten, because they are wild animals that must be hunted. All the same, Western

10
Op. cit.
11
It is interesting that Rousas J. Rushdoony, a noted advocate of the Mosaic food laws, seems to have moved from the moderate to the
radical position over the years. In his Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), he wrote that "the dietary laws are not
legally binding on us, but they do provide us with a principle of operation," p. 301, emphasis mine. At this point Rushdoony was
saying that the Mosaic food laws were good advice, but that Christians should not allow diet to be a barrier to evangelism. A decade
later, Rushdoony published this statement: "The various dietary laws, laws of separation, and other laws no longer mandatory as
covenantal signs, are still valid and mandatory as health requirements in terms of Deuteronomy 7:12-16," emphasis mine; Rushdoony,
Law and Society: Volume II of the Institutes of Biblical Law (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), p. 702. Possibly Rushdoony
would still have maintained that diet should not be a barrier to evangelism, but this is not his emphasis in the later book. At the very
least, this reflects a pronounced shift in rhetoric. Setting aside the question of evangelism, the laws no longer merely "provide us with
a principle of operation," but are "mandatory."
12
Weird food cults are nothing new in the united States, but the advocacy of the Mosaic dietary laws in evangelical circles seems to be
a new thing. This is pushed strongly in the Rushdoony-wing of Christian Reconstructionism, and by the Bill Gothard Institute for
Basic Youth Conflicts.
13
Rushdoony, Institutes, p. 298

6
civilization has regularly dined on rabbit, pork, shellfish, and has shown no particular aversion to squirrel,
possum, snake, crawfish, or catfish.

To my knowledge—and there is a dissertation topic sitting right here for whoever wants it—the only meat
the Church has ever forbidden is horseflesh. 14 Marvin Harris has made a good case for viewing this as
related to the exigencies of warfare rather than to any adherence to Moses. “with their survival threatened
by Moslem cavalry, the Church fathers could only take a dim view of an appetite for horseflesh, and in
A.D. 732 Pope Gregory III wrote a letter to his missionary among the Germans, Boniface, ordering an end
to the consumption of horsemeat.....Was it a coincidence that A.D. 732 was also the date of the battle of
Tours? I doubt it. To defend the horse was to defend the faith.” 15 Thus, Harris concludes that “Europe’s
taste for horseflesh has followed a peculiar on-again, off-again pattern. When horses were a rare and
endangered species needed for war, and other sources of meat were abundant, Church and state banned the
consumption of horseflesh; the ban was relaxed and horsemeat consumption increased when horses became
abundant and other sources of meat became scarce….”16

Another dissertation topic would be the study of the history of fringe groups that have advocated eccentric
dietary patterns, particularly the continuing observance of the Mosaic dietary laws. In recent centuries, this
error has been linked to seventh-day sabbatarianism. Thus the Seventh-Day Adventists also keep the
Mosaic dietary laws.17 This association cropped up earlier, however, among the more radical fringes of the
Baptist wing of the Puritan movement in England. One advocate was a certain John Traske, who
“had a following in London, and....tried to convert people to his opinion.” 18 His Saturday-sabbath and
Mosaic dietary opinions became so controversial that Lancelot Andrewes “made a speech against
Traske,”19 and in 1618 John Falconer, a Roman Catholic Englishman, wrote A Brief Refutation of John
Traske’s Judicial and Novel Fancies.20 Falconer argued that animals were categorized as clean and unclean
before Noah, but that since flesh was not eaten before the Flood, this distinction could not by itself have to
do with food. He went on to point out on the basis of Genesis 9:3 that after the Flood all flesh was given as
food, both clean and unclean. Thus, the prohibition on eating the flesh of unclean animals was an
innovation of the Mosaic law, and had passed away with the coming of the New Covenant. 21

Traske became so controversial that he was prosecuted by the Star Chamber in 1618, and though he
recanted, he was fined and imprisoned.22 His wife, who was far more militant—on the subject of the
Saturday-sabbath at least, spent eleven years in prison.23 This was apparently not so much because she
advocated resting on Saturday but because she insisted on working on Sunday and campaigned against the
Sunday Lord’s Day.24 At any rate, it would be very interesting to study the history of the Seventh-Day
Baptists in England and America to see if they consistently advocated the Mosaic dietary laws as well as
the Saturday-sabbath.
14
Maybe you would like to write this dissertation? The Church and the Horse. Chapter 1: The Horse and the Old Testament—
forbidden as a weapon of war, since it was exclusively aggressive, but used as a symbol of world evangelism in Zechariah. Chapter 2:
The Horse in the Early Church Fathers. Chapter 3: Horseflesh and the Church Through the Ages. Etc. A survey of the horse as
symbol, as weapon, and as food would surely fill the requirements for a Ph. D. somewhere.
15
Marvin Harris, The Sacred Cow and the Abominable pig: Riddles of Food and Culture (orig. titled Good to Eat) (New York: Simon
& Schuster/Touchstone, 1985), p. 96.
16
Ibid., p. 102.
17
Many Seventh-Day Adventists go further and practice vegetarianism, but Church law only binds them to observe the Mosaic dietary
laws. For a SDA exposition of Leviticus 11, see the Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, 7 vols. (Washington: Review and
Herald Pub. Association, 1953) 1:752-57.
18
Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England, 2d ed. (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), p. 203.
19
Ibid.
20
Published by St. Omer; available in microfilm in the Early English Books series.
21
Falconer, pp. 67-70.
22
Hill, pp. 202-203. Traske’s recantation was entitled A Treatise of Libertie from Iudaisme. Or An Acknowledgement of true
Christian Libertie. indited and published By John Traske: Of late stumbling, now happily running againe in the Race of Christianitie
(1620). My source for this is Peter Milward, Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age: A Survey of Printed Sources (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska press, 1978), p. 46.
23
Hill, p. 203.
24
”Mrs. Traske went to prison for sixteen years for resting on the Sabbath and working on the ‘Lord’s Day’—which ended only with
her death. Seventh-Day Baptists in those days believed they should work on Sunday as well as rest on Saturday.” Le Roy Edwin
Froom, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation (Washington: Review and Herald,
1954), p. 912. Froom refers to J. W. Thirtle; Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society, vol. 3, pp. 179, 183 as his source for this
information. Obviously, Traske and his company are regarded as heroes by the Seventh-Day Adventists such as Froom. I have no way
of knowing whether Mrs. Traske spent eleven years in prison and was released, as Hill states, or spent sixteen years in prison under
her death, as Thirtle evidently states. Let me also say that I am not justifying the Star Chamber’s actions against these people!

7
We are not, however, concerned with the history of eccentric groups, but with the Biblical theology of the
Mosaic dietary laws, as understood by the Church catholic of all ages. Fringe groups in American
Christianity have for over a century advocated dietary and hygienic practices designed to curb sin, and this
is part of the milieu in which the current discussion must take place.25 It seems reasonable to many
Americans to assume that God intended to be teaching Israel about diet, because diet and health are part of
the popular civil religion of America today, and because dietetic theology has been a strong current in
American Christianity in the past.

In the nineteenth century there were prominent liberal and sectarian theologians who believed that the
sinfulness of man could be curbed through diet and hygiene. John Harvey Kellogg, a Seventh-Day
Adventist, invented corn flakes as a meatless breakfast food designed to reduce the sexual drive. 26 Control
of “bestial sexual impulses” was linked in the popular imagination, both sectarian and liberal, with a bland
diet devoid of alcohol, coffee, tea, tobacco, condiments, and largely devoid of meat. Assumption of this
diet would reduce what is today called libido, and this reduction of the “animal” in man would be passed on
to one’s children, who would grow up with less “original sin.” 27 Salvation through diet passed into the
popular imagination through the writings of liberals like Horace Bushnell, sectarians like Kellogg and
Charles Finney, and cultists like Mary Baker Eddy.28 As a result there is a pervasive orientation toward
dietetic theology in American Christianity that colors our discussion of the Mosaic dietary laws.

25
The discussion that follows is based upon Peter Gardella’s valuable study Innocent Ecstasy: How Christianity Give America an
Ethic of Sexual Pleasure (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), particularly chapters 2 and 3, titled “Medical Christianity” and
“Medical Prophets.”
26
Ibid., p. 44

27
This was the purpose of Graham flour, developed by Sylvester Graham, and still with us in Graham Crackers. The Graham diet was
used at Charles Finney’s Oberlin College to protect students against “vile affections.” Ibid., pp. 46-47, 53. The Bill Gothard Institute
for Basic Youth Conflicts is strongly influenced by Finney’s writings, and it is possible that the dietary aspect of their program can be
traced partially to Finney’s mediation of the Graham viewpoint.
28
Ibid., chap. 3. The Anglo-Israelite or British-Israelite or “Identity” viewpoint hovered around the fringe of American sectarian
Christianity during this period, and adopted many of these views. The notion that the Mosaic dietary laws were given for health
reasons, and are still in force today, is found in the British-Israelite Howard B. Rand’s Digest of the Divine Law (Merrimac, MA:
Destiny Publishers, 1943). A comparison of the content of this book with that of R. J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law will
show the influence of Rand upon Rushdoony at many points. It seems likely that it is ultimately nineteenth-century Adventist ideas,
mediated through Rand, that lie behind Rushdoony’s dietetic theology.

8
 SECTION 2 - OBSERVATIONS ON THE BIBLE AND HEALTH

St. Ives had always felt at home in Captain Powers' [tobacco] shop, although he would have been in a hard
way to say just how His own home --the home of his childhood -- hadn't resembled it in the slightest. His
parents had prided themselves in being modern, and would brook no tobacco or liquor. His father had
written a treatise on palsy, linking the disease to the consumption of meat, and for three years no meat
crossed the threshold. It was a poison, an abomination, carrion --like eating broiled dirt, said his father. And
tobacco: his father would shudder at the mention of the word. St. Ives could remember him standing atop a
crate beneath a leafless oak, he couldn't say just where --St. James Park, perhaps --shouting at an indifferent
crowd about the evils of general intemperance.

His theories had declined from the scientific to the mystical and then into gibberish, and now he wrote
papers still, sometimes in verse, from the confines of a comfortable, barred cellar in north Kent. St. Ives
had decided by the time he was twelve that intemperance in the pleasures of the senses was, in the main,
less ruinous than was intemperance along more abstract lines. Nothing, it seemed to him, was worth losing
your sense of proportion and humor over, least of all a steak pie, a pint of ale, and a pipe of latakia. 1

It is the premise of this essay, as it is that of these essays as a whole, that the primary meaning of food in
the Bible is religious. Our need for food demonstrates our dependence on God, and His provision of it
shows His grace. Beyond that, how we relate to food has a lot to say about how we relate to God. The food
laws God gave His people at various stages of redemptive history were all fundamentally sacramental in
character.

Additionally, we have to say that the primary and ultimate factor in health is our relation to the Holy Spirit,
Who is, according to the universal confession of Christendom in the Nicene Creed, "the Lord and Giver of
life." Ultimately all life and power come from God, and apart from Him there is only sickness, impotence,
and death. Health, therefore, is primarily religious in character.

The misuse of the Mosaic dietary code --taking it as "God's laws of health" ---arises from a failure to keep
clear and central this religious meaning of food and health. The one abiding food law in the New Covenant
is to join with Jesus Christ at His thanksgiving meal, the Holy Eucharistic Communion of the saints. In that
we are to fellowship with God, we must eschew the table of demons (1Cor. 10:18-21), which is to eat food
in any idolatrous religious setting; and in that we are to feast upon the blood of Christ, we are still to avoid
all other blood (Acts 15:29). We are assured that proper communion with Christ, including the act of eating
the Lord's Supper, is conducive for good health, in that blasphemous eating results in sickness (1Cor.
11:30).

From this it is clear that good health is indeed connected to proper food, but that such proper food is
nothing less than the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, given us in a mystery in the sacrament of Holy
Communion.

Apart from a clear vision of this truth, however, men turn toward mechanical views of health. An inevitable
reductionism takes place, in which the mystery of the Spirit's workings is ignored in favor of a total
"scientific" rationalism. The result, whether ancient or modern, is "medicine man religion." It is assumed
that the secret of good health lies in proper food or in some technique. With the decline of Christianity,
such beliefs have become more and more popular in recent years.

One pervasive tendency in popular rationalistic views of health is a cultivated anorexia, or rejection of
God's good world as evil and dangerous. James Blaylock, in the passage from his award-winning novel
Homunculus reprinted above, is correct in seeing this world-rejection as thoroughly modern, and a

1
From James P. Blaylock's novel Homunculus (New York: Ace Science Fiction Books, 1986), pp. 22f. Blaylock is in the same school
of SF writing as Timothy Powers. Homunculus is dedicated in part to Powers, who, like the heroic Captain Powers in Blaylock's
novel, has worked in a tobacco shop. Christian symbolism runs through Homunculus, as it does through such novels of Powers as The
Anubis Gates and Dinner at Deviant's Palace.

9
repudiation of the previous Christian consensus. St. Ives's father had initially justified his theoretical
anorexia by the use of "science," but later declined into mystical justifications --rather like the current
passage of American anorexics into "New Age" mysticism. In the nineteenth century, meat-haters, alcohol-
haters, tobacco-haters, condiment-haters, tea-and-coffee-haters, and other anorexics used both "scientific"
and religious (e.g., Mormonism) rationales for their eccentricities. In Blaylock's novel, the character St.
Ives comes to a Chestertonian common sense Christian position on the subject, as the quotation
demonstrates.

During my years as a deacon, seminarian, assistant pastor, and pastor, I have had ample opportunity to
observe health fads in the Church. These seem particularly strong in conservative churches. My purpose in
this essay is to explore this problem.

The Fringe

Anyone who has spent much time in a very conservative church, be it Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian,
Fundamentalist, Catholic, or anything else, has encountered people, both individuals and groups, who hold
"strange" ideas. Some of these ideas are absolutely correct, and only seem strange because our modern
secular society is so filled with error. Examples of strange ideas that prove to be true upon inspection are
predestination, creationism, and anti-abortion picketing. Other of these weird ideas turn out upon inspection
to be --weird. In my opinion the geo-centricity craze that ran through some Reformed and Fundamentalist
circles a few years ago is in this category, as is the tax revolt movement --the latter being foolish and
dangerous as well as weird.2 A third group falls into the category of "that's all right for you, but not
necessarily for me." This includes such matters as "natural" childbearing, home birth, and home schooling.

The preceding paragraph touches on the reason why fringe ideas often find a ready, though generally
temporary, following in conservative circles. Self-conscious conservatives are people who are aware that
the standard liberal viewpoint in American culture is wrong. The liberal line is generally immoral, as its
toleration of pornography and abortion demonstrates. It is also generally stupid, as is shown not only by its
promotion of detente with militant communism, but also by its continued advocacy of bureaucratic
welfarism, a grossly abusive system of poor relief.

Many conservatives were raised up as establishment Americans in public schools, but since have
undergone conversion to orthodox Christianity. Since we Christians realize that the establishment is so
often wrong, and since we have had to change our minds on so many important matters, we are naturally
suspicious of anything found in the establishment, and we are naturally open to any fringe idea that seems
to have a better answer. We were led to search for the Truth, and we found it off the currently beaten path.
Naturally we are ready to believe that there is a lot more truth off the path than on it these days. Maybe
Roosevelt did deliberately provoke the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. Maybe the assassination of
Kennedy was a CIA conspiracy. Maybe Khrushchev was deposed because he "went forward” in a Baptist
church and was saved.

Maybe. But in any event, we have found out something that many people don't know: The establishment
lies. They've lied to us before, and they're probably lying to us now. Because we realize this, we are open to
the fringe.

It is important, however, to be wary of the fringe. This is for three reasons. First, we believe that the free
market, left un-hindered over a period of time, rewards good performance and penalizes poor performance.
This is an important fact when considering various kinds of medicine. The reason that standard (allopathic)
medicine holds the fort today is because it has generally performed better than other kinds of medicine. To
ignore this fact is to overlook the principle of the free market. It is hardly credible to maintain that the
dominance of allopathic medicine is totally the result of some conspiracy. As Franklin Payne has put it,
"The most soundly-based therapies are those of formally trained physicians and their traditional
[professional] helpers: nurses, physical therapists, etc. No other healing discipline is as well researched, and

2
For my own critiques of these two fringe movements, see James B. Jordan, "The Geocentricity Question," in The Biblical Educator
3:12 (December, 1981); and Jordan, "The Christian and Tax strikes: Pros and Cons," in Biblical Economics Today 4:2 (April/May,
1981). These are both available for a donation from the Institute for Christian Economics, Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711.

10
the onus is on other disciplines to begin to develop their research base. At the same time flexibility must be
allowed because traditional [allopathic] medicine has serious problems of its own.” 3 With this in mind, the
real success stories in chiropractic, homeopathic, osteopathic, and naturopathic medicine indicate that they
have a contribution to make, and persons involved in Christian healing should be open to them. The fringe
tendency, however, is always to give more credibility to the unusual, and this we need to avoid.

The second reason to be wary of the fringe is because our long-standing traditions are Christian. For
instance, our educational system developed over centuries in Western European and American
Christendom. Nowadays there are fringe movements, in some Christian schools and especially in some
home schooling circles that completely throw out all traditional curricula and teaching methods in favor of
experimental theories dreamed up by various people who want to reinvent the wheel. It is the children who
will suffer most from these experiments.

To a lesser degree this is true in medicine. Our traditions of health may not be perfect, but they do reflect
centuries of Christian wisdom. At the same time, some of the traditions have been lost during the last
century because of the rise of scientific medicine, and the reduction of medicine to the "biomedical"
approach.4 The focus shifted from the healing of the person to the treatment of the disease. The Hippocratic
tradition that integrated what are now generally called homeopathic and allopathic approaches was lost.
The allopathic approach was easier to confirm by scientific methods, and other approaches, lacking as
much scientific confirmation, became "second class." The more holistic approaches within the Christian
medical profession that are on the rise are working to restore the tradition. 5 At the same time, the real gains
of scientific, biomedical allopathy are not to be despised. Beware of throwing over real wisdom in favor of
fringe ideas.

The third reason for being wary of the fringe is that fringe ideas are often pagan or even occultic. They may
be right at some points, and they usually have some germ of truth or they would not have any following at
all, but we definitely need to use a light touch when approaching them. Exponents of fringe viewpoints
usually make extreme claims, virtually promising miracles. For instance, in some home birth circles there is
a mystique of physical touching – long term nursing, the "family bed, " etc. --that in its extremism falls
right over into paganism. The question is not whether these practices are all right in themselves, but rather
of the philosophy that is associated with them in some circles. Babies need to be held and touched, of
course, but sometimes almost miraculous benefits are promised. When I hear of the physical ecstasy of
childbearing (contrast Gene 3:16), cooking and eating the placenta, or how pleasant your baby's soiled
diaper should smell to you, I feel that I'm being assaulted by some kind of fertility-cult quackery, not
Christian common sense.6 It is important to be wary of the fringe. 7

Periodically fringe ideas float through conservative Christian circles. I mentioned the conversion of
Khrushchev, popular around 1970. Around 1974, the word was that CBS was going to broadcast uncut X-
rated films late at night. This fantastic story resulted in thousands and thousands of letters and cards to
CBS. A few years ago, the word was that the owner of McDonalds Restaurants was giving 25% of his
income to the Church of Satan.

In the medical area, I have seen a number of "fringe" ideas float through the churches of which I have been
a part. Opposition to salt and to milk, for instance. Some people need to limit their intake of these. My
3
Franklin E. Payne, Jr., Biblical/Medical Ethics: The Christian and the Practice of Medicine (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1985), p. 111.
4
On the rise of the "science ideal" in Western thought, see E. L. Hebden Taylor, The Christian Philosophy of Law, Politics, and the
State (Phillipsburg, NJ: Craig Press, 1969), pp. 183-251; and Herman Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Craig Press, 1968), pp. 45-51.
5
See Payne, ibid.; and David E. Allen, Lewis P. Bird, and Robert Herrmann, eds., Whole-Person Medicine: An International
Symposium (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980). Both of these books discuss the history of medicine briefly, and interact
with the need to supplement the allopathic approach with other approaches. Along somewhat different lines, a Christian-holistic
approach to medicine is provided in John M. Frame, Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons and Problems (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1988).
6
Let me assure the uninitiated that I have not made any of this up, though I've never personally known a Christian woman who
cooked and ate a placenta.
7
"New Age" medicine seeks to integrate various occultic and traditional approaches. For a discussion from a Christian stand-point,
see Paul C. Reisser, Teri K. Reisser, and John Weldon, New Age Medicine: A Christian Perspective on Holistic Health (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988). This is an expanded version of the authors' The Holistic Healers: A Christian Perspective on
New-Age Health Care (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983). This book contains an extended discussion of acupuncture, and
an excellent annotated bibliography.

11
system does not tolerate either salt or milk, for example. Yet, the Bible speaks favorably of salt -- Jesus
said, "Salt is good" (Mark 9:50) --and shows adults drinking milk in several places (Gen. 18:8; Jud. 4:19;
Cant. 4:11; 5:1; Joel 3:18).

Another example is opposition to the whooping cough vaccine. This does not look quite so "fringy" when
you realize that some children react very unfavorably to the shot, and a few have died from it. Because of
this, there are periodic anti-vaccination movements in conservative circles; but the disease is still
statistically a far greater danger than the vaccination.8 This is only a statistical fact, however; families in
which there is a history of reaction to the vaccination should probably pass it up, under the advice of their
family physician. The question of whooping cough vaccination continues to be controversial in medical
circles, and there are pros and cons aplenty; thus, each parent should become convinced in his or her own
eyes.

More serious is the insistence on the part of some that their children receive no vaccinations whatsoever.
This became a real problem in one church of which I was a part when an older woman, whose husband was
on the outer edge of the tax revolt fringe, went on an anti-inoculation campaign in the church. Eccentric
literature and grotesque horror stories were circulated, and a major problem faced our Christian school: Did
we have the right to require vaccinations? Did we have the right to "restrict their Christian liberty, " and
"force them to go against their conscience? Were we going to be "tyrants"?

In my opinion, God has given us these vaccines, at this stage of history, as a way to prevent disease. They
have proven successful, and to despise them is to despise the gifts of God. Moreover, as an extension of the
laws of separation (Lev. 13:5,46), societies (including Christian schools) do have a right to require certain
vaccinations. Any local society, in its body of leaders, must make such a decision based on the best
information it can obtain. People who disagree can find another school, or another community to live in, as
the Amish have done.9

This is as good a place as any to make the following point: Most people who don't like inoculations,
antibiotics, "shots and pills," are usually strongly convinced of the beneficial effects of eating vitamins or
cell salts. In fact, however, these things are all the same in principle: They are all forms of eating, taking
something from the outside into yourself. Eating a pill of medicine is just like eating any other food. It may
be good for you or it may be bad for you, but it is just food. Getting the food directly into your veins from a
shot is no different. Naturopathic vitamins, biochemical cell salts, homeopathic herbs, and allopathic
antibiotics are all, in part, philosophies of food --and for the Christian nothing can take the place of the
Lord’s Supper as the Medicine of Immortality. We return to our basic point: Keep the Supper central, and
everything else relative.

Fringe medical movements often make fantastic claims. One defense of biochemical cell salts states the
following (all underlining is mine):

The Biochemic System of Medicine is based primarily and fundamentally upon the "cell theory"
of Virchow. In 1858 that great scientist pronounced the now famous dictum that the body is
merely a collection of cells, and that medicinal treatment should be directed towards the individual
cell. This great truth once enunciated, was seized upon, developed and elaborated by others,
notably Moleschott of Rome, and Schuessler of Oldenburg, until with the full appreciation of the
value of the inorganic constituents of the cell substance, and the part taken by them in the
preservation of the health of the human organism, the Biochemic treatment of disease truly
became a system of medicine.

8
Summarizing an article by Alan Hinrnan published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a 1983 UPI report stated that
"after the reactions were first publicized, immunization levels dropped to 30 percent in Britain, where vaccination is optional. Within
five years, two major epidemics of the disease broke out." The article also pointed out that "in 1934, more than 265,000 cases of
whooping cough were reported, with 7,518 deaths." In other words, of the children who actually get the disease, about one in thirty-
five die from it. The inoculation is far safer, since permanent brain damage occurs "once in 310,000 doses of the vaccine. " In Britain,
once people stopped getting the shot, the disease returned. Though each must be persuaded in his own mind, parents should weigh this
seriously before rejecting the vaccine.
9
One of the sorriest episodes in this little affair came about when one mother insisted that all the other children be vaccinated so that
her unvaccinated darling would not be exposed to any diseases in the church and school!

12
 In this system for the first time the paramount importance of the inorganic constituents of the cell
substance was recognized, the fact being that these "cell salts," as they are commonly called, are
the vital portions of the body, the workers, the builders; that the water and organic substances
forming the remainder of the organism are simply inert matter used by these salts in building the
cells of the body.

Should a deficiency occur in one or more of these workers, of whom there are twelve, some
abnormal condition arises. These abnormal conditions are known by the general term disease, and
according as they manifest themselves in different parts of the body, they have been designated by
various names. But these names totally fail to express the real trouble. Every disease which afflicts
the human race is due to a lack of one or more of these inorganic workers. Every pain or
unpleasant sensation indicates a lack of some inorganic constituent of the body. Health and
strength can be maintained only as long as the system is properly supplied with these cell-salts.10

Note that this system claims to be able to cure everything. Note secondly that it is purely pagan: The body
is simply a machine, and the only aspect that counts is the inorganic. Note thirdly that it is grossly
reductionistic: All problems boil down to a lack of one or more of twelve "salts." Finally, note the rhetoric:
"great truth," "famous dictum," etc. This certainly appears to be no more than simple quackery.

Now in fact cell salts do help some people. I believe that I have been helped by them on occasion. We
must, however, reject these immoderate claims and pagan presuppositions, and go with more moderate
theories.

The same kind of fantastic claims are made for fasting, for colonics and enemas, for macrobiotic vegetarian
diets, and so on. Each of these things has real usefulness for some people at some times, but none is a
"secret of health." Also, from what I can tell, for every 98-year-old man who swears that colonics, alfalfa
sprouts, and apricot seeds account for his age and vitality, there is some other heal thy 98-year-old man
who has never had an enema, eaten red meat all his life, and smoked two packs a day of unfiltered
cigarettes for eighty-five years.11

No cancer cure seems to work any better than others. I've seen people with cancer leave the country to go
on raw vegetable juice plus laetrile, and die just as swiftly as if they hadn't. There is no wonder cure. Let's
be reasonable: If one of these procedures really worked and cured cancer on a regular basis, there would be
such a hue and cry about it that the supposedly conspiratorial medical establishment would collapse
overnight.12

In conclusion, we must say that the medical establishment is not perfect, and there is much that is not
known.13 Many fringe ideas doubtless have contributions to make. We must beware, however, of adopting
simplistic solutions out of reaction against the establishment.

Strong Opinions

A second area of concern to me as a pastor has been the strong opinions that some people have on
peripheral matters. We can lay it down as a basic rule that in the area of health specifics no extremely
strong convictions are permitted. We are only allowed to have strong convictions where the Bible speaks.
In other areas, we may have personal convictions and opinions, but we need to hold them with a light
touch. This is clear from the threat of Revelation 22:18, "I testify to everyone who hears words of the
10
J. B. Chapman and Edward L. Perry, The Biochemic Handbook (St. Louis, HO: Forrnur, Inc., [1920] 1976), p. If. Emphasis added.
11
"A unique study which provides a close look at the psyche-soma relationship began in 1942 with initial and periodic psychological
and physical evaluations and continues today. One striking finding was 'a relatively weak association of obesity, alcohol use, and
cigarette smoking with health deteriorations."' The authors of this study concluded that emotional and spiritual factors were far more
important in health. See Payne, ibid., p. 88. This is not, obviously, a medical endorsement of obesity or alcohol and nicotine abuse!
12
Pro-laetrile literature sometimes accuses the "multi-national drug companies" of suppressing alternative approaches of cancer cures.
Whatever truth there may be in this, the fact remains that no conspiracy could keep quiet a real cure. Conspiracies are simply not that
powerful. On the inability of political power brokers to protect their man Jimmy Carter from popular contempt, see Larry Abraham,
Call it Conspiracy (Seattle: Double A Publications, 1985), pp. 189-208. More generally, see Gary North, Conspiracy: A Biblical View
(Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1986).
13
See the discussion of this throughout Payne, ibid.

13
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this
book."

A very real problem in conservative Christian circles is that many people have strong convictions about
things the Bible does not expressly or even indirectly teach. They have strong convictions about
breastfeeding. They have strong convictions about home schooling or about a particular theory of Christian
educational methodology. And they have strong convictions about diet.

Breastfeeding, in my opinion, is a great idea, and it is good that is has come back into style. I have known
pastors, however, who made a Big Deal about breastfeeding. This can be very cruel, because some women
are not able to nurse, and they then suffer feelings of shame, inferiority, and sometimes outright ostracism
because of it. Some famous Bible women did not nurse their own children (Gen. 24:59;
35:8; 2 Kings 11:2), so clearly there is no crime in bottle-feeding.

Another cruelty I have seen in the Church is the insistence that women wear their hair long. Some women
lose their hair if it grows too long, and they have to keep it short. The Bible gives three general models for
the woman's glorious hair: up like a crown, down like a veil, or around the head like a glory cloud. Yet I
have seen social ostracism used against women who did not or could not conform to the strong opinions
that were promoted within the social group.

When people around us are promoting unbiblical strong convictions in the area of diet and health, it can be
annoying. It can become oppressive if it is coming from the leadership or from a sizeable group within the
community. It can become cruel when it leads to ostracism.

Not only are such strong convictions forbidden by the Bible, and not only are they often pastorally cruel,
they are also generally foolish. People vary considerably, and the rule is to go with what works for you. If
your system does not tolerate pork, then don't eat it. My family line is prone to high blood pressure, and so,
following current medical opinion, I don't use table salt. Jesus clearly said, however, that "salt is good"
(Mark 9:50), and it would be blasphemous for me to go on an "anti-salt campaign" and try to persuade
everybody to adopt my own rule in this area --though I've known people who rudely refuse to have salt on
their tables when serving company, because "nobody should use salt."

Now obviously any professional, including the medical professional, needs to have beliefs, opinions, and
convictions in order to carry out his tasks. Even the medical professional, however, should be open to new
possibilities, because there is so much that is not known. Laymen, however, have little excuse for holding
militant opinions in the area of medicine. Reading one article or book does not make one an expert.

The Mosaic law and Health

The Mosaic laws concerning diet, cleansing, and circumcision are sacramental. They are never, ever said to
have been given for reasons of health. Nonetheless, God did state that the faithful observance of His law as
a whole would be conducive to the health of His people. They would not suffer from the diseases that
plagued the nations round about them (Dt. 7:12-15; 11:8-9, 18-21).

On the basis of this, we may clearly state that the law as a whole, including its “ceremonial" dimensions,
was healthy for that people, at that stage in history, in their circumstances. At the same time, we are not
racially the same as those people, we don't live in that stage of history, nor do we live in their geographical
and climatic circumstances. Moreover, since diseases change through history, we are not in identically the
same biological circumstances as they were.14 Beyond this, the New Covenant clearly frees us from all
"bondage" (covenantal bonding) to these laws.

Should we, then approach the specifics of the Mosaic law to see if they contain "health secrets" revealed by
God? At first glance this seems to be a good idea, but there are problems with it. Possibly the hygienic
value of the law is more apparent than real. We take up the supposed hygienic value of the dietary laws in
the fifth essay in this series ("Approaches to the Mosaic Dietary Laws"). In this essay let us glance at some
14
See Frederick F. Cartwright, Disease and History (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1972).

14
other areas of discussion

The law commanded circumcision, for instance. Some physicians maintain that there is no health value in
circumcision, but there are others who maintain that it is of value. 15 I have personally known several men
who had to be circumcised as adults, and who very much wished that their parents had had them done as
infants! At the same time, though, there is a medically based anti-circumcision movement in some parts of
the united States today, and each parent should be persuaded in his own mind. Some of the anti-
circumcision literature attacks circumcision as "mutilation," and we have to say that this is blasphemous:
What God commanded, even if not binding upon us, is not to be ridiculed!

Still, before Abraham there was no such requirement. Believers outside the Abrahamic priestly line were
not required to be circumcised.16 New Testament believers need not be circumcised. Did God care less
about the health of pre-Abrahamic believers than of those who came later? Does God care less for us?

There are those who maintain that the primary purpose of the circumcision law was religious, but that the
hygienic aspect is also included. The most influential exponent of this viewpoint is R. J. Rushdoony. "The
law, moreover, has its significance in more ways than one. Thus, while circumcision, as a covenant rite, has
been replaced by baptism, circumcision was given with both spiritual and material consequences involved,
in that God's law is to a unified being and has consequences for all his being. Circumcision, thus, while no
longer having a significance as a mark of the covenant, is still important as a God-given means of attaining
the life of health God sets forth for His people."17 In other words, God intended for Israel to keep the law of
circumcision for two reasons, the primary one religious, and the secondary one hygienic. We have to ask,
though, if one dimension of the law was hygienic, and thus for our good, why have we been released
from\it? The New Testament could easily say, "Don't keep circumcision as a religious rite any longer, but
do keep it for the good of your bodies." After all, Paul does give medical advice when he says for Timothy
to take a little wine for the sake of his stomach. 18 He could easily have written Galatians in such a way as to
distinguish the ceremonial and hygienic dimensions of circumcision, but he didn't. From this it is clear that
the hygienic properties of circumcision simply do not come within the horizon of Biblical concerns.

The quarantining of "lepers" is often referred to as a Biblical health provision that should have been
imitated during plague years, and now thankfully is recognized as sound medical practice. 19 Biblical
"leprosy," however, was not the same as modern leprosy (Hansen's disease), and it is questionable whether
or not Biblical "leprosy" was even a contagious disease.20 The only "quarantine" involved was during the
period of testing for "leprosy" (Lev. 13:4). If a person turned out to have "leprosy, " he was put outside the
boundary of the camp, but this did not mean he lived alone. He was free to live among the mixed multitude,
who were encamped outside the official boundaries of the camp of Israel. In other words, there was no
quarantine for people judged unclean for "leprosy. "Persons with "leprosy" were not shut up in their homes
(quarantine), nor were they separated from all human society; they were simply put outside the holy
boundaries of the camp of God's holy warrior people.

Moreover, the "leper" was not put outside the camp because he was sick, but because he was unclean.
Christ healed the sick, but He cleansed "lepers."21 "Leprosy" was a visible form of death in life (Num.
12:12). Nothing in the Old Testament indicates that sick people were quarantined. It would have been a
simple matter for God to tell Moses to quarantine all sick persons until they were healed, and then have
also given the details for cleansing "lepers" in particular. This is not, however, what God directed. The

15
S. I. McMillen summarizes evidence that cervical cancer is very unlikely to occur in women whose husbands are circumcised, as
opposed to those whose husbands are uncircumcised; None of These Diseases (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1963), chapter 3.
16
See James B. Jordan, The Sociology of the Church (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986), chap. 3.
17
R. J. Rushdoony, Law and Society (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), p. 701.
18
We could "spiritualize" on this to say that wine in the stomach points to communion wine--the blood of Jesus Christ --in the inward
parts. It seems clear, though, that Paul's first concern is with Timothy's physical well being.
19
McMillen, None of These Diseases, chap. 1.
20
S. G. Browne, Leprosy in the Bible (London: Christian Medical Fellowship, 1970); E. V. Hulse, "The Nature of Biblical 'Leprosy'
and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 107 (1975): 87-105;
Gordon Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979),
pp. 194ff.
21
The distinction is consistent throughout the Gospels. Even Luke the Physician always speaks of "leprosy" as cleansed rather than as
healed. Matthew 8:2; 10:8; 11:5; Mark 1:40; Luke 4:27; 5:12; 7:22; 17:12.

15
issue was symbolic and religious, not hygienic.

I noted above that as an extension of the Biblical principle of separation, Christian schools might require
some basic inoculations against disease. It may appear that I am contradicting myself at this point, but I am
not. There is a difference between saying that the Biblical separations were partly medical in its purpose
(which position I reject), and saying that the "leprosy" quarantine (one or two weeks) and separation were
wholly religious in character, but can be applied to other areas of life (which is my position). It follows by
reasoning from the greater to the lesser. If separation (excommunication) is a valid principle at the heart of
life (the Church), then it is also a valid principle in secondary areas in general life. The principle that
spiritual "lepers" must be excommunicated from the Church can be applied to the separation and/or
quarantining of people carrying communicable diseases. This is a valid human application of a Biblical
principle, but it is not part of the God-given content of Biblical revelation.

How about the various washings? Physicians used to carry diseases from bed to bed before they began
washing their hands. Don't the various washings in the Bible indicate the value of this? 22 Here again we
have to say that the reasons were symbolic. The various washings prescribed in Leviticus, while they
doubtless had hygienic benefit, were simply not mandated for any such reason. After a man washed
himself, he was still unclean until the sun had set. Is there hygienic value in this? Should we require
physicians to wait until sundown before moving from one patient to another?

What we have seen thus far is that what some people have thought were health laws in the Old Testament
were not health laws at all, but religious laws. 23 Another way of demonstrating this is to look at other
"ceremonial" laws that are given in the same Biblical contexts, but which virtually nobody claims were
given for reasons of health. For instance, a woman was unclean for forty days after the birth of a son,
provided he was circumcised, while she was unclean for eighty days after the birth of a daughter (Lev. 12)
Is there some hygienic reason for doubling the days in the case of a girl child? Obviously not. It is the
religious value of the circumcision that accounts for the difference, as is clear from Leviticus 12:3. The
religious act of circumcision enables the woman to rejoin the religious community earlier.

Similarly, is there some hygienic benefit in not wearing a garment of mixed wool and linen (Dt. 22:11)?
Does this law, and its parallel in Leviticus 19:19, indicate that we are suffering more sickness today
because our shirts are mixed cotton and polyester? Hardly. The prohibition is against mixing animal and
vegetable fibers, and is symbolic.24 In particular, wool is associated with sweat and the curse on man, while
linen is dissociated from sweat (Ezk. 44:17-18). Adam in his sin was clothed in skins; the priests in their
holiness were clothed in linen. Religion and not hygiene is the zone of meaning of these laws, which are
not binding in the New Covenant since we are now clothed with the humanity ("human skin") of Christ. 25

The reason for calling attention to the mixed-fibers law is this: People who won't eat pork or who insist on
circumcision do not do so because of what the Bible says. They are basically convinced from the evidence
of modern science, as they understand it, and then find confirmation in the Bible. If such people were really
going to the Bible first, we should expect them to refuse to wear clothing of mixed fibers --but of course,
we don't find this (not often, anyway).

Rushdoony maintains otherwise: "The various dietary laws, laws of separation, and other laws no longer

22
McMillen, chap. 2
23
It is to McMillen's credit that he clearly recognizes this fact, and only calls attention to hygiene as a beneficial side effect of these
laws.
24
See James B. Jordan, "The Law of Forbidden Mixtures," Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.6 (available from Biblical
Horizons).
25
I have been present at Institute for Basic Youth Conference Pastor's Seminars when it was taught that these matters were hygienic,
but I did not take notes and cannot recall clearly the details. I have been told by persons close to that movement that wearing mixed
cloth "destroys your muscle tone." I have also been told by a California layman that in his church, women are unchurched for forty
days after giving birth to a boy and eighty days after a girl, and that "we have a doctor who has shown the medical reasons for this."
The argument in this case was that after childbirth, the weakened mother is more susceptible to disease, and for her own good as well
as the good of others needs to be isolated. Since, supposedly, girl babies drain the mother during pregnancy more severely than do boy
babies, the period of quarantine differs. I suppose this shows that there is no limit to the speculative hygienic benefits that can be
proposed for the Mosaic law, but these ideas are parsecs removed from the Biblical meaning of these stipulations.

16
mandatory as covenantal signs, are still valid and mandatory as health requirements in terms of
Deuteronomy 7:12-16."26 If Rushdoony is right and there is a "health equity" in the Mosaic law that is still
"binding" on us today, then we need to keep all the non-sacrificial provisions of the law, not just those that
"science" has confirmed. We need to keep our wives away from all social contact for seven days, as well as
away from church for forty days after our children are born --provided they are baptized. (Baptists would
have to keep their wives shut up for fourteen days and out of church for eighty days.) Women must have no
physical contact with anyone while menstruating (Lev. 15:19).27 Anyone who touches a dead human body
must avoid all social contact and religious worship for seven days (Mum. 19:11)--which would pretty much
keep morticians celibate and unchurched for life!

Frankly, I've never met anybody who keeps these rules, but anyone who keeps the Mosaic dietary code as
God's abiding rules for health needs to keep these rules as well. The fact that they don't do so serves to
prove the point made above: People make health decisions based on science and custom, not based on the
Mosaic law. It is only after they have made their decisions that they turn to the Bible for confirmation.

But why stop here? Maybe there is a hygienic dimension to the laws of sacrifice. It was not the priest but
the layman who actually killed the sacrificial animals that he ate part of (Lev. 3:2). Maybe it is unhealthy
for us to eat the flesh of animals we have not personally slaughtered. I don't see how that could really
matter, scientifically, but who knows? If we are going to keep the whole Mosaic law, on faith, as hygiene,
then maybe we'd better keep the sacrifices (as hygiene) as well. Maybe instead of cutting off the
fat and throwing it away, we need to burn it up (Lev. 4:31).28 Maybe breathing the smoke is good for our
health. (!) My point is not to ridicule the law, but to point out that if there is a mandatory hygienic
dimension to the law, then we can hardly stop short of obeying its every detail.

In other words, Rushdoony and those who agree with him need to be consistent. The Bible never says that
any of these laws were given, either primarily or secondarily, for hygiene. Thus, Rushdoony has to posit a
dual equity in these laws: primarily religious and no longer binding in that aspect, but secondarily hygienic
and still binding in that aspect. His proof text is Deuteronomy 7:12-15, which tells Israel that if they keep
al1 the law, they will not be subject to disease. Thus, if Rushdoony is correct, we are required to keep al1
the law, every jot and tittle, for hygienic reasons. This "proves too much," of course. For hygienic reasons
we should have to bring sheep and bulls to the church when we sin, when our children are born, and so
forth. Rushdoony does not say this, of course, but his position really leaves him no alternative. If there is an
hygienic equity in the law, it is in all the law, and if we are required to observe the hygienic equity, then we
are required to observe every bit of the law.

The historic position of the Church, however, takes it cue from Hebrews 7:12, "For when the priesthood is
changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." The entire Mosaic law is transfigured into the
New Covenant, as the Old Covenant dies in Christ and is resurrected in glorified form with Him. There is a
new covenant, a new creation, and a new law. The New is not something totally different from the Old, but
it is not just a republication of the Old either. Rather, the New is the Old transfigured through death and
resurrection. The Church maintains that the principles abide, though the detailed applications change. It is
still true that if we as a whole society obey God in faith, He will keep plagues from our society as a whole.
We are covenantally bound (bonded) to the New Covenant, however, not to the Old. 29

What, then, was the hygienic value of the law? Simply that God would not put diseases on them if they
kept it. God would not put -- that is the important phrase. God sends disease, and He can restrain it. The
key to health is obedience and faith, not mechanical observance of health techniques. Valuable as exercise,
good diet, and the like may be, they are not part of God's revealed law.

26
Rushdoony, Law and Society, p. 702.
27
People who try to read this law hygienically assume that it is only contact with the blood that renders someone else unclean. Not so.
No part of the woman's body might come in contact with anyone else without causing defilement. No hugging; no kissing; no
touching. "Whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening" (Lev. 15:19).
28
The "fat" (described in Leviticus 3) was given to God, as the sweetest and best part, as His part in the communion meal and as a
soothing aroma. Of course, this is the "religious dimension," and we are concerned here with the supposed "hygienic dimension."
Obviously, I believe, and the Church has always held, that the religious dimension is all there is to these laws.
29
The details of how the Old becomes New, and how we as New Covenant believers are to approach the Mosaic law, is of course a
huge theological and ethical topic, and falls outside the purview of this study.

17
Hidden behind the writings of those who want to use parts and pieces of the Mosaic law as Divine rules for
hygiene is an erroneous presupposition concerning the nature of the law. How was the law related to
health? The correct answer is this: By keeping the whole law in faith, the Israelite pleased God. When God
was pleased, He kept disease from them. The incorrect answer is this: Some of the specific laws related to
spiritual health, and some of the specific laws related to physical health. Physical health came from
washing your hands, eating only clean food, practicing circumcision, and the like. Spiritual health came
from avoiding murder, adultery, blasphemy, and the 1ike.

The incorrect approach to the law pigeonholes its provisions into the categories of spiritual and physical,
moral and hygienic. This reflects a long-standing tradition in Western Christian thought, a distinction
between nature and grace. "Natural health comes from good hygiene, and the Bible teaches good hygiene;
Spiritual health comes from prayer and obedience, and the Bible teaches these things also." To read the
Bible in this way, however, brings to it alien categories. 30

Real health is grounded in a proper relationship with God, and since this relationship is in part sacramental,
it involves physical things. The purpose of these physical aspects is not, however, to provide mechanical
health to the "human biological machine. " Rather, the purpose of these physical aspects is to communicate
to us, in a mystery, the grace of God. Relatively speaking, exercise and proper diet only profit a little
(1Tim. 4:8) --though they do profit. (And we have to say, they don't just profit the "human biological
machine, " for there is no such thing; rather, they profit the whole human person.)

In conclusion, faithfulness to God and obedience to His law--the New Covenant law of Christ --is surely
conducive to good health in every respect, spiritually, morally, mentally, emotionally, physically, etc. The
Bible does not, however, intend to give specific laws to cure or prevent specific physical diseases. It is a
mistake to approach the Mosaic law with such questions and categories in mind. All the aspects of the law,
and especially the ceremonial aspects, were designed to put men into a positive relationship with God, and
it was this that brought good health. There was no other purpose to these ceremonial laws, and they are no
longer binding upon us in any way, shape, or form.

If modern physicians recommend that we eat less pork than beef, we may do well to heed their advice, but
this is not what the Mosaic law taught. Americans probably eat too much red meat of all sorts, beef or pork.
This has everything to do with sanctified Christian wisdom and common sense, but nothing at all to do with
the Mosaic legislation.31

It is my considered opinion that God will bless us if we faithfully make use of the wisdom available to us.
He can certainly keep us from any disease, however contagious, if He chooses to do so. If we are faithful to
Him, and prayerfully take the advice of our physicians, we have every reason to expect Him to work this
for our good.

Martyrdom

Because of Adam's sin, though, we are all going to die. We inherit Adam's sin and corruption, and our
bodies are rotting. Nothing is going to prevent this process from continuing to its ultimate conclusion:
death. We will not live forever in these bodies. Our bodies will decay, grow old, and quit working as well.
Redemption guarantees us a resurrection body, and gives us a general promise of somewhat better health in
this life, but there is no removal of the process of deterioration and death.

30
From a Christian philosophical viewpoint, there are no such things as "natural laws" that can be manipulated simply by "scientific
techniques. " This error underlies modern scientific medicine, and also governs the misinterpretation of the Mosaic law. It is the
eternally active God and His angels who are personally working all things out, including disease and health. Thus, the first rule in
health must be a positive personal relationship with God. For an extended discussion of the error of natural law and how it relates to
disease and medicine, see David Chilton, Power in the Blood: A Christian Response to AIDS (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt,
1987), chap. 4; and also Vern S. Poythress, Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987), chap. 9; James B. Jordan, Through New Eves: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN:
Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), pp. 107-112.
31
That is, the Mosaic law considered as a list of rules. As we study the Torah to acquire wisdom and to come to understand Christ and
His church better, our minds will be reshaped and we will be better able to make good health decisions in general. In this way the
Mosaic law, functioning as wisdom, is of great value to us.

18
It is important to understand that only the gospel gives men health. The labor of physicians is important,
but only as a means of holding back the curse. Physicians cannot give men health, nor can eating "health
foods" fasting, exercise, colonics, or any other feature of the Old Creation. The first creation is decaying. It
is only the New Creation that can bring health, through transfiguration. It is only in Christ, and in eating
His Spiritual food, that healing can take place.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to move men into the New Creation. In that New Creation, in its fullest
form, men have new, deathless, transfigured bodies, as did Jesus Christ after His resurrection. During the
gospel era, the New Creation does not wipe out the original creation, but rather sustains and renews it.
Thus, the "normal" effect of the healing work of the New Creation is the restoration of the sick body to
health. At the same time, that restoration to health is not the primary thing. The primary thing is to live in
the New Creation, by faith. Thus, the healing ministry of the Church is not finally to give people physical
health, but is primarily to enable them to transform their experience for the glory of God. Anointing with
oil is a sign to the sick or dying person that enables him to turn his suffering into true martyrdom, true
witness to the transforming health of the gospel as New Creation.

The coming of the New Covenant does indeed mean that, in a general sense, "Jesus wants us well." The
norm in the Kingdom is physical health. God wants the cultural mandate to be fulfilled. He wants us to be
working to bring the world to its fullest fruition. We can legitimately argue with Him that He should give
us good health so that we can be about His business. Thus Paul, in order not to be a burden to the churches
and in order to carry out his ministry I asked that his "thorn in the flesh" be removed (2Cor. 12: 8). What
was true of Paul's particular ministry is also true of any labor performed by Christians in God's world: We
should desire strength and health so that we can do the best possible job.

Accordingly, sickness and other physical problems are an exception in the Kingdom. The person who is
sick, or who has some particular physical problem, has been called to a special, exceptional ministry. All
Christians are martyrs (witnesses) in the general sense, but the suffering Christian is a martyr (witness) in a
special, exceptional sense.

The person who is sick, or blind, or has some other physical problem, is supposed to ask God for healing.
He should not rest content with his "thorn in the flesh." He should approach God for healing, because he
should desire to be in the best possible condition to labor in the Kingdom. If God chooses, however, not to
grant his request for healing, then he is to understand that the problem has been given him for a special
purpose, and rest in that assurance.

God is most specific. If we need healing, we are to approach the elders of our local church, with confession
of sin, and ask to be anointed with oil (James 5:13-16; cf. Mark 6:13). If God turns down our request the
first time, should we come back and try again? Paul states that he came to the Lord three times (2Cor. 12:8;
and cf. Luke 18:1-7 on perseverance in prayer). Paul did not make a fourth request. I think this indicates a
rule for us.32

Conclusion

The Bible teaches that we should desire good health, pray for good health, and observe certain rules for
good health. Those rules are God's ways as a whole, not certain isolated precepts, that seem at first glance
to be hygienic in nature. In all, however, we have to bear in mind that our bodies are decaying and that
physical death is inevitable. True health is only to be found in the Kingdom, by anticipation now, and in its
fullness in eternity.

32
The preceding paragraphs in the section on "Martyrdom" are extracted from a larger discussion of healing found in my book The
Sociology of the Church, p. 288f. I am indebted for many of these insights to Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1973).

19
 SECTION 03 - ON BOILING MEAT IN MILK

In three places, the Mosaic law forbids boiling a kid in its mother's milk (Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Dt. 14:21). The
meaning of this stipulation has proven very elusive. Some contemporary American fundamentalists have
taken it as a law of health, designed to keep the Israelites healthy by prohibiting "food mixing." We are told
by the advocates of this interpretation that the human system does not digest milk at the same rate as meat,
and so combining them at a meal is hygienically unwise. This curious interpretation/application falls before
the fact that the law only prohibits boiling a kid in its own mother's milk, not cooking meat in milk, or
having meat and milk at the same meal. As we shall see in a moment, however, this medical interpretation
actually arises out of Jewish gnosticism, and not out of the Bible at all.

A glance at older Christian commentaries reveals two basic suggestions. Calvin argues in his Harmony of
the Pentateuch that boiling a kid in its own mother's milk would be cruel and monstrous, so that God was
training the people in charity toward the creation and toward each other by means of this law. He makes the
same point in his Sermons on Deuteronomy (Sermon 91), where he states that to do this would be against
the order of nature, comparing it to Deuteronomy 22:6, where they were forbidden to take the mother bird
with her young.

Matthew Henry (Commentary, 1706) understands this law as prohibiting a common magical custom among
the Gentiles. Matthew Poole (Commentary, 1685) had already criticized this interpretation, because it was
wholly groundless and speculative, and because it is obvious that if God were interested in forbidding the
Israelites to engage in various customs and religious actions common among the heathen, there would be
no end to the list. Poole suggests that this law was simply another way of saying that the animal must be
eight days old in order to be sacrificed (Lev. 22:27), but no other expositor I consulted picked up on this
suggestion. (We shall return to it below.)

George Rawlinson, in Ellicott's Commentary (mid-19th c.), follows Calvin's cruelty interpretation in his
remarks on Exodus 23:19. Adam Clarke (Commentary, 1851) provides the anti-magic interpretation and
also the cruelty interpretation. There is no particular need to survey further. Either one or both of these two
interpretations is found in every commentary I have access to.

Particularly in recent years, however, the anti-magic interpretation, which evidently was first suggested by
Maimonides, has gained prominence because of supposed evidence that there was indeed a Canaanite
practice of boiling a kid in milk. Nevertheless, Poole's objection against explaining the verse in such terms
still stands. After all, given the wide range of pagan practices in the ancient world, why would God prohibit
this particular one, and why stress it so by repeating it three times? Moreover, what evidence do we have
that any of the Mosaic legislation has as its first order purpose the prohibition of practices common among
the heathen? Surely the first order purpose is always moral or religious, not simply to erect artificial social
barriers. It seems to be an exegetical cop-out to assert regarding any obscure law that it was "directed
against an unknown heathen practice. " Finally, newer studies have shown that there is in fact no evidence
that the Canaanites or anyone else engaged in any such religious ritual. 1

A survey of this subject would not be complete, however, without some attention to the rabbinic use of this
law, especially because rabbinic views have impacted the Church from time to time, and are definitely
impacting some quarters of American fundamentalism today.

The Rabbinic Viewpoint

The post-Christian rabbinic traditional view of this command is well summarized by Maimonides:

1
For a comprehensive survey, with numerous devastating arguments against this approach, see Menahem Haran, "Seething a Kid in
its Mother's Milk," Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979):23-35. On the Ugaritic text that supposedly supported this view, which is now
known to have nothing to do with boiling a kid in milk, see Haran, and also the following: Robert Ratner and Bruce Zuckerman, "'A
Kid in Milk'?: New Photographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14," Hebrew Union College Annual 57 (1986): 15-60; Ratner and Zuckerman,
"On Rereading the 'Kid in Milk' Inscription," Bible Review 1:3 (Fall, 1985): 56-58; Jacob Milgrom, "'You Shall Not Boil a Kid in Its
Mother's Milk': An Archaeological Myth Destroyed," Ibid., pp. 48-55. Haran's essay, above, includes a pretty thorough survey of
traditional interpretations.

20
 According to the Torah, the prohibition applies only to the meat of a clean animal boiled in the
milk of a clean animal, as it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. The word
"kid" is used here in a general sense and includes the young of ox, sheep, and goat, except where
Scripture specifically defines it and says, a kid of the goats (Gen. 37:17). "A kid" and "its mother's
milk" are mentioned here only because Scripture speaks of the most common example. On the
other hand, should one cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of an unclean animal, or the
meat of an unclean animal in the milk of a clean animal, the cooking would be permitted, and so
would benefit there from, and the prohibition against eating it would not be on account of meat
with milk.

Similarly, meat of beast [wild animal] and bird cooked in the milk of a beast or of an animal
[domestic] is not forbidden to be eaten, according to the Torah, and for that reason both the
cooking and the benefiting are permitted. The eating thereof is, however, forbidden on the
authority of the Scribes, in order that people should not extend the permission to cover the Biblical
prohibition of meat of animals with milk, and as a consequence eat the meat of a clean animal
cooked in the milk of a clean animal, on the ground that the literal meaning of the verse forbids
only a kid in its own mother's milk. That is why the Sages forbade all meat with milk.2

What we note here is that Maimonides assumes that this law forbids cooking meat and milk together,
though only of clean domestic animals. 3 Indeed, he states that the rabbis were concerned lest the Jews take
the law literally, and only as prohibiting cooking the meat of a baby domestic animal in that of its mother.

Grunfeld elaborates for us. For him, as for all traditional Jews, there is an "oral law" that was given to
Moses at Sinai, and that has every bit as much weight as the "written law." The "oral law" traditions
developed in parts of Judaism during the inter-testamental era. These traditions were "special teachings"
kept by "initiates" called Associates or Pharisees. Thus, the "oral law" tradition was a form of "Jewish
legalistic gnosticism," and we encounter it in the Gospels as Jesus strongly opposes it, and in the epistles in
the teaching of the "Judaizers." After the destruction of the Jewish national culture in Palestine by the
Romans, this gnostic heritage was written down in the Mishnah, and later commented on by the rabbis in
the Talmud. To the uninitiated, these writings are very confusing. It is important to note that this
gnostification of Judaism is not regarded by the Jews as a development out of the revealed Word of God,
but rather as a separate revelation next to the public Word, one that has interpretive primacy.4 Grunfeld
writes:

Some modern expositions of the law--even from writers who ought to know better--give the
impression that it was Rabbinic interpretation which "extended" this law by the prohibition against
eating meat and milk together. This presentation is wrong. According to the Oral Law...which is
just as much of Sinaitic origin as the written law, the thrice-repeated sentence quoted above refers
to the three prohibitions: Issur Bishul -- boiling meat and milk together; Issur Akhilah --eating
such a mixture; Issur Hana'ah --deriving any benefit from it. All these prohibitions are Biblical and
not merely Rabbinic as far as the meat and milk of permitted animals are concerned. 5

Grunfeld goes on to say, as did Maimonides, that this rule does not apply to game; nor does it apply to
cooking clean birds or fish in the milk of domestic animals. "It is here that Rabbinic law comes in with
forbidding all these as Gezeroth --precautionary injunctions -- apart from other Rabbinic ordinances such as
the separation of meat and milk dishes, the period of waiting between the consumption of meat and milk,
etc."6
2
Moses Maimonides, The Code of Maimonides. Book 5: The Book of Holiness, 2:9:3, 4. Yale Judaica Series 16; trans. Louis I.
Rabinowitz and Philip Grossman (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965), p. 196.
3
For example, according to Maimonides it would have been all right to cook venison in cow's milk, but not to cook lamb in cow's
milk.
4
From a critical standpoint, and from a Christian one as well, it is simplest to see the oral law tradition as the result of a gradual
gnostification of Jewish puritanism, under the influence of religious ideas that permeated the late ancient world. Thus, in historical
terms, the traditions did arise from the written Word, but from a perverted understanding of that Word stemming from the "higher life"
and "initiatory" religious paradigms of gnostic paganism.
5
Isidor Grunfeld, The Jewish Dietary Laws, 2 vols. (New York: The Soncino Press, 1972) 1:21f.
6
Ibid., p. 22. The Karaites rejected the Rabbinic additions. "The prohibition contained in the Bible (Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21) of
boiling 'a kid in its mother's milk' is also accepted by the Karaites as forbidding the consumption of the meat of cattle (not of fowl)

21
Grunfeld makes the significant admission that, taken by itself, the Biblical statement of this law forbids
only the boiling of a baby animal in the milk of its own mother, and not generally cooking meat in milk:
"By the same token the words BaHaleb Immo -- milk of its mother -- refer to any milk of 'clean' animals
and not only to the milk of the mother of the animal to be slaughtered for food as the wording of the written
text seems to suggest, if read without the guidance of the Oral Law. "7

To summarize what we have seen thus far: The Bible only forbids boiling a kid in its own mother's milk.
The Oral Law of the Jewish tradition couches this provision in a wider command not to cook the meat of
clean animals in the milk of clean animals. A third stage comes with the Rabbinic "hedges" to the Law,
which entail all kinds of separations between meat and milk, to wit:

--not cooking any meat with milk;

--maintaining two separate sets of utensils, dishes, and even sinks and dishwashers for milk and meat
dishes;

--requiring that the mouth be thoroughly rinsed if meat is to be consumed after milk, so that there is no
mixture;

--requiring a wait of up to six hours if milk is to be consumed after meat if milk is to be consumed after
meat, so that meat particles in the teeth have time to dissolve;

--classifying all foods as either meat, milk, or parve (neutral). The word parve or pareve or just "p" on
packaged food means that it may be eaten with either meat or milk. 8

From all this it should be clear that it is only Jewish tradition that interprets this law as prohibiting "food
mixing," eating meat and milk at the same meal. This has never been a Christian view, and it has absolutely
nothing to do with the Bible. It is based completely on the "Oral Law" and on rabbinic rules.

Is This Really a Dietary law?

The law forbidding boiling a kid in its own mother's milk is not properly a food law at all. Obviously, if
one is not to boil the kid, one is not to eat it either, but this is not what the law explicitly states. It is the very
act of boiling, quite apart from the eating, that is forbidden. 9 This can reasonably be extended to boiling the
young of any animal in its own mother's milk, and that is as far as reasonable inference can take us. Had
God intended to prohibit cooking meat and milk, He would have phrased the law that way on at least one of
the three occasions He caused it to be recorded.

We can see this clearly by looking at another situation. Deuteronomy 22:11 forbids wearing a garment of
mixed wool and linen: "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together." A law very
similar to this is found in Leviticus 19:19, but it is phrased differently: "nor wear a garment upon you of
two kinds of material mixed together." The latter statement seems quite a bit more general than the
former.10 The point here is that they are phrased differently, unlike the kid law, which is always phrased the
same way.

As we shall see, forbidding boiling a kid in its mother's milk is associated with the Feast of Tabernacles,

with milk or butter; they do not, however, accept the additional restrictions enacted by the rabbis." Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem:
Keter Pub., 1972) 10:780.
7
Ibid., p. 117. Emphasis added.
8
See the discussion of all this in Grunfeld 1:115ff.
9
The Hebrew verb, bashal, can be used for roasting or baking also, but since cooking in milk is in view here, the focus is on boiling.
The Passover was not to be boiled (bashal) but roasted (Ex. 12:9), so when Deuteronomy 16:7 says that the Passover is to be bashaled,
it cannot mean it was boiled. Genesis 40:10 says that the visionary grape vine “produced" (bashal) ripe grapes. Thus, the more general
meaning of bashal seems to be “prepare," while the narrower meaning is "boil."
10
On the differences between these two, see James B. Jordan, "The Law of Forbidden Mixtures," Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper
No.6 (available from Biblical Horizons).

22
and with a general theology of sabbath, succession, and inheritance. It is not a dietary law at all.

The Context of the Kid law

In 1984, the Institute for Christian Economics published a study of mine entitled The Law of the Covenant:
An Exposition of Exodus 21-23. In the course of that study, I had occasion to comment on Exodus
23:19b.11 I suggested that the kid law should be taken as an encapsulation of the Feast of Tabernacles, and
should be related to Lamentations 4:10 and 2 Kings 6:28-29, both of which record mothers boiling their
own children and eating them. At that time, my research had not gone as far as it has since. 12 I have since
come across other exegetes whose thought has run along the same lines.

We can see the association with the Feast of Tabernacles by looking first at Exodus 23:14-19. This
pericope is divided into two sections, each introduced by the phrase "three times in the year, " as follows:

A. Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to Me (v. 14):
1. Feast of Unleavened Bread (v. 15)
a. eat unleavened bread
b. do not appear empty-handed
2. Feast of the Harvest (v. 16a)
3. Feast of Ingathering (Tabernacles) (v. 16b)

B. Three times in the year all your males will present themselves before the Master, the LORD (v. 17):

1. Blood and fat of "My Sacrifice, My Feast" (v. 18)

a. no leavened bread
b. consume Passover before morning (cf. Ex. 34:25)
2. First fruits (v. 19a)
3. No boiling a kid in its mother's milk (v. 19b)

It is clear from a glance at this discourse analysis that the passage is carefully set up in parallels, and the
parallels establish a presumption of connection between Tabernacles and the kid law.

There is a repetition of this series of laws in Exodus 34:18-26. This passage expands on what is found in
Exodus 23, but follows the same structural outline, again associating the kid law (34:26b) with Tabernacles
(34:22b).13

There are two matters to take note of here. First, this entire section of Exodus is a commentary on the
fourth commandment, concerning sabbaths: sabbath years and days, Ex. 23:10-13; annual festivals, Ex.
23:14-19.14 The kid law is the close of the sabbath section of the Exodus case laws. As we shall see, the kid
law opens the sabbath section of Deuteronomy.

Second, the kid law is directly associated with the presentation of men before God. Notice the structure:
Three times a year the men were to stand before God. The gathering of these men before the Lord is
symbolically analogous to the sacrificial items presented before the Lord at these times. As concerns the
Feast of Unleavened Bread, these men were not to eat leavened bread, and were to consume the Passover
meal at the same time as God's fat (the inward parts) was burned up, with no leftovers. 15 As concerns
Pentecost, it was affirmed that such men were God's true first fruits (and cp. Acts 2). As concerned
11
See pp. 190-192, 272-277.
12
Tyler, Texas, is hardly a scholar's dream when it comes to resources. It is only when I can get out of town to a decent library that I
can peruse scholarly journals.
13
The association of the kid law with Tabernacles has been recognized by other exegetes. Menahem Haran argues strongly for it;
Haran, p. 34. Haran mentions several others who have made the same connection. The Puritan commentator Matthew Henry made the
same association; cf. his remarks on Exodus 23:10-19, sect. V.
14
See Jordan, Law of the Covenant, pp. 61-66, 181-192.
15
Passover was a specimen of Peace Offering. Generally speaking, the Peace Offering could be eaten for two days, first with God and
the officiating priest, and then the next day as well. The Thank Offering variant, however, had to be consumed the same day as it was
sacrificed (Lev. 7:15-18). This may be explained by Exodus 23:18, that the entire sacrifice had to be eaten by men while God was
"eating" the fat thereof, which was placed on the altar (Lev. 7:31). If so, this emphasized that the meal was with God, totally so.

23
Tabernacles, such men were spoken of in terms of boiling a kid in its mother's milk. The meaning of this
cryptic expression is the concern of this essay.

The same associations are found in Deuteronomy 14. Unfortunately this is obscured by the versification of
the chapter, which puts the kid law with the dietary laws of verses 3-21 instead of with the tithing laws of
verses 22-29. In my opinion, however, the kid law introduces the tithing-at-Tabernacles laws. Thus, the
paragraph break should come in the middle of verse 21. 16

The tithe was taken to God at the Feast of Tabernacles. Deuteronomy 16:10 says that at the Feast of Weeks
(Harvest, Pentecost), they were to bring a "freewill offering." By way of contrast, the Feast of Tabernacles
(Booths, Ingathering) was celebrated "after you have gathered in from your threshing floor and your wine
vat" (Dt. 16:13). If we look back at Deuteronomy 14 now, it is clear that the tithing feast spoken of there is
the Feast of Tabernacles: "You shall surely tithe all the produce from your seed, which comes out of the
field every year. And you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses
to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and
your flock, in order that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always" (Dt. 14:22-23). Given that the
kid law is associated with Tabernacles twice in Exodus, we should also make the same association here,
which means dislodging Deuteronomy 14:21b from its usual association with verses 3-21a, and re-
associating it with verses 22-29.

More generally, it seems that Deuteronomy 14:1-21a are Moses' exposition of the third commandment, and
that 14:21b—16:17 are his exposition of the fourth commandment. 17 The fourth commandment section of
Deuteronomy closes with the stipulation that God's army should gather before Him: "Three times in a year
all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses, at the Feast of
Unleavened Bread and at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths, and they shall not appear before
the LORD empty- handed. Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your
God which He has given you" (Dt. 16:16-17). Immediately preceding this stipulation is the rule concerning
the Feast of Tabernacles (Dt. 16:13-15). Thus, if I am right, this section of Deuteronomy is bracketed with
legislation regarding tithes in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles.

The sabbath section of Moses' exposition of the decalogue in Deuteronomy can be outlined as follows:

A. Sabbaths:

1. Introduction: the kid law, 14:21b

2. Annual tithes and Feast of Tabernacles, 14:22-26
3. Triennial tithes and Feast of Tabernacles, 14:27-29
4. Sabbath year, 15:1-18 (three law sections)

B. Festivals:

1. Introduction: the firstborn law, 15:19-23

2. Unleavened Bread, 16:1-8
3. Pentecost, 16:9-12
16
On the discourse boundary in verse 21, see discussion below, and also James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), chap. 4. This has also been advocated by G. van Rongen, The
Words of the Great Divine King: Outlines on the Book of Deuteronomy (Ontario: Canadian Reformed Churches, 1973), p. 36. I have
not found any other exegete who groups the kid law with the Feast of Tabernacles in Deuteronomy 14, but on the other hand, I have
not found any other exegete who entertains the possibility. It apparently did not occur to Haran, who wrote that "in Deut. 14:21 the
prohibition is appended to the section dealing with forbidden foods." Th19., p. 35.
17
See Jordan, Covenant Sequence, pp. 61-63. Moses' discourse on the third commandment can be set out as follows:
14:1-2a --Wholeness in Self as God's Image
Who you are: Sons of God
Stipulation: Do not deface God's image, for the sake of the dead.
Closure: You are a holy people to God.

14:2b-21a --Wholeness in Relations

Who you are: Separated from the peoples.
Stipulation: Do not eat abominable food, or anything dead.
Closure: You are a holy people to God.

24
 4. Tabernacles, 16:13-15
5. Conclusion: thrice annual appearance of the host, 16:16-17

What emerges from this discourse analysis is that in both Exodus and Deuteronomy the kid law is closely
associated with the presentation of men before God as His property, and the presentation by those men of
tithes, at the Feast of Tabernacles.

Life and Death

Since the Feast of Tabernacles was a celebration of the fullness of life, prosperity, and joy, it was not to be
mixed or associated with death. The prohibition on mixing life and death is the theme of Deuteronomy
14:1-21a.18 In the light of this, the kid law might be viewed as a pivot between the food laws and the
tithing/Tabernacle laws, and more generally between the third and fourth commandment sections of
Deuteronomy. Because of the way it is phrased, "do not boil" rather than "do not eat," I think it should be
taken more with the second half of the chapter, as I have argued.

In terms of this opposition of life and death, it is generally recognized that there is a certain perversity in
using the mother's milk in cooking her own offspring. That milk which had been a source of life to the kid
might not be used in its death.19 Any other milk might be used, but not its mother's. At the same time,
however, taking the stipulation as merely aesthetic (forbidding that which is morally revolting), or as
merely pedagogic (directed against cruelty), does not go far enough. 20 After all, to many modern city-bred
people, the sacrificial system itself would be regarded as revolting and perhaps cruel.

Additionally, it is questionable whether the juxtaposition of kid with mother's milk could take place in a
such a way as to cause a pastoralist moral revulsion. The reason for this is set forth by Haran: "On the face
of it, one can wonder (as a number of commentators have done) whether it is possible to seethe meat in
milk, for milk tends to boil over; in such circumstances the meat cannot be properly cooked, except perhaps
by constant addition of water, but it is doubtful then if this process may still be called seething in milk."
Haran goes on to point out that ancient milk was soured or fermented milk, and that fermented milk does
not boil over.21 In other words, what we do not have is a slaughtered kid being cooked on the spot in milk
drawn from his mother, something that might easily be considered gross and unaesthetic. Rather, the milk
in use has been allowed to ferment, which puts aesthetic distance between kid and milk, but which does not
put any symbolic distance between them.

Thus, we have to see these matters in terms of fundamental religious symbolism: life versus death. At the
same time, there are many laws prohibiting the mixing of life and death. We need to know the precise
nuance of each.22 There is no example of the breaking of this law in scripture, unless we go to a
metaphorical application, seeing the kid as a symbol for a human child. 23

18
As follows: verses 1-2, do not deface your body while mourning; verses 3-20, do not eat unclean animals; verse 21a, do not eat
carrion. Deuteronomy 26:14 forbids mourning while tithing. For a full discussion, see Calum M. Carmichael, "On Separating Life and
Death: An Explanation of Some Biblical Laws, " Harvard Theological Review 69 (1976): 1-7. Israel was called upon to choose
between life and death in Deuteronomy 30:15, 19.
19
This interpretation is at least as old as Philo, according to Carmichael, ibid.
20
For a summary of the aesthetic/cruelty view and a list of its prominent advocates, see Haran, pp. 28-30.
21
Ibid., pp. 30-31. Haran also states that "it may be worth noting that in the Bible milk is often coupled with honey (Exod. 3:8, 17;
13:5; 33:3 et al.; Song. 4:11) -- which in the Bible is mostly date-honey -- and similarly with wine (Gen. 49:12; Isa. 55:1; Song, 5: 1),
as all three of them have in common the quality of fermentation."
22
The following discussion is an expansion and modification of remarks that first appeared in my book The Law of the Covenant, pp.
190-192,272-277.
23
Even in English, the term “kid” is used for children. It is generally the case that laws regulating the behavior and treatment of
animals find their application in the behavior and treatment of men. From the New Testament, we are aware that not muzzling the ox
when it treads out the corn is applied to the payment of pastors. Not yoking an ox and an ass together is applied to the marriage of
believers and unbelievers. Thus, we can reasonably hypothesize initially that not boiling a kid in its own mother's milk has application
to a mother's killing and eating her own child.

25
 The Specific Nexus of the law

We notice that the kid is a young goat, a child. 24 The word occurs only sixteen times in the Old Testament.
In Genesis 27:9, 16, Rebekah put the skins of a kid upon Jacob when she sent him to masquerade as Esau
before Isaac. Here the mother helps her child (though Jacob was in his seventies at the time). In Genesis
38:17, 20, 23, Judah pledged to send a kid to Tamar as payment for her services as a prostitute. In the
providence of God, this was symbolic, because Judah had in fact failed to provide Tamar the kid to which
she was entitled: Judah's son Shelah. Judah gave his staff and his seal and cord as pledges that the kid
would be sent, but Tamar departed and never received the kid. When she was found pregnant, she produced
the seal and cord and the staff as evidence that Judah was the father. The children that she bore became her
kids, given her by Judah in exchange for the return of his cord and seal and his staff. Finally, when Samson
visited his wife, he took her a kid, signifying his intentions (Jud. 15:1).

These passages indicate a symbolic connection between a kid and a human child, the son of a mother.
(Indeed, Job 10:10 compares the process of embryonic development to the coagulation of milk.) The kid is
still nursing, still taking in its mother's milk in some sense, Jacob and Rebekah being an example of this.
The mother is the protectress of the child, of the seed. This is the whole point of the theology of Judges 4
and 5, the war of the two mothers, Deborah and the mother of Sisera. 25 The passage calls attention to milk:
The milk of the righteous woman was a tool used to crush the head of the serpent's seed (Jud. 4:19f.; 5:24-
27). How awful if the mother uses her milk to destroy her own seed!

One of the most horrible things imaginable is for a mother to boil and eat her own child. This is precisely
what happened during the siege of Jerusalem, as Jeremiah describes it in Lamentations 4:10, "The hands of
compassionate women boiled their own children; they became food for them because of the destruction of
the daughter of my people." The same thing happened during the siege of Samaria, as recorded in 2 Kings
6:28f. In both passages, the mother is said to boil her child.26

The Hebrew word for "boil," bashal, is also used to describe fruit that is ripe for harvesting (Gen. 40:10;
Joel 3:13). Along these lines, Menahem Haran points out that "the festival of ingathering was the annual
pilgrimage closest to the period of lambing. Therefore, the Israelite is warned that during the feast of
ingathering, the most exuberant and joyful of the annual pilgrim-feasts, celebrated with much food and
drink and the choicest delicacies -- he must remember not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk.”27

This points to a connection between harvesting and cooking crops on the one hand, and boiling (preparing)
food on the other. There is a subtle but important connection between harvesting a crop and what is done
with a child. This can be seen from the weaning of Isaac. We find that the weaning of Isaac is an important
occasion (Gen. 21:8ff). At this time, Isaac leaves the protection of his mother, and thus is exposed to
conflict with Ishmael. Accordingly, Sarah's last act is to protect her child. We also find in a more extensive
way that a man is not said to leave his father and mother until he takes a wife (Gen. 2:24). Thus, there is a
sense in which any unmarried man is "under age. " This sense is heightened in the case of a child not yet
weaned. At any rate, we find that Jacob -- represented by a kid, as we saw -- is still being protected by his
mother, Rebekah, when Isaac wishes to steal the covenant from him. Additionally, we find in the New
Testament that the early history of the Church, before the destruction of Jerusalem, is likened to the milk-
stage of infancy (cf. 1Cor. 3:2; 1 Pet. 2:2). The destruction of Jerusalem is likened to the casting out of
Ishmael (Gal. 4:21ff.). What all of this corroborates and fills out is that there is a peculiar tie between a

24
Victor P. Hamilton has written that “in the husbandry of Israel a young male kid was the most expendable of the animals, less
valuable than, say, a young lamb. The young males were used for meat; the females kept for breeding. Thus, a kid served admirably as
a meat dish: Gen. 27:9,16; Jud. 6:19; 13:15; 15:1; 1 Sam. 10:3; 16:20….” R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke,
eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) 1:150.
25
See James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985), chaps. 5 and 6.
26
Besides me (Law of Covenant, 1984), Calum Carmichael is the only exegete I have found who notices this connection. His
argument is that the kid law in Deuteronomy was formulated after the famine during the reign of Ahab, a position unacceptable to
Christian orthodoxy, and which I of course reject. With this in mind, his remarks are of interest: "If establishing rules about food is the
lawgiver's response to his observation of the famine conditions imposed in the reign of the house of Ahab, the prohibited food in the
final example, a kid boiled in its mother's milk, may have been prompted by the extreme example of the two mothers who boiled and
ate the son of one of them (2 Kings 6:29). What is plainly abhorrent about the example is not just that human beings consumed human
flesh but that a mother who had given life to her child fed upon its boiled flesh." Carmichael, Law and Narrative in the Bible: The
Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), pp. 71-72.
27
Haran, p. 35.

26
child and its mother during the nursing years.

We are now in a better position to understand this law, and its placement in passages having to do with
offerings to God. The bride offers children to her husband. She bears them, rears them on her milk, and
presents them to her lord as her gift to him. Similarly, Israel is to present the fruits of her hands, including
her children, to her Divine Husband. She is not to consume her children, her offerings, or her tithes, but to
present them to God. The command not to boil the kid in its own mother's milk is a negative command; the
positive injunction it implies is that we are to present our children and the works of our hands to God.

We can now expand on the interpretation and broaden our conception. Apparently a child stayed with its
mother until he was weaned. The feast Abraham threw at the weaning of Isaac indicates that the mother
presented the child to the father on that occasion. She had done her initial work. Now the child was ready
for "solid food" (Heb. 5:13-14; cf. 1Cor. 3:2; 1 Pet. 2:2). That a mother should devour her nursing child is,
thus, not simply a horrible act of cannibalism, it is also a consuming of her sacred trust. The child is not
hers to possess; rather, the child is in her stewardship. She is supposed to rear him to a certain point, and
then present him to her husband.

What our broadened conception points to is an analogy between weaning the child and paying our tithes
and offerings to God. In terms of the general teaching that we are the Bride of Christ, we can say that all
our works are like children. We are supposed to present them to our Lord and Husband, once we have
developed them to a certain point. To consume the works of our hands, without first tithing on them, is
equivalent to eating our own nursing children.

Now we turn to the context of these three laws. What do we find? We find that each time the law occurs in
a context connected to the Feast of Ingathering, when the tithe is presented. Again, this fits with the overall
interpretation as it has developed. The positive injunction is: Pay your tithe at the time of the harvest. The
negative injunction is: Do not consume the works of your hands until you have paid the tithe first.

The second aspect of the context is the appearance of the army of God before His throne. The nursing son
is a potential member of the host that gathers thrice a year. The child is claimed by God, and does not
belong to his father or mother. Thus, the father is told that he is not to boil his kid in his mother's milk; 28
that is, the father does not have the power of life and death over his own children. In other ancient cultures
the father did have such a right, and a deformed child could be put to death. Not so with God's people.29

Finally, context determines that this is a sabbath law, having to do with time and fealty. It has to do with
not consuming what belongs to God, but with giving it to Him at the time of His appointment.

In summary, the law that prohibits boiling a kid in its mother's milk is a symbolic nexus for the following:

1. The Israelite was not to consume God's tithe, but to give it all to Him at the proper time, the Feast of
Tabernacles.

2. Mothers are not to destroy their own suckling children, but to wean them and give them over to their
fathers at the proper time.

3. Fathers do not have the power of life and death over the potential members of God's army. Sons are to
enter the ranks at the proper time, at age twenty (Num. 1:3).

28
The command is in the Hebrew masculine, which does not exclude the feminine. Neither mother nor father is to boil the child.
29
The Romans are most noted for allowing the father absolute rights over children, even older children. This "power of the father"
(patria potestas) was over "life and death" (jus vitae necisque). The right of fathers to put unwanted infants to death, however, is
known in numerous cultures, including China "to this day" (early 20th century) according to James Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of
Religion and Ethics (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911) 4:272. That this thinking was found in the Israelite context, in
violation of Scripture, can be seen from the murder of small children as sacrifices to Molech (2Ki. 23:10; Jer. 32:35). Scripture
reserves the right of life and death to the civil power (Dt. 21:18- 21).

27
 Further Imp1ications

We can now investigate a bit further what it means to boil the kid in its mother's milk. Does this actually
refer to a process of cooking in which the meat is seethed in milk? Haran's observations, quoted above,
indicate that this is unlikely. Possibly the law might mean, "You shall not cook a kid that is in its mother's
milk." That is, as long as the kid is counted as nursing, it is not to be cooked. This takes us back to Matthew
Poole's point, that the kid was counted as nursing until the eighth day, according to Leviticus 22: 7, "When
an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother, and from the eighth day on it
shall be accepted as a sacrifice of a food offering to the LORD."

I regard this as a very likely interpretive possibility, which has simply been obscured because the anti-
magic view has been dominant and has diverted the attention of expositors. In other words, a kid is
regarded as "in milk" or "under its mother" for eight days regardless of how long it may actually nurse after
that time.30 This implies several things in terms of Old Covenant law.

First, it means no Israelite was to cook and eat a baby animal until it was eight years old. Calvin called
attention to Deuteronomy 22:6-7, which forbad taking the mother bird with her chicks. This seems to be a
legitimate parallel.

Second, it means that for tithing purposes, newly born animals were not counted. In other words, a kid born
four days before tithing-day, just before the Feast of Ingathering, would not be counted on that year's tithe
(Lev. 27:32-33).

Third, it creates an association of holiness between the mother and the nursing kid. Part of the purpose of
the tithe was the de-sanctification of all crops and increase. Since the land was holy, all the crops and all
the increase of flocks and herds was also holy. This meant that all of it belonged, in one sense, to God.
Tithing ten percent had the effect of de-sanctifying the remaining ninety percent. We see this principle in
Numbers 18:29-32, which says that after the Levites have tithed ten percent of the tithe to the priests, the
remainder is de-sanctified and may be eaten anywhere. Analogously, taking a kid before the eighth day
would have been an encroachment upon holiness, a profanation of something sacred to God.31

Fourth, assuming that tithing did have the effect of de-sanctifying the increase, we can raise the question of
whether Israelites were allowed to eat any of the yield of their land, flocks, and herds prior to tithing on
them. This might mean that none of the crop might be eaten before the tithe was brought to the sanctuary
and paid, or it might mean that none of the crop might be eaten before a tithe on what had been harvested
had been set aside and designated for eventual payment at the sanctuary. The latter makes far more sense as
a possible implication. (On payday, many Christians make it a habit of writing their tithe check first before
paying any bills or making any purchases. This "sanctified common sense" custom receives support from
the interpretation I am here suggesting.)

Finally, returning to the human application, we see that for a mother to kill her own suckling child rather
than give him to his father when weaned, or for parents to destroy their children rather than turn them over
to God as mature adults, is not only a general crime of murder and theft, but is also particularly nuanced in
terms of specific claims of holiness. To destroy a child "in the milk" is an affront to God that goes beyond
mere murder, and calls down the special fury He reserves for assaults on the things He has bounded as holy
to Himself. In terms of the scheme as I have sought to develop it, an assault by anyone on a child under the
age of twenty would come into this category, and an assault on a nursing child would be an even more
severe crime against holiness.32 The Bible does not even entertain the possibility that a child in the womb
might come under assault, but we can only shudder to think of how God views such an act.

30
I am not denying that the law also forbids cooking a kid in a sauce of its own mother's milk, but I am asserting that the law can be,
and should be, read more generally as forbidding the harvesting of a kid that is still counted as "in the milk." Notice by way of
corroboration that the mothers who boiled their infants during the two sieges did not literally use their own milk in the action.
31
For an extended discussion of holiness and de-sanctification, see Jordan, "The Law of Forbidden Mixtures."
32
This perspective lends support to the suggestion that minors are to be given especial protection under the law. For instance, it is
criminal to sell alcohol to minors. If marijuana and cocaine are legalized, it would probably still be criminal to sell them to minors.
Homosexual seduction of minors should bring a stiffer penalty. Etc.

28
 New Testament Implications

No Christian exposition of the Old Testament is complete without an attempt, at least, to apply the passage
or stipulation under consideration to the work of Jesus Christ and to the life of the Church. What follows
are my thoughts along these lines.

First of all, we bear in mind that Jerusalem is the mother of the Seed (Ps. 87:5; Gal. 4:26ff.). We also note
that Jesus Christ did not become the Husband of the Church-Bride until after His resurrection, and so was
still under His mother's authority and rule -- under the law. Even though there is no particular verse that
says this, we might say that the teaching (law) of the mother to the child corresponds to her milk. Certainly
the New Testament likens the Old Testament period to a time of infancy (Gal. 4:1ff.), and likens teaching
to either milk or solid food, depending on whether it is basic or advanced doctrine (1Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12; 1
Pet. 2:2).

Can we see an application? When Jerusalem kills her Son, can we say that the mother boils her kid? When
we see that the Son is not yet married, and under the mother's special care, this also ties to our
interpretation. Finally, when we see that the mother perversely uses the law, which should have been life to
her child, in order to put her child to death, we can see an analogy to boiling the child in her own milk. In
other words, there is an analogy between:

Mother boils her kid in her own milk.

Jerusalem kills her Son using the law. 33

In line with this, we have the overall teaching that Jerusalem kills her sons, the prophets, repeatedly
throughout history (Matt. 23:37). We also have the overall teaching that Jerusalem perversely misused the
holy law of God in order to put men in bondage (Pharisees), to corrupt the early Church (Judaizers), and to
crucify Her Son (John 19:7, "we have a law, and by that law, He must die"). These teachings are familiar to
all, and need no substantiation. Our interpretation, we note, fits with these common teachings, and adds a
new dimension to them. That is what we should expect, if the interpretation is correct.

Jerusalem is the mother of the seed. When Jerusalem crucified Jesus Christ, her Seed, she was boiling her
kid in her own milk. In Revelation 17, the harlot, which I take to be apostate Jerusalem, has been devouring
her faithful children: "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the
witnesses of Jesus." Her punishment, under the "lex talionis" (eye for eye), is to be devoured by the Gentile
kings who supported her (v. 17).34

Finally, we want to know if this interpretation enables us to speak to our modern situation. Times and
seasons vary, and perhaps it would be difficult to find close analogies to child cannibalism
in, say, certain more Christian periods of history. Today, however, we find no problem. According to "All
About Issues", January, 1984, put out by the American Life Lobby, in an article by Olga Fairfax entitled
"101 Uses for a Dead (or Alive) Baby," modern "collagen enriched" lotions, hand creams, shampoos, and
the like are frequently made from the boiled-down substances of aborted children. Aborted babies are sold
by the pound or by the bag. Dr. Fairfax mentions some drug/cosmetic companies which do not use human
collagen, and some human collagen comes from placentas rather than from babies, but others apparently
are using fetuses as a source.35

We have not yet seen widespread eating of fetal material by the women of America. But the women of
America are, as a group, boiling down their murdered children, and using the residue as cosmetics. In short,
abortion is a violation of the law, "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

33
Notice that "eating" is not involved, only "boiling." This is in line with our earlier observation that the kid law does not actually
speak of eating, but only of boiling. Jesus was killed "outside the gate, " manifestly not "eaten" or taken into Jerusalem.
34
I share the interpretation of this passage presented in David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of
Revelation (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), pp. 421-443.
35
Copies of a 40-page documented study are available for a donation from Dr. Olga Fairfax, 12105 Livingston St., Wheaton, MD
20902. The short article can be had for a donation from American Life Lobby, Box 490, Stafford, VA 22554. Similar data is found in
William Brennan, Medical Holocausts: Exterminative Medicine in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America (Nordland Publishing
International, 1980); and Brennan The Abortion Holocaust: Today's Final Solution (St. Louis: Landmark Press, 1983).

29
 Conclusion

The use of the kid law as a dietary rule completely obscures its true meaning. As a food law for ancient
Israel, the kid law was marginal. Indeed, the law as stated does not speak in terms of eating at all, though
clearly if cooking is forbidden, so is eating. What the law really has to do with is the way we treat the
things God has entrusted to our care. Everything we possess we hold as His stewards, and He is entitled to
receive the first benefit from whatever we produce. We are not to consume His tithe, but to bring it all to
Him and rejoice in His presence. We are not to destroy our children, but raise them up as a Godly seed for
Him. In this way, we acquire an attitude toward all the rest of our duties, an attitude that comes to those
who do not boil kids in their own mother's milk.

30
SECTION 04 - THE APPROACH OF THE CHURCH FATHERS TO THE DIETARY LAW OF MOSES

A complete survey of everything available from the early church would entail the lengthy consultation of
un-translated works in Migne's Patrologia Graeca and Patrologia Latina. Happily, a great deal is available
in English, thoroughly indexed.1 A perusal of such works shows that the Church Fathers uniformly took a
symbolic/worldview approach to the Mosaic dietary laws, and never advocated their continued observance
for supposed health reasons.

At the outset, we need to dispel a common myth, which is that the Church Fathers were heavily infected
with "Greek allegorical thinking" and were utterly incompetent as Biblical exegetes. The sloppy use of the
word "allegory" to refer to any kind of typological or theological interpretation of Scripture is partly to
blame for this myth.2 Danielou has clearly shown that the Fathers were well aware of the difference
between the interpretation of the Bible theologically and typologically on the one hand, and the use of
Scripture allegorically for philosophical purposes on the other. 3 While we may not agree at many points
with the specific interpretations proposed by one or another early exegete, and while we may see that they
were to §9mg degree influenced by the philosophical and interpretive approaches of their times, yet we
must also grant that a theological approach to the Word of God is a proper one.

As we shall see in this essay, the Fathers interpreted the food laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy
symbolically. They saw the animals as symbols for various kinds of persons. This was not the result of
Greek influence, but proceeded directly from the Old Testament itself. At the same time, we shall find that
the Fathers viewed these food laws through the lens of Proverbs rather than through the lens of the
Tabernacle. Instead of sticking with the precise details of Leviticus 11, and seeing the laws of clean and
unclean in terms of Tabernacle access, they tended to go off into "wisdom meditations" on the lifestyles of
various animals, along the lines of Proverbs. Other studies in this series will show that such an approach
misses the point.

Nevertheless, the Fathers clearly did not take the food laws in some hygienic sense. Rather, they interpreted
them symbolically. This is important because it shows that the fundamental approach advocated in the
present studies is not new, but is the traditional Christian approach. I may have come up with some new
interpretive details, and provided a somewhat different slant on some points, but my approach is that of the
historic Christian Church. Those who insist on an hygienic approach cannot make this claim.

The Letter of Aristeas

Before looking at the Church Fathers we should take note of the discussion found in the Letter of Aristeas.
This is a Jewish work written most likely between 200 and 100 B.C. It contains the only pre-Christian
Jewish comments on the Mosaic dietary law. It was written by a Jew living in Alexandria, and is mainly
concerned with an account of how the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint, came into
being. Its importance to us is that it shows how a pre-Christian believer, living during the inter-testamental
era, interpreted the Mosaic dietary laws.

Why do the dietary laws come up in this work? Because they tended to create a separation between Jew and
Gentile. For a Jew living in Alexandria, concerned to be "in the world but not of it," this was a problem.
The Letter of Aristeas is an apology for the faith written to Gentiles. "It is not too much to say that the
writer's one object is to demonstrate the supremacy of the Jewish people -- the Jewish priesthood, the
Jewish law, the Jewish philosophy, and the Jewish Bible.”4 His primary purpose is to show the importance
1
I need to mention S. Stein, "The Dietary Laws in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature," in Kurt Aland and F. L. Cross, eds., Studia
Patristica. Vol. II: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference on Patristic studies held at Christ Church. Oxford. 1955.
Part II. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur, 64 Band --V. Reihe, Band 9 [vol. 64 -- 5th Ser., vol. 9]
(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957), pp. 141-154. Stein's survey is briefer than mine, and is marred by his failure to see the Old
Testament roots of the patristic approach. He simply repeats the liberal myth that the Fathers were simply imposing Greek allegory
onto the Old Testament.
2
For an incisive discussion of this sloppiness, see Moise's Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? The History of Interpretation in
the Light of Current Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987).
3
Jean Danielou, From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers, trans. Dom Wulstan Hibberd
(Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1960).
4
Herbert T. Andrews, "Introduction to The Letter of Aristeas," in R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old

31
of the new translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Secondarily, his design is to win appreciation for the faith.
"The case for the Jewish Law and attitude to life is set out in this work, and in confirmation of this, an
appeal is made to the history of the Jews in Egypt and Alexandria, with special reference to the Law and its
translation into Greek. It is also meant to show that there is some affinity between Jew and Greek, but not
necessarily an identity, so that it is possible for them to live together.....The implied warning is twofold:
The danger with some Jews was that they might become excessively exclusive in their attitude to others,
and the danger with the Greeks, or the Hellenists, was that their attitude might be too syncretistic." 5

The author of the Letter of Aristeas pretends to be a Gentile asking questions of the Jewish High Priest
Eleazar.

For example, we inquired why, since there is one creation only, some things are considered
unclean for eating, others for touching --legislation being scrupulous in most matters, for in these
especially so. In reply, he [Eleazar the High Priest] began as follows: "You observe," he said, "that
important matter raised by modes of life and relationships, inasmuch as through bad relationships
men become perverted, and are miserable their whole life long; if, however, they mix with wise
and prudent companions, they rise above ignorance and achieve progress in life." (vv. 129- 130)

Eleazar thus immediately states that the dietary rules really have to do with human companionship and
relationships. He returns to this point at the end of his discussion, "In the matter of meats, the unclean
reptiles, the beasts, the whole underlying rationale is directed toward righteousness and righteous human
relationships" (v. 169, emphasis added). This is not "allegorizing," at least not in some Greek sense. Rather,
it is exactly what the book of Proverbs teaches, and indeed what was clear from Genesis 2 on: that animals
are images of humanity, and animal life images human life.

Having introduced his discussion by saying that animal life parallels human life, Eleazar tells Aristeas that
God is One, and idolatry is sinful. All the nations worship false gods, but there is only one God, the God of
the Hebrews (vv. 131-140). The heart of the law is to be consumed with this God. "Meat and drink and
clothes" are not the real concerns of the law (v. 140). "Such concerns are of no account among the people
of our race, but throughout the whole of their lives their main objective is concerned with the sovereignty
of God" (v. 141). Of course, Israelites are capable of falling into the sin of idolatry, and "so, to prevent our
being perverted by contact with others or by mixing with bad influences, he hedged us in on all sides with
strict observances [lit. "purities"] connected with meat and drink and touch and hearing and sight, after the
manner of the Law” (v. 142).

Eleazar turns first to an explanation of clean and unclean birds:

Do not take the contemptible view that Moses enacted this legislation because of an excessive
preoccupation with mice and weasels or suchlike creatures. The fact is that everything has been
solemnly set in order for unblemished investigation and amendment of life for the sake of
righteousness.

The birds which we use are all domesticated and of exceptional cleanliness, the food consisting of
wheat and pulse --such birds as pigeons, turtledoves, locusts, partridges, and, in addition, geese
and others of the same kind. As to the birds which are forbidden, you will find wild and
carnivorous kinds, and the rest which dominate by their own strength, and who find their food at
the expense of the aforementioned domesticated birds -- which is an injustice; and not only that,
they also seize lambs and kids and outrage human beings dead or alive. By calling them impure,
he has thereby indicated that it is the solemn binding duty of those for whom the legislation has
been established to practice righteousness and not to lord it over anyone in reliance upon their own
strength, nor to deprive him of anything, but to govern their lives righteously, in the manner of the
gentle creatures among the aforementioned birds which feed on those plants which grow on the
ground and do not exercise a domination leading to the destruction of their fellow creatures. By

Testament in English, 2 vols. (London: Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1913) 2:85.
5
R. J. H. Shutt, "Letter of Aristeas: A New Translation and Introduction," in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985) 2:9. The translation used in our discussion will be that of Shutt, from
this volume.

32
 means of creatures like this the legislator has handed down (the lesson) to be noted by men of
wisdom, that they should be righteous, and not achieve anything by brute force, nor lord it over
others in reliance upon their own strength. (vv. 144-148)

The birds are, of course, the hardest case, since the Mosaic law gives no rules for determining clean and
unclean, but only gives a list of unclean birds. Eleazar's explanation is that the unclean birds are those that
are killers, who dominate others by force and violence.

He then turns to the land animals, and first to the specification of the divided hoof.

Everything pertaining to conduct permitted us toward these creatures and toward beasts has been
set out symbolically. Thus the cloven hoof, that is the separation of the claws of the hoof, is a sign
of setting apart each of our actions for good, because the strength of the whole body with its action
rests upon the shoulders and the legs. The symbolism conveyed by these things compels us to
make a distinction in the performance of all our acts, with righteousness as our aim. This
moreover explains why we (Jews) are distinct from all other men. The majority of other men
defile themselves in their relationships, thereby committing a serious offense, and lands and whole
cities take pride in it: They not only procure the males, they also defile mothers and daughters. We
are quite separated from these practices. (vv. 150-152)

The separation of the foot into two halves means that as a man approaches the world and lays hold of it, he
is to distinguish between right and wrong. It is interesting the Eleazar turns to sexual sin in discussing this
law. His reference is to the laws found in Leviticus 18 and 20, which are part of the same purity laws as the
dietary laws of Leviticus 11. As other studies in this series show, there is indeed a relationship between
what you can eat and whom you can marry. Eleazar's condensation of the Jewish traditional understanding
of Moses confirms this association.

Next he discusses the fact that the cloven hoofed animals must also ruminate.

The man with whom the aforesaid manner of disposition is concerned is the man on whom the
legislator has also stamped that of memory. For example, all cloven-footed creatures and
ruminants quite clearly express, to those who perceive it, the phenomenon of memory. Rumination
is nothing but the recalling of (the creature1s) life and constitution, life being usually constituted
by nourishment. So we are exhorted through scripture also by the one who says thus, "Thou shalt
remember the Lord, who did great and wonderful deeds in thee." (vv. 153-155)

It is not just personal memory that the apparently ruminating animal symbolizes, but especially covenant
memory. As the ruminant chews on the food appropriate for him, so the righteous man chews on the food
appropriate for him, which is the Word of the Lord.

Finally, Eleazar comments on some of the swarming things.

The same principle can be found in the case of beasts, because the character of "weasels," and
"mice," and all creatures like them that have been described is mischievous. Mice pollute and
defile everything not only for their own nourishment, but also to the extent of rendering absolutely
useless for human beings everything that comes their way to defile. The species of weasel is
unique: Apart from the aforementioned characteristic, it has another polluting feature, that of
conceiving through its ears and producing its young through its mouth. So for this reason any
similar feature in men is unclean; men who hear anything and give physical expression to it by
word of mouth, thus embroiling other people in evil, commit no ordinary act of uncleanliness, and
are themselves completely defiled with the taint of impiety. (vv. 163-166)

Swarming things tear things up and render them useless. People who tear things up, then, are to be avoided.
What Eleazar says about the weasel seems ridiculous to us, but his method of symbolic understanding is the
same as that of Proverbs.

The important thing in The Letter of Aristeas is not the specific interpretations provided by the author.

33
Rather, it is the fact that the general approach is clearly symbolic. Animals are clean and unclean according
as how they image human life. The author of The Letter of Aristeas clearly approaches these laws with a
symbolic/ worldview method.

Barnabas

Among the Apostolic Fathers, who wrote between A.D. 70 and 150, only the Epistle of Barnabas speaks of
the Levitical food laws. Writing around the year l00, the writer devotes quite a bit of attention to the
meaning of the Old Testament laws, and the tenth chapter of his letter concerns the Mosaic food laws. 6

1. Now when Moses said, "Eat neither pig, nor eagle nor hawk nor crow, nor any fish which is
without scales," he received in his understanding three doctrines.

2. Further, he says to them in Deuteronomy, " And I will ordain as a covenant for this people my
righteous ordinances." Therefore it is not God's commandment that they should not eat, but Moses
spoke in the spirit.

It is not clear whether or not Barnabas thought the Jews were obligated not to eat unclean food, but it is
hard to believe he actually thought the Jews were not obligated to keep the letter of the law. Another
translator renders the second half of verse 2, "Is there then not a command of God that they should not eat
[these things]? There is, but Moses spoke with a spiritual reference." 7

Moses' "three doctrines" concern animals that inhabit the earth beneath, the heavens above, and the waters
below:

3. For this reason, then, he mentions the pig: Do not associate, he is saying, with such men --men
who are like pigs. That is, men who forget their Lord when they are well off, but when they are in
need, they acknowledge the Lord; just as when the pig is feeding it ignores its keeper, but when it
is hungry it makes a din, and after it partakes it is quiet again.

4. "Neither eat the eagle nor the hawk nor the kite nor the crow.” Do not, he is saying, associate
with nor be like such men --men who do not know how to procure their own food by honest labor
and sweat, but in their lawlessness they plunder the possessions of others, and they keep sharp
watch as they walk around in apparent innocence, and spy out whom they might despoil by
plundering; just as those birds are unique in not procuring their own food, but as they perch idly
by, they seek how they might devour the flesh of others --pestilent creatures in their wickedness!

5. "And do not eat," he says, "sea eel nor octopus nor cuttlefish." Do not, he is saying, be like such
men --men who are completely impious and have already been condemned to death; just as those
fish are uniquely cursed and loiter in the depths, not swimming about as do the rest but inhabiting
the murky region beneath the deep water.

Barnabas ' s first three-point sermon concerns three kinds of people, and this is the important point. It was
clear to him that the food laws were symbolic. Animals symbolized human beings. Clean animals are like
righteous people in their behavior, and unclean animals are like the wicked. Whether or not we agree with
his specific points, his general approach is soundly rooted in the Bible. The Christian should not be like the
wicked, and thus be unclean. Nor should the Christian associate with the wicked, "eating" them into his
fellowship as it were. We may note that Barnabas's approach to the birds is basically the same as that of
The Letter of Aristeas: Unclean birds portray violence.

Prudery was not a problem in the early church, and Barnabas adds three applications that might be
embarrassing were they not so absurd.

6
The translation used here is by Robert A. Kraft, from Jack Sparks, ed., The Apostolic Fathers (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978).
7
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, rev. ed., Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, [1885] 1979), p.
143.

34
 6. But neither shall you eat the hairy-footed animals. Why not? Do not be, he is saying, one who
corrupts children, nor be like such people; because the hare increases unduly its discharge each
year, and thus has as many holes as it is years old.8

7. But neither shall you eat the hyena. 9 Do not, he is saying, be an adulterer nor a corrupter, nor be
like such people. Why? Because this animal changes its nature each year, and at one time it is
male while at another it is female.

8. But also he hated the weasel, fittingly. Do not, he is saying, be such a person. We hear of such
men, who perform a lawless deed uncleanly with the mouth. Neither associate with those unclean
women who perform the lawless deed with the mouth. For this animal conceives through its
mouth.

Barnabas's approach here is not out of line with Scripture. The food laws of Leviticus do indeed correlate to
laws specifying whom you can marry and what nations you can ally with. This is the overall meaning of the
laws of clean and unclean. Moreover, sharing a common meal makes us "one flesh," as marital relations
also create one flesh in a different way. Thus, the Lord's Supper makes us "one flesh" with Jesus, and this is
the "marriage" supper of the Lamb. These associations of food and marriage are preserved, though in a very
strange manner, by Barnabas. Though we must disagree with his peculiar and strained applications, 10
Barnabas does preserve the insight that food and marriage are related in the law.

It is important to note that what Barnabas says about the weasel is not the same as what is said in The
Letter of Aristeas. While both authors hold the weasel in contempt, their understanding of its perversity is
quite different. I point this out to say that Barnabas does not seem to be depending on Aristeas.11 This
shows that the symbolic/worldview approach, used by both writers, is a tradition independent of both. It
was not some new interpretive device invented by Aristeas and then imitated by Barnabas. Rather, it is
older than both and drawn upon by both. From this fact, and from the fact that no other interpretive
approach is found either in the Bible or in any ancient literature, we can conclude that some variant of the
symbolic/worldview approach is the true, ancient, and traditional one.

Barnabas returns to his first triplet for an illustration from Psalm 1:

9. Concerning foods, then, when Moses received the three doctrines he spoke out thus, in the
spirit. But because of fleshly desires they accepted his words as though they concerned actual
food.12

10a. And David also received gnosis [knowledge, insight] of the same three doctrines --as he says:
Blessed is the man who has not walked according to the counsel of impious men --just as
the fish that grope in darkness in the depths;
Nor stood in the way of sinners --just as those who appear to fear the Lord sin like the
pig;
Nor sat in the seat of pestilent fellows --just like the birds perched for plundering.

Barnabas concludes with observations on the rules for clean and unclean animals:

10b. Now receive complete (understanding) concerning food.

11. Moses says again: "Eat every split-hooved and cud chewing animal." What is he saying? That

8
The translation found in The Ante-Nicene Fathers says "for as many years as it lives so many ...it has." The word omitted by the
19th-century translator is "anuses."
9
Not mentioned in Moses, but in the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah 12:9.
10
As regards sexuality, Biblical law is concerned with whom you may marry, not with what acts you may perform. The latter seems to
be Barnabas ' s primary concern.
11
Stein disagrees: "[Barnabas] carefully enumerates all the familiar allegorizations of Aristeas and Philo, making only an occasional
alteration here and there." Stein, p. 150. It seems to me that the differences are somewhat greater than this. As we shall see, later
Church Fathers seem to line up either with Barnabas or Aristeas, indicating two traditions and not just one.
12
The Ante-Nicene Fathers translators rendered this phrase: "but they received them according to fleshly desire, as if he had merely
spoken of meats." Kraft's translation implies that Barnabas thought the Jews did not have to keep the letter of the law.

35
 (the animal) which receives fodder knows who feeds it, and while it relies on him, it seems
content. He spoke fittingly in view of the commandment.

What, then, is he saying? Associate with those who fear the Lord, with those who meditate in their heart on
the subtleties of the matter, with those who proclaim the Lord's righteous ordinances and keep them, with
those who realize that study is a joyful occupation, and who "ruminate" on the Lord's word.

And what does "split-hooved" mean? That the righteous man both walks in this world and anticipates the
holy aeon. See how appropriately Moses legislated!

12. But how could they perceive or understand these things? But since we rightly understand the
commandments, we are speaking as the Lord desired. This is why He circumcised our ears and
hearts, so that we might understand these things.

The idea that cud chewing, or the appearance thereof, is an image of meditating on the Word of God is the
almost universal traditional explanation of the Mosaic requirement at this point. Barnabas ' s explanation of
the split hoof is more distinctive. He says that the Christian believer lives in two worlds: this world and the
world to come. He is thus to walk in both worlds. As an animal with a split hoof walks, both halves of his
hooves walk together. Just so, the righteous man is to keep both halves of his life in synch, walking in this
world according to the righteous principles of the next. (Notice again that Barnabas and Aristeas agree on
the symbolic/worldview approach, but differ as to specific meaning.)

Whether or not we agree with his specifics, the importance of Barnabas's contribution to our discussion lies
in this: The earliest Christian expositor of the Mosaic dietary laws clearly understood them as symbolic in
character. He saw the animal kingdom as a complex symbolic image of human life. Animals were clean
and unclean according to how certain aspects of their behavior imaged human life. "Eating" meant
incorporation, or association, and so avoiding unclean meats meant not associating with wicked people, and
not becoming incorporated (one flesh) with them by marriage (or sexual relations).

Irenaeus

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote his treatise Against Heresies around A.D. 185. Chapter 8, section 4, deals
with the Mosaic food laws. Here we find a straightforward advocacy of the symbolic/worldview approach.
Writing of wicked people, he says:

Now the law has figuratively predicted all these, delineating man by the [various] animals:
Whatsoever of these, says [the Scripture], have a double hoof and ruminate, it proclaims as clean;
but whatsoever of them do not possess one or other of their [properties], it sets aside by
themselves as unclean. Who then are the clean? Those who make their way by faith steadily
towards the Father and the Son, for this is denoted by the steadiness of those which divide the
hoof; and they meditate day and night upon the words of God, that they may be adorned with good
works, for this is the meaning of the ruminants. The unclean, however, are those that do neither
divide the hoof nor ruminate; that is, those persons who have neither faith in God, nor do meditate
on His words, and such is the abomination of the Gentiles.

But as to those animals which do indeed chew the cud, but have not the double hoof, and are themselves
unclean, we have in them a figurative description of the Jews, who certainly have the words of God in their
mouth, but who do not fix their rooted steadfastness in the Father and in the Son; wherefore they are an
unstable generation. For those animals which have the hoof all in one piece easily slip; but those which
have it divided are more sure-footed, their cleft hoofs succeeding each other as they advance, and the one
hoof supporting the other.

In like manner, too, those are unclean which have the double hoof but do not ruminate. This is
plainly an indication of all heretics, and of those who do not meditate on the words of God, neither
are adorned with works of righteousness; to whom also the Lord says, "Why call ye Me Lord,
lord, and do not the things which I say to you?” For men of this stamp do indeed say that they

36
 believe in the Father and the Son, but they never meditate as they should upon the things of God,
neither are they adorned with works of righteousness; but as I have already observed, they have
adopted the lives of swine and of dogs, giving themselves over to filthiness, to gluttony, and
recklessness of all sorts.13

Irenaeus's comments are clear, but it is worth noting that his symbolic understanding of the divided hoof is
not that same as Barnabas's. For Barnabas, the divided hoof indicates that the faithful man walks in two
worlds. For Irenaeus, it indicates that the faithful man is sure footed in his progress. The
symbolic/worldview approach is common to both, but not the specifics of interpretation.

Clement of Alexandria

We turn now to Clement of Alexandria, noted for introducing a rather heavy dose of Greek philosophy into
his system and for forcing the Scripture to portray these alien elements by way of "allegorical
interpretation." The problems of Clement in this regard are no doubt often exaggerated,14 but it does make
us suspicious as we approach what he has to say about the Mosaic dietary laws. In fact, however, what he
says is very little, and quite conventional.

In The Instructor (c. 190) we find a discussion on eating, in the course of which Clement calls attention to
Peter's vision and remarks that God allows New Testament believers to eat any kind of animal. "The use of
them is accordingly indifferent to us. 'For not what entereth into the mouth defileth the man,' but the vain
opinion regarding uncleanness. For God, when He created man, said, 'All things shall be to you for
meat.’”15

A few chapters later (bk. 2, ch. 10), he discusses marital relations. Like Barnabas before him, he discusses
the real or imagined habits of unclean animals in this regard (taking issue with Barnabas over the hyena,
which he says does not change sex). In this discussion Clement is preserving the tradition to which we have
already referred.

Still later, Clement gives a few more details of his understanding of the purpose of the Mosaic restrictions:

But, as appears, only intercourse with good men benefits; on the other hand, the all-wise
Instructor, by the mouth of Moses, recognizing companionship with bad men as swinish, forbade
the ancient people to partake of swine; to point out that those who call on God ought not to mingle
with unclean men, who, like swine, delight in corporeal pleasures.....

Further, He says: "Thou are not to eat a kite or swift-winged ravenous bird, or an eagle," meaning: Thou
shalt not come near men who gain their living by rapine. And other things also are exhibited figuratively.

With whom, then, are we to associate? with the righteous, He says again, speaking figuratively;
for everything "which parts the hoof and chews the cud is clean.” For the parting of the hoof
indicates the equilibrium of righteousness, and ruminating points to the proper food of
righteousness, the word, which enters from without, like food, by instruction, but is recalled from
the mind, as from the stomach, to rational recollection. And the spiritual man, having the word in
his mouth, ruminates the spiritual food; and righteousness parts the hoof rightly, because it
sanctifies us in this life, and sends us on our way to the world to come. 16

These are basically the opinions of Barnabas, and have nothing to do with Greek philosophy of neo-
platonic allegorizing.17 Clement stands with the early church in approaching the dietary laws with a
13
Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:534.
14
For a balanced treatment, see Louis Bouyer, The Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers (New York: Seabury, [1960]
1982), pp. 256ff.; and also Si1va, Has the Church Misread the Bible?; Danielou, From Shadows to Reality.
15
The Instructor, bk. 2, ch. 1; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 241.
16
The Instructor, bk. 3, ch. 11; Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:289.
17
Barnabas is explicitly cited by Clement on the subject of the Mosaic food laws in The Miscellanies, bk. 5, ch. 9; Ante-Nicene
Fathers 2:456. His remarks there add nothing to what we have already seen.

37
symbolic/worldview hermeneutic.

Novatian

Around the year 250, the Roman presbyter Novatian wrote a letter On the Jewish Meats. This letter
followed two previous epistles against the Jews dealing with circumcision and the sabbath, now both sadly
lost. In the early church there was much debate between Jews and Christians over the proper interpretation
of the Mosaic law. Jewish rabbis were in the process of completely overhauling traditional interpretations,
removing Messianic content. The Christians were holding to the traditional interpretations, since they
pointed to Christ, and filling them out with New Testament perspectives. Novatian's writings fit into this
context.

Unhappily, Novatian seems to have been an intolerant and ambitious person who believed that the Church
was too soft on people who lapsed during persecutions. When he was not made bishop of Rome, he and
those of similar hyper-purist persuasion separated and formed a separate church. This of course was
condemned, and thus Novatian has gone down in history as a schismatic, and a precursor of the Donatists.
Of course, virtually everything we have on this controversy comes from the catholic party, and so some
scholars have suggested that Novatian may not have been as extreme as he has been portrayed.

Whatever the case, the letter On the Jewish Meats seems to have been written during the Decian
persecution, before the schism. Thus, it comes from Novatian's earlier catholic period. Additionally, there is
nothing in this work that touches on the controversy in question. Finally, there is nothing of substance that
is "original" here; rather, it is one more testimony to the pervasiveness of the syrnbolic/worldview approach
used by the early Church.

Novatian's main point against the Jews is the doctrine of creation. God created all things good, so that
nothing can be unclean in and of itself. Only human beings sin, and so only human beings can be unclean
in any moral sense. Every other form of uncleanness must, therefore, simply be symbolic of human
defilement.

Firstly, we must believe that whatever was ordained by God is clean and purified by the very
authority of His creation; neither must it be reproached, lest the reproach should be thrown back
upon its Author.18

For in reprobating what He has made, He will appear to have condemned His own works, which
He had approved as good; and He will be designated as seeming capricious in both cases, as the
heretics indeed would have it; either in having blessed things which were not clean, or in
subsequently reprobating as not good, creatures which He had blessed as both clean and good.19

All these things were made by one Workman, and He who made them Himself blessed them.
Therefore I regard the creation of both ["clean" and "unclean"] as clean, because both He who
created them is holy, and those that which were created are not in fault in being that which they
were made.20

Novatian surveys the primordial history of Genesis to show that God progressively allowed man to eat
more and more of the creation, and that all of these things were good. "The only food for the first men was
fruit and the produce of the trees. Afterwards, man's sin transferred his need from the fruit-trees to the
produce of the earth.”21 This produce of the earth required labor to be grown, harvested, and processed into
food, and this labor was designed to shape them toward righteousness. This was the infancy of the human
race, and "for a while a more tender meat [food] was needed to nourish men who were both tender and
unskilled."22 After the Flood, however, "the more robust food of flesh is offered to men that for the
18
Novatian, On the Jewish Meats, ch. 3; Ante-Nicene Fathers, val. 5, p. 647.
19
Ibid., ch. 2; p. 646.
20
Ibid., ch. 3; p. 647.
21
Ibid., ch. 2; p. 646.
22
Ibid.

38
advantage of culture something more might be added to the vigor of the human body. “ 23 All flesh was
acceptable food until the coming of the Mosaic law: "But the law which followed subsequently ordained
the flesh foods with distinction: For some animals it gave and granted for use, as being clean; some it
interdicted as not clean, and conveying pollution to those that eat them.” 24

As we have seen, this cannot be due to any inadequacy in the creatures themselves. Rather, it must be due
to symbolism.

For it has never been customary for nature, but for a perverted will, to bear the blame of guilt.
What, then, is the case? In the animals it is the characters, and doings, and wills of men that are
depicted.25

Novatian here anticipates the "Protestant" doctrine of justification. Sin is not in nature, but in the will. Sin,
thus, only applies to men. Animals do things by nature that are good for them, but which if done by men
are unnatural and sinful.

For when an irrational animal is rejected on any account, it is rather that very thing which is
condemned in the man, who is rational. And if in it anything that is has by nature is characterized
as a defilement, that same thing is most to be blamed when it is found in man opposed to his
nature. Therefore, in order that men might be purified, the cattle were censured -- to wit, that men
also who had the same vices might be esteemed on a level with the brutes.

The hawk, for example, is not to be condemned for being a violent animal, but if men imitate the hawk and
become violent, it is they who are condemned. Thus, the entire system is symbolic of human life and
society.

Thus in the animals, by the law, as it were, a certain mirror of human life is established, wherein
men may consider the images of penalties; so that everything which is vicious in men, as
committed against nature, may be the more condemned, when even those things, although
naturally ordained in brutes, are in them blamed. 26

Novatian gives a more detailed exposition of the Mosaic food laws than we have seen heretofore. His
understanding of the requirement that land animals have a cleft hoof and chew the cud is that of Irenaeus,
not Barnabas. Clean animals reflect on the Word of God and make true progress in their walk. Those who
do neither are Gentiles; those who do one but not the other are either Jews or heretics, according to the
understanding of Irenaeus.

Clean fish have scales, whose roughness speaks of the rugged gravity of righteous men; while unclean fish
are soft like trifling, fickle, and faithless persons. The following catalogue gives Novatian's understanding
of many other unclean beasts:

camel infirm and crooked

pig filthy and dirty; delighting in the garbage of vice
hare men deformed into women (homosexuality)
weasel thieves27
lizard waywardness of 1ife
newt mental stains
hawk, kite, eagle plunderers and violent people who live by crime
vulture those who seek for booty by the death of others
raven crafty-willed persons
sparrow intemperate people
owl those who fly from the light of truth

23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid., c. 3; p. 647.
26
Ibid.
27
Note that this is yet a third understanding of the weasel, different from Aristeas and Barnabas.

39
 swan those with proud necks
sea-mew blabbermouths
bat those who seek the darkness of night and of error

He closes his discussion in chapter 3 by reminding the reader that there is nothing wrong with these
animals being the way they are. The sin comes when men act in these ways.

In chapter 4, Novatian adds that these laws also had the effect of restraining the intemperance of the Jewish
people, especially after they came out of the flesh pots of Egypt. In chapter 5, he points out that in the New
Covenant we are not bound by these laws, citing Titus 1:15; 1 Timothy 4:1-5; 1 Corinthians 10:25; Romans
16:17, and 1 Corinthians 6:13. Anything consecrated to God is clean, because to the pure all things are
pure. Anyone who commands others to abstain from meats is a demonized heretic. In chapter 6, he affirms
that the truest food of the Christian is the Lord Himself, His Word and sacrament; and he concludes in
chapter 7 by reminding the reader that meat offered to idols may not be eaten since it is not consecrated to
God.

In conclusion, we have in Novatian a tradition different from that of Clement. Novatian stands with
Irenaeus, and Clement with Barnabas. Yet both traditions clearly stem from one heritage, the
symbolic/worldview approach. Moreover, both Clement, who was "too loose," and Novatian, who was "too
strict," agree on this. There simply was no other approach in the ancient church.

The Apostolic Constitutions

An anonymous work compiled between 300 and 350, The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles contains a
section on what foods may be eaten by believers. These remarks were probably directed both against
ascetics and against Judaizers:

Now concerning the several sorts of food, the Lord says to thee, "Ye shall eat the good things of
the earth;" and, "All sorts of flesh shall ye eat, as the green herb;” but, “Thou shalt pour out the
blood." For "not those things that go into the mouth, but those that come out of it, defile a man;" I
mean blasphemies, evil-speaking, and if there by any other thing of the like nature. But "do thou
eat the fat of the land with righteousness." For "if there be anything pleasant, it is His; and if there
by anything good, it is His. Wheat for the young men, and wine to cheer the maids." For "who
shall eat or who shall drink without Him?" wise Ezra does also admonish thee, and say: "Go your
way, and eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and be not sorrowful." 28

Chrysostom

While St. Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, apparently did not comment on the dietary laws of
Moses, he did address the more *general question of whether or not Christians are bound to keep them. In
his remarks on Matthew 15:17-20, he alludes to Mark 7:19, which says that Christ cleansed the meats. "But
Mark says that when He spake this [Matt. 15:17-20], He cleansed the meats. He [Jesus] did not, however,
express it outright, nor say, ‘to eat such and such meats does not defile a man, I because they would not
have been able to endure to be told it by Him in such a direct manner. Accordingly, His conclusion was,
‘But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.’” 29

Similarly, in his sermon on 1 Timothy 4:1-10, he insists that all animals are now clean; it is only the
attitude of the person eating them that can be unclean. "What then, is not swine's flesh unclean? By no
means, when it is received with thanksgiving, and with the seal [the sign of the cross]; nor is anything else.

28
Constitution of the Holy: A2ostles, bk. 7, ch. 20; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, p. 468. The verses cited are Dt. 5:32; Is. 1:19; Gen.
9:3; Dt. 15:23; Mt. 15:11; Mk. 7:22; Zech. 9:17; Eccl. 2:25, Neh. 8:10.
29
Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, homily 51, sect. 4; in Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First series, Vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, [1888] 1969), p. 318f. Chrysostom's
sermons were taken down as notes, and the English translation is from these notes. It is hard reading, and I have taken the liberty of
rephrasing the quotations to make them more readable.

40
It is your unthankful disposition to God that is unclean." 30

Finally, we can glance at his sermons on Acts. In Homily 22, on Acts 10, Chrysostom states that the four-
cornered sheet Peter saw descending from heaven was "a symbol of the whole world." "The earth, then, this
is what the linen sheet denotes, and the wild beasts in it, are they of the Gentiles, and the command, 'Kill
and eat,’ denotes that he must go to them also."31 Unclean animals, thus, symbolized the Gentiles.

Brief Notices in Methoclius and Athanasius

Methodius, Bishop of Olympus and Patara, in Lycia, martyred in 312, left behind a work in praise of
chastity, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins. Writing that virgins should behave with decorum, he states, "on
this account it is ordered that she do not give herself up to womanish weaknesses and laughter, exciting
herself to wiles and foolish talking, which whirl the mind around and confuse it; as it is indicated in another
place, lye shall not eat the hyena and animals like it; nor the weasel and creatures of that kind.’" 32 This is
pretty crudely moralistic symbolism: Animals that bark and swarm are unclean because people ought not to
behave that way. Nevertheless, for Methodius, obviously, the provisions of the Mosaic dietary law were
self-explanatory: They referred symbolically to human behavior.

A passing allusion to Leviticus 11:13 is found in St. Athanasius' Easter Letter for the year 335. Referring to
the wicked, he writes, "But it is the soul which they bury in sins and follies, drawing near to the dead, and
satisfying it with dead nourishment; like young eagles which, from high places, fly upon the carcasses of
the dead, and which the law prohibited, commanding figuratively, ‘Thou shalt not eat the eagle,’ nor any
other bird that feedeth on a dead carcass; and it pronounced unclean whatsoever eateth the dead."33 Here
again we see that the Church Fathers assumed that the Mosaic dietary laws were symbolic in intent.

Aphrahat

Aphrahat was the first great father of the Iranian church. Bearing in mind that the Church in Persia was
naturally different in many ways from the Church in the Roman Empire, we see that Aphrahat must speak
out of a different tradition. His interpretation of the dietary laws is not the same as what we find in the
Greco-Roman Fathers, but like them he sees no hygienic purpose in the laws.

Aphrahat's most important work was his twenty-three Demonstrations of Christianity. "The first ten,
composed in 335-7, present a systematic account of Christianity, addressed to his fellow monks. The next
thirteen, written in 344-5, deal with various pressing issues facing the Iranian church, which was severely
persecuted because of its resistance to the war-taxes Shapur II levied to pay for his war with Christian
Rome.”34 Among the issues dealt with in Demonstrations 11-23 was the Jewish critique of Christianity.
Demonstration 15 deals specifically with the Mosaic dietary laws.

Aphrahat' s argument is unique. He states that the animals declared unclean and not to be eaten were the
animals the Jews had become fond of eating in Egypt. The Egyptians regarded sheep and bulls as sacred,
and for this reason God told Israel to sacrifice them. That is, the purpose of the sacrificial system and the
laws of uncleanness was to break the hold of Egyptian culture on Israel. Against Aphrahat ' s argument we
have to say that if this had been any part of God's intention, He would have outlawed fish, leeks, onions,
garlic, melons, and cucumbers, for it was these Egyptian foods that the Israelites longed for (Num. 11:5).
That God did not outlaw these rather clearly proves that He was not concerned with what Aphrahat thought
He was concerned with.

30
Chrysostom, Homilies on Timothy, homily 12, verse 4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 13, p. 445.
31
Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 11, pp. 143, 144.
32
Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, discourse 5, ch. 6; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 328.
33
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Librarv of the Nic~ne and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second
Series, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, [1891] 1978), p. 524.
34
Jacob Neusner, "The Jewish-Christian Argument in Fourth-Century Iran: Aphrahat on Circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Dietary
laws," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 7 (1970) :282. This article contains English translations of several parts of Aphrahat's fifteenth
Demonstration, and to my knowledge is the only English source for these. My discussion leans entirely on Neusner's presentation.

41
Nevertheless, Aphrahat clearly saw that the dietary laws were only temporary, and were fulfilled and
abolished in and by Christ. Moreover, there is no hint that he saw them as in any way designed for health or
hygiene.

Conclusion

As I mentioned at the outset of this essay, a fuller study of the Fathers might be made from the original
sources published by Migne, but it is doubtful if any new insight would turn up. Readily available sources
have provided us with plenty to work from, and thus we can draw conclusions with a fair degree of
confidence.

First, none of the Greco-Roman Fathers ever takes the Mosaic dietary laws as anything other than
completely symbolic. There is no hint of any "dual equity" approach (symbolic but also hygienic). For
these Fathers, as for The Letter of Aristeas, the laws were symbolic and nothing else. The only
representative of Syrian Christianity that we have access to, Aphrahat, takes the Mosaic dietary laws as
rules for social and religious separation, but again there is no hint of any "dual equity" approach.

Second, it can be said that the inadequacy of the interpretations of the Fathers lies in their general failure to
take a Christo-centric view of the Mosaic dietary laws. Their version of the symbolic/ worldview approach
seldom rose above moralism: Clean animals are like good people, and unclean animals are like bad people.
They failed to see the relationship between uncleanness and the curse on the ground, and thus the larger
demonic and sacramental aspects of the Mosaic food law system.

Finally, the Fathers generally seem to have overleaped the explicit reasons for uncleanness given in the text
of Leviticus, and rushed to supply symbolic reasons from observations in nature. Such an approach is not
wholly excluded, since Proverbs forms the foundation for it. Nevertheless, the animals that are designated
unclean are not said to be so because they are violent, but because of the nature of their feet and whether
they appear to ruminate. Scaled fish are predators, yet they are clean. The Fathers had the right interpretive
principle, but they rushed to application without spending enough time in careful study of the details of the
text.

42
 SECTION 05 - INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MOSAIC DIETARY LAWS A SURVEY

The specific rules about unclean animals in Leviticus 11 are clear, but the rationale for them is obscure.
Why are only finned and scaled fish clean? Why are only certain hopping insects clean? Why are dogs,
cats, and mice unclean? The text does not seem to provide any answer. As a result, a variety of
explanations have been proposed over the centuries. The purpose of this essay is to survey these
explanations.

It is part of the thesis of these studies that there is a specific reason why Leviticus 11 has been obscure to so
many students, so that such a variety of interpretations have been proffered. It has to do with the nature of
the Mosaic revelation as a whole, and its treatment throughout the Christian era.

The Mosaic revelation is not first and foremost law; that is, not "law" in the sense of rules for life and
dominion. It is first and foremost a revelation of the person of God. To put it another way, the Mosaic
revelation is first of all a Tree of Life, revealing God, and only secondly a Tree of Knowledge, giving rules
for dominion. This is why the "Mosaic Law" has so little resemblance to a law code. "Mixed in" with laws
are exhortations, instructions, motivations, wisdom sayings, and so forth. Of course, these are not really
"mixed in" at all, but are part and parcel of the structure of the Mosaic revelation. It is only when the Torah
is wrongly viewed as a law code that these other dimensions are viewed as adventitious. 1

Jesus bluntly accused the Jews of His day of not understanding the Mosaic revelation, because they had
reduced it to mere law (Mark 7:1-23). He stated that the first purpose of the Torah was to reveal God, and
thus to reveal Him as the Son of God. Had the Jews been reading the Torah properly, they would have
recognized Jesus as God (John 5:45-46). The fact that they did not recognize Him meant that they were
misreading Moses (Luke 24:27).

How does the Torah point to God? Symbolically. Everything created by God reveals Him, and thus is a
symbol of Him in some particular as well as general sense. The same is true of every aspect of the Bible.
The Old Covenant is a type of the New, and everything in it symbolizes -- points to -- God and Christ.2
Everything in the "Mosaic law" points to God, and typifies the Christ to come. It is this symbolic
dimension that is primary, because it is the symbolic dimension that reveals God's person and plan.

We have to say, then, that the reason the Jews did not recognize Jesus as the fulfillment of the Mosaic
revelation is because they had abandoned the symbolic approach to the Torah. They had reduced it to mere
law. It is important to see this because it explains why the traditional Jewish interpretations of Leviticus 11
are not helpful to us.

Our procedure in this lengthy, debris-clearing essay is as follows. We look first of all at traditional
rabbinical efforts, because the Jewish interpretations have been influential in parts of the Christian Church.
We pass from there to traditional Christian efforts, and then look at some early Church Fathers and the
Protestant Reformers.3 After these three introductory discussions, the remainder of the essay is devoted to a
case by case examination of various approaches to the Mosaic dietary laws.

1
See my book The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), pp.
68- 74, and the references cited there. A useful discussion, marred by a liberal point of view, is Calurn M. Carrnichael, The Laws of
Deuteronomy (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1974), chap. 2. See also James B. Jordan, "Reconsidering the Mosaic Law: Some
Reflections --1988," Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.4 (available from Biblical Horizons).
2
For a full discussion of this, see James B. Jordan, Throuqh New Eves: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN:
Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988).
3
For a more thorough treatment of the Fathers, see James B. Jordan, "The Approach of the Church Fathers to the Dietary Laws of
Moses," Studies in Food and Faith No.4 (available from Biblical Horizons).

43
 Traditional Rabbinical Efforts

During the inter-testamental period, the Jews divided gradually into two large parties. One group sought to
obey the Mosaic law, as law, and as a consequence began to draw all kinds of legal inferences from it. They
expanded the law in such a way as to generate rules, known as halakah, to cover all kinds of situations. In
so doing, they lost sight of the fundamental symbolic-didactic aspect of the Mosaic revelation. The
Pharisees of Jesus' day were the heirs of this tradition, and they had generated a myth to explain their rules.

They said that God had given Moses two revelations at Sinai, a written law and also an "oral law." The oral
law was not to be written down, but was to be handed down by tradition (Matt. 15:1-20: Mark 7:1-23). The
Pharisees maintained that the oral law was more important than the written, because it was the oral law that
interpreted the written law. It was the oral law, they said, that gave all the extra rules. 4

The Sadducees maintained the opposite position and mentality. They held that there was no Divinely
inspired oral law, only the written law. Moreover, they maintained that all a man needed to do was keep the
few specifics of the written law, and then he might do as he pleased. In other words, they refused to draw
inferences or make applications of the law, and they, like the Pharisees, lost sight of the symbolic and
revelatory dimension of the Torah. The Sadducees were compromisers with Greek culture, and eventually
were absorbed into it. All historic Judaism stems from the Pharisees. 5

The effect of Christianity on Pharisaical Judaism was two-fold. First, the Church drew off from Judaism all
those who were open to the true nature of the Torah. When the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, large
numbers of Jews recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and came into the Church. This eliminated from Jewry
whatever remained of the typological approach. All that was left was legalism. The result was the total
triumph of the oral law myth.

Second, partly out of reaction to the Church and partly as a response to the destruction of the Temple, the
Pharisaical rabbis redoubled their efforts to reinterpret Moses in a legalistic manner. 6 Whatever revelatory,
symbolic, typological dimensions had remained in their exegesis were expelled from their system, and
everything was reinterpreted. The rabbis who worked on this project are known as the Tannaim. Just after
A. D. 200 the oral law was written down for the first time, and this compendium is known as the Mishnah.
This became the foundation for the next phase of Jewish interpretation, the production of the Talmuds. The
Talmuds, Babylonian and Palestinian, are commentaries on the Mishnah, on the oral law. The Babylonian
Talmud was completed around A.D. 500. The Palestinian faded into obscurity, and when "the Talmud" is
referred to, it is the Babylonian that is meant. While one Jewish sect, the Karaites, rejects the oral law,
mainstream Judaism is Talmudic.7 That is to say, mainstream Judaism, whether Orthodox, Conservative, or
Reform, sees the Talmud as the authoritative guide to the oral law, and the oral law as determinative for the
written law. Of course, today only Orthodox Jews take any of this very seriously, but all three groups stem
historically from Talmudic Judaism.

In this way, Judaism produced a total worldview designed to block out the essence of the Mosaic
revelation. The most important and fundamental aspect of the Torah, the symbolic dimension that points to
the Triune God and to Jesus Christ, was filtered out by the huge labors of the Talmudists and their heirs.
From a Christian standpoint, then, Talmudic Judaism is the ultimate illustration of Paul's statement that the
4
For more details on this process, standard encyclopedia articles on the history of rabbinic Judaism can be consulted, as well as
literature on the history of the inter-testamental period. A useful introduction is D. S. Russell, Between the Testaments (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1965), pp. 63ff.
5
Ibid., p. 52.
6
"The Midrash [halakah oral law] was the concern of the Rabbis before the destruction of the second Temple, and after that date it
became their main preoccupation. The function, presentation, and amplification of the oral tradition were the main features of their
studies." Ibid., p. 67.
7
There are virtually no Karaites left. The movement began in Persia in the 9th century, and has a long and interesting history as a
Jewish fundamentalist movement. See the article "Karaites" by Samuel Poznanski in James Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion
and Ethics (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914) 7:662-672. As regards the dietary laws, Karaites differ from Rabbinates "on the
detailed regulations of ritual slaughter, and therefore regard the meat of animals slaughtered according to Rabbinate regulations as
prohibited.....Karaites permit the consumption of the meat of those animals only that are enumerated in the Bible, and reject the
criteria for permitted mammals and birds as formulated in the Talmud Many Karaite scholars hold that ever since the destruction of
the Temple, any consumption of meat is prohibited." Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Pub., 1972) 10:780.

44
unbeliever " suppresses the truth " (Rom. 1: 18).

As a reaction against anti-semitism there is a tendency in today's Church to ignore and/or accommodate the
profound differences between Judaism and Christianity. It is not anti-Semitic, however, to point out that the
differences are indeed quite radical and no philosophical accommodation is possible. It is far more honest
to be straightforward about the differences between Christianity and Judaism. There is nothing anti-semitic
in calling upon Jewish people to turn to Jesus Christ as their Messiah. Neither Jesus nor Paul was an anti-
semite.

Contrary to what many Christians think, Judaism is not a "religion of the Old Testament." Like Islam,
Judaism recognizes the Old Testament, but adds another book to it, and this new book is functionally more
authoritative. As Danby wrote, "While Judaism and Christianity alike venerate the Old Testament as
canonical Scripture, the Mishnah marks the passage to Judaism as definitely as the New Testament marks
the passage to Christianity.”8 From a Christian standpoint, Judaism, like Mormonism and Islam, is a
"religion of a counterfeit book.”

Because of this, we cannot expect a great deal of help from the rabbis. We shall, however, return to Jewish
interpretations later in this essay.

Traditional Christian Efforts

The Christian tradition is, more often than not, also unhelpful for a study of Leviticus 11. There are several
reasons for this. First, as far as the early Church was concerned, it was obvious that Jesus Christ had
cleansed the world, and that the laws of uncleanness did not apply any longer in the New Covenant. They
had explicit New Testament statements to that effect.

Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles
the man (Matt. 15:11; cf. Mark 7:19).

You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you (John 15:3; cf. Acts 10-11;
Rom. 14:14).

Their food law was the Lord's Supper, with its attendant negatives regarding blood and the table of demons,
and they needed none other.

…that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and
from fornication (Acts 15:29).

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of
the Lord and the table of demons (1Cor. 10:21).

Add to this the fact that the early Church was very busy with more pressing concerns, such as avoiding
persecution and isolating anti-trinitarian heretics, and it becomes clear why not a great deal of attention was
paid to Leviticus 11.9

Second, fairly early the Christian Church came under the influence of Roman law. The nature and extent of
this influence can be debated, but one effect has been a tendency to view the Mosaic revelation as law in
the sense of political rules. It is true, of course, that since the Mosaic revelation is comprehensive, it
embraces political concerns and "contains" political laws. It entails a great deal of reductionism, however,
to say concerning Israel which "to them also, as a body politick, [God] gave sundry judicial laws, which

8
Herbert Danby, The Mishnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1933), p. xiii.
9
Of course, a few apologists did deal with Leviticus 11 as they sought to answer or convert Jews. See Jordan, "Approaches of the
Church Fathers.”

45
expired with the state of that people."10 Roman law, and its attendant nature/grace premises, led the Church
to separate "moral, ceremonial, and civil" laws, and to lodge the symbolic-typological dimension only in
the "ceremonies. " The impact of these thought forms has been to lead theologians to view the laws of
Leviticus 11 as unimportant, either "mere ceremonies that have expired" or "rules for the Jews that have
expired." The abiding revelatory value of the uncleanness provisions is obscured by the focus on "law."

Third, Christian exegetes of the Old Testament have often come under the influence of Jewish expositors,
particularly as regards the Torah. The influence has not been terribly weighty, but it has been sufficient to
bring about a subtle reductionism in approach, whereby the Torah is viewed largely as "laws.”11 Perhaps
equally important has been the influence of British-Israelism, an heretical cult doctrine that holds that the
Mosaic revelation consists of laws for a particular blood-race -- the “true" Israelite race, they say, is the
Anglo-Saxon peoples. Anglo-Israelite exegetes have influenced Protestant exposition in the British Isles
and the United States, with the result that a legalistic approach to the Torah is not uncommon in many
popular circles. As much as anything else, this is because the British-Israelites have spent much time
studying the Mosaic “law," so naturally their researches are consulted. 12 The resultant influence, however,
is away from an evangelical approach. The British-Israelite approach views the laws of Leviticus 11
naturally: as binding rules for health.13

With this background in mind, we turn to a survey of various approaches to Leviticus 11 and the Mosaic
culinary legislation.

Early Church and Reformers

The oldest view, held by the Church Fathers, is the symbolic one. The symbolic view takes its rise from the
theological position that animals were designed by God to image human life. Such human-animal analogies
underlie both the sacrificial system and the wisdom of the Proverbs, for instance. Clean animals image
proper human behavior, and unclean animals image wrong behavior, at least in some aspects of their
lifestyles. I shall be arguing in these studies that the symbolic approach is fundamentally correct, but that
the Fathers missed the mark somewhat by focusing on the lifestyles of the various animals instead of on the
specific features Leviticus 11 isolates (split hooves, fins, jointed legs, etc.).

The views set out in the remainder of the present essay have been isolated for the purpose of discussion.
Commentators of the Reformation and Puritan eras usually ramble through several explanations, though
they generally favor a particular one without excluding the rest. Calvin, for instance, states that separation
from the Gentiles was the main object in the law, but that an ascetic schooling was also a part of it. He
ridicules the hygienic viewpoint, and castigates the intricate subtleties of some of the traditional symbolic
interpretations:

For no other reason were they prohibited from eating those animals, except that they thence may
learn to take more diligent heed, and to withdraw themselves far from all the pollutions of the
Gentiles.14

10
Westminster Confession of Faith 19:4. With the gist of this chapter I have no quarrel. I do not believe it can be maintained,
however, that God gave judicial laws to Israel ''as a body politic." The situation is more complex than that: The Mosaic revelation was
a consistent package given to Israel as a totality. Moreover, these "laws" did not "expire with the state of that people. "If that were the
case, they would have expired when Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem, for Israel was never thereafter an independent body politic.
The "expiration" of the "law" came about when the Old Covenant was transfigured into the New Covenant.
11
Also, at numerous obscure points, Christian expositors tend to fall back on Maimonides or some other Jewish exegete. A perusal of
comments on the "kid in milk" law reveals that Maimonides' explanation is almost always used. On this law, see "Section 03 - On
Boiling Meat in Milk”.
12
An influential and often useful work is H. B. Rand, Digest of the Divine Law (Merrimac, MA: Destiny Publishers, 1959). The word
"destiny" or "Western destiny" is usually a dead giveaway for British Israelite material, sometimes also of a racist (anti-Negro, anti-
Jew) nature. The Armstrong groups (Worldwide Church of God, Plain Truth magazine, etc.) are anti-Trinitarian British Israelites.
Mormonism is built on British Israelite thinking, with the switch that the American Indians are the true Jews. British Israelite racism is
found, however, in all kinds of Christian circles. For an excellent analysis and critique, see Louis F. DeBoer, The New Phariseeism
(Rt. 1, Box 65-2, Wrightstown, NJ 08562: The American Presbyterian Press, 1978).
13
Rand, pp. 40-48.
14
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans.

46
 But the object of this ordinance was different, viz., lest they who were God’s sacred and peculiar
people, should freely and promiscuously communicate with the Gentiles. 15

...it was useful to compel in this way to obedience these almost rude and uncivilized people. 16

Those who imagine that God here had regard to their health, as if discharging the office of a
Physician, pervert by their vain speculation the whole force and utility of this law. 17

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters. Here, also, some who know little of religion,
plausibly contend that God is acting the physician's part, and distinguishing wholesome from
unwholesome food.18

If any choose to think that rumination is the symbol of internal purity, and the cloven hoof of
external, his opinion will be a probable one. Since this distinction has occurred to my mind,
although I have no taste for subtle speculations, I have thought it well to mention it….. 19

...I would willingly bury in oblivion these triflings, except that many have such a leaning to
subtleties, that sober views would scarcely please them, until the folly of these allegories shall
have been convicted. I will say nothing of the scales and fins. 20

In his Sermons on Deuteronomy we find the following rather unconvincing remarks on Deuteronomy 14:

Now, to seek here for nice points, as what this should mean, that the hooves should be cloven, or
that they should chew the cud; were no matter to be greatly stood upon. And as for them that have
pried into the matter to fetch the New and the Old Testament out of the beasts' cleaving of their
hooves, and have told us that we must needs put a difference betwixt them; and moreover, that we
must chew our cud, that is to say feed upon the doctrine again and again, that we may the better
digest it, because it is the food of our souls: it is too, too curious. For if it be so, what do the scales
of the fishes betoken? There will be occasion of seeking everywhere, and we shall fall into many
fond speculations. And therefore let us be advised to use modesty in this case.

Some hold opinion that God had no further respect but to the health of men's bodies, when He
forbade the eating of such beasts as He terms unclean, and they think that God played the part of a
physician. But that is too cold and too barren stuff, and the scripture shows us the contrary. Indeed
a man may well think that our Lord had regard what was good and convenient for men's bodies,
but to think that He had a further consideration, to spy out what meats were best for man's health,
that is too childish a matter.21

In the remainder of this sermon, Calvin argues that God established the distinctions between clean and
unclean arbitrarily in order to cause the Israelites to recognize that all food came from His hand and was
eaten only with His permission. By itself this is, of course, a useful point, but it hardly goes far enough. We
should not be too hard on Calvin, however, since he had a lot of pressing business that doubtless left him
little time to acquaint himself with the symbolic structures of the Bible. Unfortunately, however, his
ungrounded antipathy to "allegory" has influenced Reformed exegetes ever since2 with the result that little
good work has been done in this area.22

Charles w. Bingham, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1852-55] 1979), 2:58; on Leviticus 11.
15
Ibid., p. 61.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., p. 60.
18
Ibid., p. 65
19
Ibid., p. 64.
20
Ibid., p. 65. Calvin rejects the excessive and unfounded (not "sober") allegorizing of the Middle Ages, but he himself cannot evade
symbolism when it comes to rumination and the divided hoof. He cops out and chooses not to comment on the rest of the passage.
21
Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 90, October 24, 1555; trans. by Arthur Golding, 1583; spelling and punctuation modernized.
Recently reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1987 (facsimile of 1583 edition).
22
A good discussion of the difference between typology and allegory is found in Jean Danielou, From Shadows to Reality: Studies in

47
The Puritan Matthew Henry, in his comments on Leviticus 11, gives three general reasons for these laws.
First, they were to be observed ultimately because God said so, and Israel was to obey Him without
question. This would train them in obedience. Second, for health reasons. Third, to set up social and
religious barriers between the Jews and their neighbors. Like virtually all commentators, he "lapses into
allegorizing" when he says that chewing the cud is an emblem of meditation, and that the forbidden birds
are violent and barbarous.

The eighteenth-century Baptist commentator John Gill says that the dietary laws were mainly hygienic in
intent, but he hedges his bet:

...not that we are to suppose, that the case of health was the only reason of delivering out these
laws to the children of Israel, for other ends, besides that, may be thought to be had in view;

[1] as to assert His sovereign right to the creatures, and His disposal of them to them according to
His will and pleasure;

[2] to lay a restraint on their appetites, to prevent luxury, to teach them self-denial, and compliance
with His will;

[3] as also to keep them the more from the company and conversation of the Gentiles, by whom
they otherwise might be led into idolatry;

[4] and to give them an aversion to their idols, to whom the creatures forbidden them to eat, many
of them were either now or would be sacred to them;

[5] and chiefly to excite to a care for purity, both inward and outward, and create in the man
abhorrence of those vices which may be signified by the ill qualities of several of the creatures;

[6] and to instruct them in the difference between holy and unholy persons, with whom they
should or should not have communion. 23

Having surveyed the views of classical commentaries on the Mosaic dietary laws, and having noted how
these expositors generally conflate several interpretive approaches, let us now take up the various
approaches one by one for analysis. The tendency of more modern expositors and commentators is to argue
that the Mosaic dietary laws were designed for some one particular purpose, to the exclusion of others.
Some expositors, however, maintain the tradition of suggesting several possible avenues of interpretation.
For our purposes, it will be easiest to examine each avenue separately.

The Religious Separation View

The religious separation view holds that the unclean animals were those used in pagan rituals, and so Israel
was to avoid them in order to avoid being contaminated by paganism. God wanted Israel separated from the
nations, and gave these dietary laws to enforce that separation. The unclean animals were used by the
pagans in their religious practices, and so Israel was to abhor them. 24

It has been suggested, for instance, that the law forbidding boiling a kid in its own mother's milk (Dt.
14:21) is aimed at a Canaanite religious ritual. By forbidding the Jews to do this, God acted to separate

the Biblical Typology of the Fathers, trans. Wulstan Hibberd (Westrninster MD: Newrnan Press, 1960). My own views are set out in
Jordan, Through New Eyes.
23
John Gill, Gill's Commentary, vol. 1: Genesis - Joshua (Grand Rapids: Baker, [c. 1760; 1852 ed.] 1980), on Leviticus 11.
Enumeration of points added.
24
This is the motive set forth as most likely by Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on
the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), comments on Dt. 14; and A. Noordtzij, Leviticus. Bible Student's Commentary,
trans. Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan [?] 1982), comments on Lev. 11.

48
them from heathen religious rites. The medieval Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides may have been the
first to suggest this interpretation. He surely has been the most influential:

As for the prohibition against eating meat [boiled] in milk, it is in my opinion not improbable that
-- in addition to this being undoubtedly very gross food and very filling -- idolatry had something
to do with it. Perhaps such food was eaten at one of the ceremonies of their cult or at one of their
festivals. A confirmation of this may, in my opinion, be found in the fact that the prohibition
against eating meat [boiled] in milk, when it is mentioned for the first two times, occurs near the
commandment concerning pilgrimage: Three times in the Year, and so on.25 It is as if it said:
When you go on pilgrimage and enter the house of the Lord your God, do not cook there in the
way they used to. According to me this is the most probable [lit., the strongest] view regarding the
reason for this prohibition; but I have not seen this set down in any of the books of the Sabians
that I have read.26

This position is impossible to maintain, however. The pagans sacrificed the same animals as Israel. Kim-
Kwong Chan states that "Egypt had Apis (god of the calf) and Isis-Hathor (god of the cow). Calves, cows,
and sheep -- clean animals in the eyes of the Israelites -- were often used as sacrificial animals by the
Canaanites. A Ugaritic poem titled Lament on Baal ended by saying 'Anat offers a great sacrifice of
seventy wild oxen, seventy sheep, seven deer, seventy mountain goats.....’". 27 If Israel were to abhor the
beasts used by the heathen, she would have to reject all animals.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the Canaanites boiled kids in their own mother's milk as some type of
ritual. This has been hypothesized for centuries --at least since Maimonides --without a shred of evidence.
A recently discovered Ugaritic text can possibly be translated as prescribing a rite to "cook a kid in the
milk, a lamb in the cream, " but this is not the same thing.28 Indeed, the Biblical law does not concern
cooking a kid in milk, but in the milk of its own mother. 29 The commentators would do better to consider
the human parallels in Lamentations 4:10 and 2 Kings 6:28-29, in reflecting on what this law prohibits.30

This understanding of the dietary laws has the additional flaw of completely ignoring the specifics of the
text. What do divided
hooves or fins and scales have to do with pagan religious practices?

Finally, there is a theological problem. Leviticus 20:24-25 says, "I am the IDRD your God, who has
separated you from the peoples. You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the
unclean....." They were not separated from the nations because they kept these laws; rather, they were to
keep these laws because they had been separated. Distinguishing clean and unclean did not make them
separate. They were already separate.

The issue here is moralism versus faith. Are we Christians because we are moral, or are we moral because
we are Christians? Obviously it has to be the latter. There are lots of fine moral people who "distinguish
clean and unclean, " but who are not Christians. It is not our morality that separates us from unbelievers,
but our faith. It is God's act of separating us, in baptism, and our continuing in separation through faith, that
makes the difference. The "symbolic" (God-ward) dimension of personal faith must be kept primary, with
obedience flowing from worship. It is because we are separate that our outward acts vary from those of the
25
Exodus 23:17, 19; 34:23, 26
26
Moses Mairnonides, The Guide of the Perplexed 3:48:111b, trans. by Schlorno Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.
599. The "books of the Sabians" referred to are purported writings of the ancient Babylonians; cf. Pines's "Translator's Introduction" to
the Guide, pp. cxxiii-cxxiv.
27
Kim-Kwong Chan, "You Shall Not Eat These Abominable Things: An Examination of Different Interpretations On Deuteronomy
14:3-20," East Asian Journal of Theology 3 (1985) :97. K-H. Bernhardt, "Ugaritic Texts, " in Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to
the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1978), p. 126.
28
The translation is from Thompson, p. 179. The serious reservations regarding this translation are discussed by Craigie, p. 233. See
also Menahem Haran, "Seething a Kid in its Mother's Milk," Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979):23-35.
29
Nor is there any reason not to serve milk and meat at the same meal; see Genesis 18:8. Of course, this is pre-Mosaic, though Jewish
expositors generally (and wrongly, I believe) hold that Abraham kept the Mosaic food laws. Thus, Jewish commentaries hold that
Abraham served the three visitors milk, and waited an hour before serving them meat.
30
See Jordan, "On Boiling Meat in Milk." Cf. also James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1984), pp. 190ff., 272ff.

49
world, not vice versa.

It is possible that keeping these laws reinforced the separation of Israel from the nations, though that is
rather doubtful in view of what we have seen. To whatever extent it may have been the case, however, it
was not the purpose of these laws, nor could it be. Salvation and separation are by God's gracious
deliverance, not by law keeping.

The Social Separation view

This view is similar to the religious separation view, but concentrates not on rites but on social life.31
George Bush wrote, concerning Leviticus 11, "In considering the design of the enactments contained in this
chapter...we may safely admit that it was mainly to keep the Hebrews more perfectly: separate from all
other nations....'Intimate friendships,’ says Michaelis,' are in most cases formed at table; and with the man
with whom I can neither eat nor drink, let our intercourse in business be what it may, I shall seldom
become so familiar as with him whose guest I am, and he mine. If we have, besides, from education, an
abhorrence of the food which others eat, this forms a new obstacle to closer intimacy.'” 32

The problem with this explanation is that the staple diet of ancient people was pretty much the same
everywhere: bread and vegetables. Regular meat was fish or fowl. Only rarely were cattle eaten: It was
costly to give up a member of the herd or flock, and it all had to be eaten at once. Thus, beef and mutton
were not staples of the diet.33 This being the case, the dietary laws of Leviticus barely affected daily diet,
and thus could hardly by themselves influence social intercourse. Moreover, cattle and sheep were animals
everyone ate, and most ancient peoples avoided pork.34 The dietary provisions, thus, were not very far out
of line with the customs of the neighboring peoples.

There is no indication in Scripture that the Jews were forbidden to eat common meals (as opposed to
sacrificial meals and covenant-making meals) with strangers. Had God intended this, He would simply
have commanded it. Indeed, the Bible everywhere enjoins hospitality toward strangers. 35 It was a
development of Oral Law Judaism that Jews might not eat with Gentiles (Acts 10:28).36

It is possible to distinguish between a Jew's inviting a Gentile to dinner, which would entail hospitality, and
a Jew's going to a Gentile's home for dinner, which might involve compromise. Perhaps the laws of
uncleanness implied that Jews should not go into Gentile homes to eat, but as we shall see in later studies in
this series, that was probably not the case either. At any rate, this distinction is not made by those
advocating the social separation view. In fact, quite the reverse is implied by their position. Since unclean
animals represent heathen Gentiles, eating unclean animals represents fellowship with heathen Gentiles.
Thus, if the social separation view were correct, Jews would be forbidden to show hospitality to heathen
Gentiles. In fact, however, Israel was to be a land open to Gentile refugees (Dt. 23: 15-16), and kindness to
aliens is everywhere enjoined in the Mosaic law (Ex. 22:21; 23:9; etc.).

Of course, those who maintain this position cannot and do not claim that Israel was to be different socially
at every point.

31
A modern advocate of this as the primary motive in the law is J. Ridderbos, Deuteronomy. Bible Student's Commentary, trans. Ed
M. van der Maas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1950] 1976), comments on Dt. 14.
32
George Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Leviticus (Minneapolis: James and Klock, [1852] 1976), p. 92. This is,
according to Bush, the main design of the laws. Subordinate purposes included "a code of wholesome dietetics" for that people in their
circumstances, and also symbolic aspects.
33
The ordinary food of the average Hebrew of Bible times was "bread, olives, oil, butter, milk, and cheese from their flocks; fruits and
vegetables from their orchards and gardens; and meat on rare occasions." William M. Thomson, The Land and the Book, 3 vols. (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1880) 1:98. For more details, see Fred H. Wight, Manners and CUstoms of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1953), chap. 4.
34
Both the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians avoided pork. These were the two peoples who primarily interacted with Israel during
her history, so pork avoidance could not have been relevant as a social barrier. See Marvin Harris, The Sacred Cow and the
Abominable Pig [orig. titled Good to Eat] (New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone, 1985), pp. 82-84.
35
On strangers at meals, see Wight, chap. 7.
36
A later study in this series, on the New Covenant and the Mosaic dietary laws, will deal with this in more depth.

50
Rather, they have to claim that the point of difference comes in with only a few animals. This qualification
largely mitigates the point, of course, but it also renders the particular details of the law purely arbitrary.
God could just as well have forbidden the eating of the cow, in this view, provided only that there were a
few places of culinary conflict somewhere in the system to prevent Jews from mixing too freely with
Gentiles. As Stern has pointed out, "it is as absurd to argue that these laws were designed to maintain
Jewish identity as it would be to argue, for example, that the Bible prohibited child sacrifice for the purpose
of differentiating the Jews from the people around them who did practice it." 37 Child sacrifice is wrong,
whether refusing to do it separates you from your neighbors or not. Just so, eating unclean foods was wrong
for Israel between Sinai and Calvary, regardless of its social impact.

Beyond this, the same objections noted above regarding the religious separation view apply here. The
position completely overlooks the details of the text, and is in essence moralistic rather than religious.
Israel was separate because of what God had done, not because of what she had done. 38

A more consistent approach to these laws is, as we shall see, a covenant separation approach. This can be
seen as a refinement in a certain direction of the social separation view. Not eating unclean animals
signified not marrying or formally covenanting with unbelieving Gentiles. There is, however, an important
difference between general social interaction and special formal covenanting, just as there is a difference
between an ordinary social meal and a formal covenanting meal (note Genesis 31:54).

Moreover, while as we shall see the Law forbids entering into marital and martial alliances with
unbelieving Gentiles, it does not forbid making business deals with Gentile caravaners. Thus, a covenant-
(or contract-) sealing meal with a Gentile caravaner would not be excluded.

The mere fact that the Israelites were not to eat certain meats could not and did not have any ramifications
are regards their social intercourse with Gentiles. The symbolism of the dietary laws, however, forbad
formal, long-term, "deep" covenant relations with unbelieving Gentiles, which are specified as marital and
international alliances, and thus there were certain kinds of covenant-sealing meals that the Jews would not
have eaten with Gentiles. At the same time, however, ordinary meals could be shared, and there is no
reason to believe short-term "shallow" covenants or contracts, such as business deals, could not have been
sealed by a common meal.

The Ascetic view

The ascetic view assumes that these laws were given to restrict the lusts of the people, to teach them self-
discipline. I know of no commentator who takes this as the primary motive for the law, but it is often
brought in as a secondary one. 39

While self-discipline is surely part of the righteous man's life, it is not the purpose of the ceremonial law to
teach it. Indeed, at the Feast of Tabernacles they were enjoined to "spend your money for whatever your
heart desires, for oxen, for sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires" (Dt. 14: 26).
This command comes right after the lists of edible and inedible animals in Deuteronomy 14, and certainly
contra-indicates any supposed asceticism in these laws.

Perhaps it was good for Israel to keep these laws just for the sheer discipline of it. Doing things for the
sheer discipline of it is sometimes a good idea, but has little relevance here. In fact, these dietary laws were
not hard to keep. They were not extreme, and no more ascetic than the restrictions we place on ourselves
today. We are used to eating pork, so we think that the Jews wanted to eat it and had to restrain themselves.
Actually, the Jews had no more interest in eating pork than we do in eating dogs, cats, mice, and horses.

37
Herold S. Stern, "The Ethics of the Clean and the Unclean," Judaism 6 (1957) :320.
38
"It is to be observed that in the law itself the separation of Israel from other nations is represented, not as the end to be attained by
the observance of these food laws, but instead, as a fact already existing, which is given as a reason why they should keep these laws
(Lev. 20:24, 25)." S. H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, [1899] 1978), p. 286.
39
An ascetic approach seems to characterize the Talmud's viewpoint; cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica 6:42.

51
Indo-Chinese people eat dog, and the French eat horse, but Americans don't. If we had grown up all our
lives thinking of pigs not as food but as garbage collectors, we should feel the same way about pig meat as
we do about dog or cat. So, the Jews had no trouble keeping these laws, and there was nothing ascetic or
disciplinary about them.

The Aesthetic view

Some expositors have felt that human beings are naturally repulsed by certain animals. Keil and Delitzsch
argue that unclean animals are associated with death and violence, and provoke a feeling of revulsion in the
minds of men. These animals, in their behavior, display sin and its effects, and men naturally are horrified
at them.40

Harris notes that "For many observant Jews, the Old Testament's characterization of swine as' unclean'
renders the explanation of the taboo self-evident: 'Anyone who has seen the filthy habits of the swine will
not ask why it is prohibited,' says a modern rabbinical authority." 41 He goes on to write that "Maimonides
shared with his Islamic hosts a lively disgust for pigs and pig eaters, especially Christian pigs and pig
eaters: 'The principal reason why the law forbids swine-flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its
habits and food are very filthy and loathsome.' If the law allowed Egyptians and Jews to raise pigs, Cairo's
streets and houses would become as filthy as those of Europe, for 'the mouth of a swine is as dirty as dung
itself. ‘"42

Such an approach has an initial ring of sense to it. Consider the disgust most of us have at roaches and
snakes. But how about cats and dogs? Our domestic dogs eat manure and vomit, yet we still let them into
our homes and onto our laps, though we don't eat them. On the other hand, city-bred persons like myself
respond rather negatively to the smell of the barnyard -- it is mildly repulsive to me. Yet I eat these
animals. Thus, in many cases, we feel affection toward animals we don't eat, and are repulsed by animals
that we do eat.

Moreover, who is to say that our feelings are the right ones? Kim-Kwong Chan remarks, "The natural
aesthetic instinct --to be precise, the modern western concept of aesthetic --cannot be generalized to all
cultures for all ages. What is loathsome for the modern European can be a thing of beauty in other
cultures.”43

Going back to Bible times, did the Israelite farmer feel horror at his ass, or the Israelite warrior horror at his
horse, or the Israelite trader horror at his camel? Clearly not. Also, as Harris writes, "In condemning the pig
as the dirtiest of animals, Jews and Moslems left unexplained their more tolerant attitude toward other
dung-eating domesticated species. Chickens and goats, for example, given motivation and opportunity, also
readily dine on dung."44 In this regard, they are no different from the pig. "The pig’s penchant for
excrement is not a defect of its nature but of the husbandry of its human masters. Pigs prefer and thrive best
on roots, nuts, and grains; they eat excrement only when nothing better presents itself.…Nor is wallowing
in filth a natural characteristic of swine. Pigs wallow to keep themselves cool; and they much prefer a fresh,
clean mud hole to one that has been soiled by urine and feces."45

In sum, there is absolutely no reason to think that ancient Israelites felt any horror or revulsion toward the
animals designated unclean. The Bible never says that the living animals are to be counted as abominable
or detestable, only that their meat and their dead carcasses are to be so regarded. Moreover, even from a
modern point of view, the "revolting habits" of the swine are no different from those of goats and chickens.
The aesthetic view, then, simply does not account for the distinction between clean and unclean as we find

40
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 2: Exodus and Leviticus, trans. James Martin (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. [reprint from 19th century]), comments on Lev. 11.
41
Harris, p. 68; citing Rabbi Jacob Cohn, The Royal Table: An Outline of the Dietary Laws of Israel (New York: Block, 1936), p. 19.
42
Ibid.; citing Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. by M. Friedlander (London: Pardes, 1876), pp. 370-371.
43
Chan, p. 98.
44
Ibid
45
Ibid

52
it in the Bible.

Herald S. Stern

A very sophisticated and philosophical reworking of the aesthetic view has been attempted by Herold s.
Stern. He argues that our approach to the dietary laws has been blinded by the presuppositions of Greek
philosophy. The Biblical ethical outlook is essentially materialistic, he says. The created world is
important, and is man's place of action. In contrast to the Greek view that the body merely functions for the
sake of the soul, the Biblical conception makes no sharp distinction between the soul and the body. "The
person is simply a body that lives. He is a feeling body.” 46 "Since Greek theory denies the importance of
matter and the physical world, or, at the most, gives it only a subordinate place, it fails to see the essential
immorality of ethical acts. Ethical acts no longer become important in themsel ves but only in so far as they
indicate the state of the doer's soul. Acts are bad because they go against reason or spiritual values," say the
Greeks.47

Man is a material being made in God's image, and thus he has dignity. Man must, as part of his ethical life,
strive to maintain the dignity of God's image. "It is necessary that man live according to the laws of the
clean and the unclean because they are the laws of his dignified nature. And happiness can only be obtained
by living according to one's nature."48 Stern's thesis, then, holds that

Unless the strongly materialistic orientation of Biblical ethics is grasped its significance is lost.
When the Bible talks of the dignity of man it is not talking of the dignity of reason. It is talking of
the dignity of a physical body. This dignity is as much a constituent and permanent part of his
body as warmth is. And, just as extreme cold is avoided since it is inconsistent with and destroys
the warmth of the body, it becomes important to maintain the dignity of the body by preventing its
association with physical objects or physical acts that will degrade it. For example, the cutting and
marking of human flesh is condemned since it degrades the body.

This is the basis of the Biblical sexual code. One does not lie with animals because it is degrading
to man’s physical body to be in such intimate contact with them. There are certain foods that are
proper to be eaten and are, therefore, clean and other foods that should not be taken in and made a
part of one’s own physical being. Since the person was the body, he was degraded if he ate a
disgusting food.49

It is only because material things are not neutral and have intrinsic value that we have dietary
laws. The problem of Semitic ethical theory is, therefore, to determine what things in the material
world comport with and befit the value of the living human body, i.e., with its dignity. It is
analogous to the problem a king would have in deciding what clothes to wear. For example, he
could not wear dirty rags. 50

Stern's position, then, is fundamentally aesthetic, though his is a materialistic rather than a rationalistic
aesthetic. The dignity of the human person as a whole must be safeguarded, and for that reason we are not
to incorporate disgusting foods into ourselves. Disgusting foods are those that are inappropriate to the
dignity of the total human person. Our sensibilities have to be trained to recognize the distinction between
repulsive and clean food.51

An immediate criticism of the aesthetic viewpoint, whether stern's or some other, is that some unclean
animals are regarded as highly honorable in Scripture. The eagle and lion, for instance, are found as faces
of the cherubim, and the lion is a frequent symbol for the king of Israel and for the coming Messiah. These
unclean animals are not disgusting but glorious. We are not repulsed by them; rather, we want to be

46
Stern, p. 323.
47
Ibid., p. 322f.
48
Ibid., p. 323.
49
Ibid., p. 324.
50
Ibid., p. 325.
51
Ibid., p. 326.

53
associated with them, particularly with the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Unquestionably that was also true of
the Israelite of old.

The flaw in Stern's viewpoint, and that of his mentor Johannes Pedersen, 52 is in his adoption of the notion
of intrinsic value. The notion that things in the world have value in themselves is ultimately incompatible
with the Biblical doctrine of creation. For the Biblical mind, all value is imputed by God, and we are to
"think God's thoughts after Him" in learning to recognize what is of value and what is not. Ultimately,
moral categories can be seen as aesthetic because all created things and all human actions image God either
well or poorly. If man copies God properly, his life is beautiful and pure and righteous. If man copies God
improperly, or rebels against Him, his life is ugly, unclean, and sinful. The value of things and actions,
then, is always in terms of how well they image or symbolize God. The issue is not spirit versus matter, or
mind versus body, but imaging God in the whole person.

Adultery is wrong for many reasons, but ultimately all such reasons can be connected to the fact that
adultery is wrong because it wrongly images God's faithfulness to His people. This is what it means to "be
holy as I am holy. " The same was true of eating the flesh of unclean animals: God did not eat them (or
what they symbolized), so neither should Israel. All these ethical considerations are based on man's calling
to image God according to our circumstances. God did not allow unclean Gentiles into the Tabernacle
courtyard under the Old Covenant, so Israelites were not to eat the animals that represented unclean
Gentiles. In the New Testament, God has declared all nations clean, and so all animals are edible by
believers. Of course, the law prohibiting adultery has not undergone any change. Adultery has always been
and will always be morally wrong, while willfully eating pork was only morally wrong for Israelites
between Sinai and Calvary.

Obedience to the dietary laws, then, was certainly an extremely important moral matter for Israel, because
it was quasi-sacramental.53 Its importance was indeed related to man's dignity as God's image, and Israel's
dignity as God's nation of priests. The system was not, however, grounded in the intrinsic nature of things,
or in human aesthetic response thereto, but in God's redemptive historical purposes. The Church today is
called to take in the lame and the weak, the revolting and disgusting sinner. She can do this because she has
so much more power and glory than did Israel under the weak Old Covenant. Parallel to this, it is a sign of
the Christian's strength that he can eat flesh that formerly was disgusting, and transform such matter into
the image of God. It is our evangelistic joy to consume the formerly unclean animals.

In answering Stern's thesis, we have moved into setting forth our own. Let us, for now, return to other
alternative explanations of the Mosaic dietary laws.

The Hygienic view

The hygienic interpretation was never advocated in the early Church, because the ancient world's
perspective on these laws was symbolic. The symbolic worldview of the ancients was lost in the middle
ages. Thus, Moses Maimonides, while affirming the traditional ascetic view of the Talmud, introduced
hygiene as one of the main purposes of these laws. His brief remarks are found in the Guide:

Among all those forbidden to us, only pork and fat may be imagined not to be harmful. But this is
not so, for pork is more humid than is proper and contains much superfluous matter. The major
reason why the Law abhors it is its being very dirty and feeding on dirty things. The fat of the
intestines, too, makes us full, spoils the digestion, and produces cold and thick blood. 54

It is noteworthy that Maimonides refused to accept the reasons given in Leviticus 11 as the real reasons for
the distinction between clean and unclean. For instance, the Bible nowhere says the pig is to be avoided
because it has filthy habits; rather, it is unclean because "though it divides the hoof, thus making a split

52
Stern builds on Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1926).
53
That is, God would give life or death to them according to whether they obeyed or disobeyed.
54
Maimonides, Guide, 3:48:111a; trans. by Pines, p. 598

54
hoof, it does not chew cud" (Lev. 11:7). Thus Maimonides, like many exegetes before and after him, chose
to set aside the text in favor of extra- Biblical speculation. "With reference to the signs marking a permitted
animal --that is, chewing the cud and divided hoofs in the case of beasts, and fins and scales in the case of
fish --know that their existence is not in itself a reason for animals being permitted nor their absence a
reason for animals being prohibited; they are merely signs by means of which the praised species may be
discerned from the blamed species."55 In other words, the outward signs of divided hoof or scales and fins
have nothing to do with the real reason these animals are categorized as clean or unclean. The real reason
lies elsewhere, in the supposed hygienic value of their meat. Hooves and fins are only convenient outward
signs we can use to recognized good or bad food. Maimonides' opinions have been influential among the
Jews, and on this point "many other scholars...followed in the footsteps of Maimonides."56

Particularly with the coming of the modern era and "science, " commentators began to try to find
explanations that fit the new worldview. It is possible that only someone influenced by a medieval
Aristotelian or modern "scientific" worldview would even dream up hygiene as an explanation, because the
ancient world (and the Bible) always tied health primarily to religion. Nevertheless, the hygienic view has
more than a few advocates, and we must take it up in our survey. 57

There are numerous popular books written from the hygienic standpoint by persons who are clearly not
even aware of the issues involved, and who simply assume that the Mosaic dietary laws were given for
hygiene.58 They are, after all, dietary laws, so what else can they mean? The possibility that such dietary
laws were symbolic and sacramental does not even occur to these writers, because as American
evangelicals, they have little awareness of either symbolism or sacrament.

A good illustration of evangelical blindness to sacramental considerations can be seen by taking almost any
evangelical commentary on Revelation 3:2a, " Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My
voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and dine with him, and he with Me." Surely this alludes to
the Lord's Supper, especially since it is written to a local church. Yet, not only do most evangelical
commentators "spiritualize" this text into a reference to our daily walk with Christ, they also do not even
raise the possibility that the reference might be to the sacrament. They are simply blind to it. Sacrament is
not a category familiar to modern evangelicals, and so they don't recognize it when they see it. 59 It is no
surprise, then, that popular evangelical works that touch on the Mosaic dietary laws simply assume they
were given for good health. The sacramental alternative simply does not occur to them.

In refutation of the hygienic view, the following points apply:

1. The Bible nowhere says that the Levitical dietary laws were given for hygiene, while it does positively
say that they were given for symbolic purposes.

2. If these laws are important for health, why did God permit Noah, and almost certainly Abraham as well,
to eat the meat of unclean animals (Gen. 9:3)? We have to note also that these men lived much longer lives
than did the Israelites. It does not seem to have harmed them not to have been obligated to these laws.

3. If God was concerned about a healthy diet, why did He not also provide a list of forbidden plants?

4. If these laws are important for health, why are we released from them in the New Covenant? Some
advocates of the hygienic view generally say that geographical, climactic, and racial circumstances are
different for us. These laws were hygienic for Israel in her historical circumstances, but they may not apply

55
Ibid., 3:48:111b; p. 598.
56
Encyclodaedia Judaica 6:43, 44.
57
Preeminent advocates are Kellogg and Harrison. Kellogg, Leviticus, on Lev. 11; R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and
Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), on Lev. 11.
58
Such publications come and go, and there is no point in trying to list them. One currently available book is Elmer A. Josephson,
God's Key to Health and Happiness (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1962). Josephson maintains that the three categories of the
Mosaic Law are moral, dietary, and ceremonial, and that Christians are obligated to follow the dietary laws. He does not interact with
any alternative views.
59
A salutary exception is David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth: Dominion
Press, 1987), p. 137f.

55
to us in ours. In my opinion, this is an hypothesis that dies the death of too many qualifications. The Bible
clearly states that these laws had another purpose, so why strain at a gnat to propound a hygienic view?

5. People seldom were able to eat the meat of large animals, because of the expense involved, so a concern
for hygiene in terms of meats is probably greatly exaggerated. It would have been much more practical and
relevant to have given a list of forbidden plant foods.

6. Finally, and most importantly, the New Testament explicitly states that these dietary laws were not given
for personal hygiene. Indeed, the New Testament warns us to beware of people who advocate the hygienic
misuse of these dietary laws: "Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the
heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not
benefited" (Heb. 13:9). In themselves, these laws can provide no benefit --none at all, including hygienic
benefit. Benefit only came to those who understood the true symbolic meaning of these laws, which it is the
purpose of these studies to discuss. Moreover, the New Testament explicitly states that these laws were
only for the Mosaic period: "They relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the
flesh imposed until a time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10).

The hygienic view certainly did not convince all the rabbis. The remarks of the fifteenth-century rabbi Isaac
Abrabanel against the hygienic view are as telling today as when he first wrote them: "God forbid that I
should believe that the reason for forbidden foods is medicinal! For were it so, the Book of God's Law
would be in the same class as any of the minor brief medical books….Furthermore, our own eyes see that
people who eat pork and insects and such.. .are well and alive and healthy at this very day.... Moreover,
there are more dangerous animals....which are not mentioned at all in the list of prohibited ones. And there
are many poisonous herbs known to physicians which the Torah does not mention at all." 60

Kim-Kwong Chan’s remarks on this matter are especially telling, since he is a theologian who was
formerly a dietitian. He calls attention to D. I. Macht’s study of these animals in terms of the toxicity of
their flesh.61 "[Macht] found out that the extract from unclean species has a lower phytotoxic index --
indication of a higher degree of toxicity." 62 What does this mean, though? That there is some toxicity in
beef and mutton, but a little more in pork? If we want to avoid all "toxicity," we had better eat no meat at
all. All such a study demonstrates is that it may be wiser to eat pork less frequently than beef. He continues:

Actually, the unclean animals are no more of a danger than the clean ones. Pork decays as rapidly
as any other type of meat. A pig's eating habits are no dirtier than those of a chicken --a clean
animal --in the middle East. Before the discovery of trichinosis in the late nineteenth century, the
Jewish ban on pork was attributed to the fear of tape worm, not Trichinella spiralis. It seems that
Trichinosis is exaggerated, amplified, and generalized to all unclean animals. We often forget that
sheep could transmit tape worm, that cows have liver worms, and that most of the clean fish in
fresh water have tape worms; all of these parasitic worms are no less harmful than Trichinosis.
Macht's result cannot be conclusive. He did not test insects. There is no proof of the phytotoxic
index that it could have hygienic effects. This index was arbitrarily set for comparative study only.
The scientific evidence for the Hygienic School is rather weak. If the intention of [these laws] was
for health purposes, why were poisonous plants not included? Why did the New Testament abolish
the Law? With the advancement of our so-called scientific knowledge, one may even propose the
molecular structure of the hair, or the psychological behaviour of the baby animal, or the digestive
enzymatic reaction....etc. as the explanation for the distinction between clean and unclean animals
in [the law]; but is this what [the law] wants to tell us? The scholars, overwhelmed by the modern
scientific knowledge, ignore the most important role of interpreting the Bible: understanding the
text through the context.63

60
From Abrabanel on Leviticus, as quoted in Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York: The Jewish Theological
Seminary in America, 1979), p. 302.
61
D. I. Macht, "An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Lev. 11 and Deut. 14," Bulletin of the History of Medicine 27
(1954) :444-50.
62
Chan, p. 98.
63
Ibid., p. 99.

56
Since pork has become a bug-a-boo among advocates of the hygienic approach,64 a few comments from a
professional food expert are in order. James G. Trager, Jr., writes that "trichinosis is usually a mild disease
that may produce no symptoms at all or just a fever. But in some cases an edema, or swelling, of the upper
eyelids, usually about the eleventh day after eating contaminated pork.…will be followed by more
distressing symptoms.....About five percent of victims die.” 65 He goes on to point out that government
regulations have led to a decline of incidence and prevalence of trichinoses. There were only 109 cases in
1970. "Of the eighty-eight cases whose sources were specified by reporting doctors... none of the meats had
been adequately cooked."66 It is pretty hard to get trichinosis these days, because "nearly 99 percent of U.
S. hogs are now [1972] grain-fed and less than 0.1 percent have trichinosis, but that still leaves an outside
chance of infection."67 Cooking pork to 137 degrees Fahrenheit kills any trichina larvae, but to be safe the
U. S. government recommends that all pork be cooked to at least 150 degrees.

Harris’s comments are even stronger, and are worth citing in full:

...There is absolutely nothing exceptional about pork as a source of human disease. All domestic
animals are potentially hazardous to human health. Undercooked beef, for example, is a prolific
source of tapeworms, which can grow to a length of sixteen to twenty feet inside the human gut,
induce a severe case of anemia, and lower the body’s resistance to other diseases. Cattle, goat, and
sheep transmit the bacterial disease known as brucellosis, whose symptoms include fever, aches,
pains, and lassitude. The most dangerous disease transmitted by cattle, sheep, and goats is anthrax,
a fairly common disease of both animals and humans in Europe and Asia until the introduction of
Louis Pasteur's anthrax vaccine in 1881. Unlike trichinosis, which does not produce symptoms in
the majority of infected individuals and rarely has a fatal outcome, anthrax runs a swift course that
begins with an outbreak of boils and ends in death.

If the taboo on pork was a divinely inspired health ordinance, it is the oldest recorded case of
medical malpractice. The way to safeguard against trichinosis was not to taboo pork but to taboo
undercooked pork. A simple advisory against undercooking pork would have sufficed: "Flesh of
swine thou shalt not eat until the pink has been cooked from it." And come to think of it, the same
advisory should have been issued for cattle, sheep, and goats. But the charge of medical
malpractice against Jahweh will not stick.68

Harris also ridicules the notion that the list of forbidden birds has anything to do with food value. "Unless
they were close to starvation and nothing else was available, the Israelites were well advised not to waste
their time trying to catch eagles, ospreys, sea gulls, and the like, supposing they were inclined to dine on
creatures that consist of little more than skin, feathers, and well-nigh indestructible gizzards in the first
place."69 In other words, nobody eats such birds because they provide next to nothing to eat. If the reason
God went to the trouble of telling the Israelites not to eat them was hygienic, He was wasting His breath. In
reality, though, avoiding the flesh of these birds symbolized something else --avoiding covenant alliances
with idolaters --and had nothing to do with hygiene.

A completely different, but even more devastating line of argument against the hygienic interpretation is
provided by Stern. He points out that the language of defilement and detestation is used for sexual sins as
well as culinary ones. "The Bible also speaks of acts which we would classify as inherently immoral, such
as incest, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality, as being defiling and abominations (cf. Lev. 18:20-30).
Clearly, then, the Biblical dietary laws stand on the same moral grounds as incest, adultery, etc." 70 These
sexual laws are clearly not hygienic in intent; rather, they have to do with fundamental morality. 71 The
64
Page after page of porcine horror stories are found in Josephson, God's Key.
65
James G. Trager, Jr., The Big, Fertile, Rumbling, Cast-Iron, Growling, Aching, Unbuttoned, Bellybook (New York: Grossman Pub.,
1972), pp. 381f. Despite its humorous title, this book is a serious and valuable study.
66
Ibid., p. 383.
67
Ibid., p. 384.
68
Harris, pp. 70-71.
69
Ibid., p. 82.
70
Stern, pp. 320f.
71
Of course, people who avoid pre-marital fornication and post-marital adultery will not get venereal diseases, and AIDS has grown
up out of the corruption of male homosexuality. Keeping God's moral law is always healthy. This is not what "clean and unclean"

57
Hebrew terms for clean and unclean "cannot be interpreted in the Western sense of that which is injurious
to health by reason of its unhygienic character. Their employment in reference to so-called purely moral
acts would then be inexplicable."72

Good heal this hardly in the same range of ethics as adultery, but the Mosaic dietary laws definitely are in
the same ethical zone as sexual morality. The hygienic interpretation simply cannot do justice to this fact.
Only a creationist and sacramental approach can do so.

The Jewish Mystical view

Closely related to the hygienic view is what I am calling the mystical view. This approach says that eating
unclean food may not affect the body, but it works to corrupt the soul. This viewpoint is fundamentally
hygienic, in a sense, but is based not on modern medical "science," but on a pre-modern "science" that
appears almost magical.

Some readers may wish to skip this section. My reason for including it, and for making extended remarks
on this approach, is not merely for the sake of completeness. I perceive that fascination with the "Old
Testament dietary laws" and their purported health benefits is becoming a serious fad in American
Christendom, and it is only a matter of time before some popular Christian leader discovers and latches
hold of traditional Jewish opinion on this subject. One already hears statements to the effect that "the Jews
have known these secrets all along; that's why they're so healthy!" 73 For that reason, I believe the following
discussion is warranted.

Moshe ben Nachman (Nachmanides)

Let us take as an example the work of the medieval rabbi Nachmanides (Rarnban; Rabbi Moshe ben
Nachman, 1195-1270) as an example. Nachmanides was a practicing physician as well as a rabbi, and his
interest in the dietary laws is medical, but of a pre-modern sort. In particular, Nachrnanides, a mystic,
sought to counteract the rationalistic Aristotelian influence of Maimonides.74

Nachrnanides writes, “For in order to preserve his physical life man should [be able to] eat
anything which serves that purpose, and the prohibitions concerning certain foods are only a
means of guarding the purity of the soul, in order that one should eat clean things which do not
give rise to harshness and coarseness in the soul.” 75 “For forbidden foods that are coarse generate
a thickness and obstruction in the soul....”76

Here is a medieval physician's explanation for the requirement that clean and edible fish must have scales:

The reason why fins and scales [are signs of permissibility as food] is that those fish which have
them always dwell in the upper clear waters, and they are sustained through the air that enters
there. Therefore their bodies contain a certain amount of heat which counteracts the abundance of
moistness [of the waters], just as wool, hair, and nails function in man and beast. Those fish which
have no fins and scales always dwell in the lower turbid waters, and due to the great abundance of
moistness and gatherings of waters there, they cannot repel anything. Hence they are creatures of
cold fluid, which cleaves to them and is therefore more easily able to cause death.... 77

Nachmanides also has a magical-medical explanation for the forbidden birds:

mean, however.
72
Ibid., p. 321.
73
For instance, this assertion figures prominently in R. J. Rushdoony's 1986 lectures on Leviticus 11, distributed by Chalcedon Tape
Ministry, Vallecito, CA.
74
For more information, see Charles B. Chavel, Rarnban: His Life and Teachings (New York: Philipp Feldheim, Inc., 1960).
75
Rarnban, Commentary on the Torah : Exodus, trans. by Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1973), p.
401.
76
Ibid.: Deuteronomy (1976), p. 170.
77
Ibid.: Leviticus (1974), p. 136.

58
Now the most important sign [of unfitness as food] in fowls is preying, for every bird of prey is invariably
unfit [as food]. The Torah removed it [from us] as food, because its blood becomes heated up due to its
cruelty, and is dark and thick, which gives rise to that bitter [fluid in the body] which is mostly black and
tends to make the heart cruel.78

Not only do unclean foods make the soul and heart corrupt, they can also have really bad effects on the
body as well:

It is possible to say on the basis of this [ difference in their natures, that those animals unfit for
food] harm the procreative organs, so that the seed which gathers from their moisture is cold and
extra-moist and will not beget at all, or not in the best and proper way, apart from the fact that
there is a certain known benefit according to medical sciences [in eating those] animals that are
permitted [by the Torah] as food. Now I have seen in some books of experiments that if an infant
drinks of the milk of a swine, that child will become a leper. This is a sign that there are very bad
features to all unclean animals.79

In addition to illustrating what I am calling the Jewish mystical view, these citations from Nachmanides
make the point that "science" changes from age to age. There is no consistency in hygienic explanations,
and they rely on extra-Biblical philosophical considerations. It is best, therefore, to let the Bible interpret
itself on the matter of the dietary laws, as it does.

The Origin of the Jewish Mystical view

The view that the flesh of unclean animals harms the "soul,” or higher aspect of man, is part and parcel of a
larger worldview or perspective that I am here calling "Jewish mysticism" for want of another term. Philip
Grossman explains:

In a more pithy manner [than Nachmanides], this juxtaposition of the divine and bestial in man is
expressed in the Talmud (B. Hag 16a): "six things are said of the children of man. In three they are
like the ministering angels: they have understanding, they walk erect, and they speak the holy
tongue. In the other three they are like the beasts: they eat and drink, they propagate, and they
relieve themselves."On this the sixteenth century mystic Elijah de Vidas remarks that of the latter
three, evacuation of waste is one of the natural human functions inherited from Adam and
therefore beyond one's control. The other two beastlike traits, however --eating and drinking, and
propagation --are subject to man's discretion, and Scripture therefore enjoins him to sanctify
himself therein. Consequently, "man should not eat merely to satisfy his craving, like a beast, lest
his spirit should become like a beast's spirit that goes downward to the earth" -- instead of soaring
upward to heaven --"and the same applies also to propagation." In short, the path to holy living,
whereby man becomes worthy of God, lies through self-disciplined abstention from that which is
characteristic of the bestial, and wholehearted practice of that which is characteristically divine.80

What can be seen here is the adoption, in great measure, of Greek evolutionary "scale of being" philosophy.
Man is a "rational animal," part beast and part divine (or angelic). He must suppress the bestial by means of
asceticism, and thereby release and increase the divine (or angelic) aspect of his nature. 81 (This view, that
man must suppress the bestial and release the divinity in himself, also figures prominently in the dietetic
theologies of liberals and sectarians in nineteenth-century America.)82 How did it come about that the Jews

78
Ibid., p. 140.
79
Ibid., p. 141.f.
80
Philip Grossman, "Introduction," in Maimonides, Book of Holiness, pp. xxii-xxiii. Despite the differences between Maimonides and
the Jewish mystics, Grossman points out that they were not wholly opposed, and that the influence of Plotinus' Neo-platonism can be
seen in Maimonides. See also Chavel, Ramban: "Upon the basis of Midrashim [Ramban] clearly implied that our present world is a
result of a number of gradations," p. 73.
81
See Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936); and Rousas J. Rushdoony,
The One and the Many (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1971).
82
Peter Gardella, Innocent Ecstasy: How Christianity Gave America an Ethic of Sexual Pleasure (New York: Oxford University Press,
1985), chap. 3.

59
adopted this viewpoint?

Primarily, we must say, the adoption of a pagan philosophical worldview came naturally for those Jews
who failed to follow out the implications of the Old Covenant, which would have led them to embrace
Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. That portion of the Jews who failed to enter the New Covenant was
compelled to invent a new approach to the Old Testament. Forsaking the truth, they had no choice but to
believe a lie -- that is, the lie. That lie, first set out in germ form by Satan in the Garden, is that man is
divine, and that man's problem is that he is dragged down by a bestial side of his nature. Salvation is thus
by works, as men strive against the bestial and seek to make themselves divine by means of efforts. This
philosophy can be seen boldly stated by Grossman in the quotation above.

The truth is that man's problem is his personal, relational hostility to God --in a word: sin. Man is not God,
but is like God in being designed as God's friend, son, bride, chief counselor, etc. --in a word: God's image.
Salvation comes from trusting God's provision of Jesus Christ as His atoning sacrifice for our sin, and
living once again as proper images of God, in obedience to Him. The lie is that man's problem is
"metaphysical": an animal nature at war with a divine or angelic nature. The truth is that man's problem is
relational or "ethical": a willful desire to disbelieve and disobey God. Man is not a victim of a bestial
nature, but a sinner in rebellion against God.

Thus it came to pass that the Jews adopted a pagan view of human nature. How did this get mixed up with
the laws of cleanness? The answer lies in the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. Before that time, it was
possible for believers to see that the laws of cleanness had to do with men's personal interface with God.
They were part and parcel of the Biblical symbolic worldview, and pointed to the fact that God and man
were on bad terms. The laws of cleanness enforced the boundary between the Garden of Eden
(Tabernacle/Temple area) and the outside world (under the curse). This was all clearly symbolic, and
symbolized man's relation to God.

The coming of the New Covenant meant that the cursed world was cleansed, and the boundary between the
Garden and the world was eliminated. Thus, the distinction clean/unclean became irrelevant. The Jews
might have kept it up, of course, except that God destroyed the Temple. This produced a quandary, the
effect of which was that the laws of cleanness were reinterpreted. They came to be regarded as ascetic
means of suppressing the bestial in man. Obermann writes, concerning Maimonides' codification of the
laws of cleanness:

The general significance of this book is that the majority of the rules and regulations it codifies are
such as had been enacted by many generations of "Scribes" and "Sages" at a time when the
Temple of Jerusalem had long since been destroyed. The predications "clean" and "unclean" had
thus become devoid of their primary purpose and applicability.83

To the non-rabbinist student, perhaps the most important aspect of the laws of cleanness as
codified in the present book will appear to lie in the religious-historical and, especially, religious-
sociological development to which they bear witness. Having lost their essential objective of
guarding the inviolable holiness of the national Sanctuary and the ritual purity of things hallowed,
these laws remained in force for their own sake and, eventually, acquired a new purpose and a new
objective: to vouchsafe the superior piety of devotees who even now continued to prepare and to
eat their food in conditions of sacred cleanness. Only this continued practical observance of the
laws of cleanness can account for the fact that, in the centuries following the destruction of the
Temple, so much intellectual energy and scholastic effort should have been spent in the schools of
learning in order to derive ever new interpretations and inferences from the relatively scant
chapters of Scripture that deal with cleanness and uncleanness --ever more minute rules based on

83
Julian Oberrnann, "Editor's Foreword," in Moses Maimonides, The Code of Maimonides, Book 10: The
Book of Cleanness, trans. by Herbert Danby. Yale Judaica Series 8 (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1954), p. ix.

60
 ever new "decrees and precautions." 84

While all the minute details of the rabbinic additions were only kept by those who chose to do so (the
"Associates" or "Pharisees"), all Jews were expected to keep the basics, especially the dietary laws. 85 The
rationale provided was the form of ascetic mysticism that we are calling Jewish mysticism. Even for
Maimonides, who argued that the dietary laws were hygienically beneficial, the primary value of the law
was ascetic in this sense:

To the totality of purposes of the perfect Law there belong the abandonment, depreciation, and
restraint of desires in so far as possible, so that these should be satisfied only in so far as this is
necessary. You know already that most of the lusts and licentiousness of the multitude consist in
an appetite for eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse. This is what destroys man's last perfection,
what harms him also in his first perfection, and what corrupts most of the circumstances of the
citizens and of the people engaged in domestic governance. For when only the desires are
followed, as is done by the ignorant, the longing for speculation is abolished, the body is
corrupted.....Therefore God. ..forbids everything that leads to lusts and to mere pleasure. 86

Samson Raphael Hirsch

In the nineteenth century, the important conservative Jewish theologian and philosopher Samson Raphael
Hirsch arose to defend the Jewish heritage against the corruptions of modernism and Reform Judaism. His
powerful book, Horeb, formed the foundation for a revival of traditional Judaism. In this book, Hirsch
devotes a chapter to food, and gives as the rationale for the dietary laws that they act to suppress the animal
aspect of human nature:87

Just as the external temple, which represents your holy mission and to which you should sanctify
yourself, becomes desecrated by [impurity], by everything which has sunken outside and beneath
the human sphere, so are these foods [impure] and unfit for the temple which you yourself are, ~,
for your body, your heart, your spirit, as far as they are all of them the living place of activity for
your own being which is summoned unto holiness. If you have eaten them, not only touched them
but absorbed them into your system --you may be more nourished and better fed: but the animal
instinct will be aroused more strongly within you, and your body becomes more blunted as an
instrument of the spirit. Your heart, instead of being holy, instead of striving only for your
holiness --namely, your sublimity above everything animal-like, is drawn down to the animal --or
becomes the more apathetic and dulled.88

Isidor Grunfeld

Isidor Grunfeld, Hirsch's translator, is author of a two-volume study of the Jewish dietary laws. In this
work, Grunfeld consistently carries through the mystical approach. Plant food is best, he argues, because it
is least passionate. God permitted the Jews to eat animals that are plant-like, but forbade the flesh of
animals that are more bestial in their behavior. As his remarks indicate, his perspective is thoroughly
informed by the Greek notion that man is a rational animal, composed of animalistic passions and divine
(or angelic) intellect. The goal of proper eating is to suppress the former and enhance the latter. Grunfeld
writes:

The dietary laws referring to meat and meat products aim at avoiding the transference of certain
animal substances into the body of the Jew lest it becomes by this transference a less pliable

84
Ibid., p. xii.
85
Ibid., pp. xii-xiv.
86
Maimonides, Guide, 3:33:73a,b; trans. by Pines, p. 532. Maimonides goes on to make clear that the Law has other general purposes
as well. It is noteworthy, however, that he places the ascetic purpose first.
87
Hirsch's most eloquent and passionate exposition of the notion that the Law is given, in large measure, to suppress the animal aspect
of man is found in chapter 69 of Horeb, entitled "Covering and Ennobling of Animal. Nature."
88
Samson Raphael Hirsch, Horeb: A Philosophy of Jewish Laws and Observances, trans. by Isidor Grunfeld (New York: The Soncino
Press, [1837] 1962), p. 317. On Hirsch's importance and influence, see Grunfeld's introduction to Horeb in this volume.

61
 instrument for the carrying out of the moral law in general and the individual commandments of
the Torah in particular. On the other hand, the dietary laws referring to plants and vegetables,
especially to those grown in the Holy Land, aim directly at the creation in us of certain moral
values and spiritual qualities.89

In order to find a reason why various animals are allowed and others forbidden, it is necessary to recall that
originally man was not allowed to consume meat at all; he was supposed to be a vegetarian. Only after the
flood was man given permission to consume meat. It must be assumed that after the flood, man's nature
changed. It became clear before the deluge that man had sunk morally and fallen far too short of what he
was intended to be. The duration of his allotted span of life was decreased. This shorter span of a man's life
made a change in generations, and rendered regeneration much easier and quicker. On the other hand, the
shorter lifetime was bound to intensify and concentrate the process of life, which perhaps is the reason why
a food more vitalizing than vegetables became necessary. At the same time safeguards were necessary to
avoid an undue strengthening of the animal nature in man resulting from the consumption of meat, that is,
of animal substance. As far as man in general was concerned, this safeguard was provided by the Noahide
law of the prohibition against eating a limb torn from a live animal or bird. This law, as is well known,
refers to man in general, not only to Jews. It was enough of a risk to allow man to eat animal substance. To
eat, however, a limb torn from a live animal -- in addition to the cruelty -- would have involved the transfer
of the vivifying part of an animal, its instincts and passions into the system of man's body. 90

We may interject a couple of observations here. First, as we shall see later, the permission to eat meat after
the Flood was an increase in privilege, not a concession to depravity. Second, the Jewish traditional
interpretation of the blood-prohibition in Genesis 9:4 is that is forbids "harvesting" a limb off a live animal.
This is clearly understood to be part of the "oral tradition," because it is obviously not contained in the text
itself.91 Third, it is worth noting that Jewish exegetes have always held that before Moses, men might
lawfully eat the flesh of both clean and unclean animals, and that God-fearing Gentiles were always free to
eat unclean animals. In other words, the Mosaic dietary laws were always seen as applicable only to Israel.

To return to Grunfeld:

For Jews, who were destined to be the people of God, the holy instrument of the fulfillment of
God's purpose in history, a stricter safeguard was necessary. They were forbidden not only to eat a
limb torn from a live animal....but the consumption of blood generally was prohibited to them.
"Only be strong that thou eat not the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the
life with the flesh" (Deut. 12:23). The solemnity with which the Torah warns us repeatedly not to
consume blood which is said to contain the "soul of the animal", i.e., animal instincts or passions,
points quite clearly to one of the aims of the dietary laws, viz., the avoidance of transferring
animal instincts into man by the consumption of certain food. This is the general principle: the
nearer an animal is to the vegetable world in its habits and composition, the less likely it is to
arouse the animal nature in man2 and its meat becomes the more suitable for human
consumption.92

Grunfeld continues:

[T]he more passive and submissive the body is, the more will it yield to the dictates of the soul as
man's higher nature. Every food, therefore, which makes the body too active in a carnal direction,
makes man the more indifferent or less sensitive to the loftier impulses of moral life and is to be
avoided. From this point of view, vegetable food is the most preferable, as plants are the most

89
Dayan Dr. Isidor Grunfeld, The Jewish Dietary Laws, 2 vols. (New York: The Soncino Press, 1972) l:ix.
90
Ibid., p. 8.
91
Maimonides writes, "The Sages have learned by tradition that when the Torah says, Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh (Deut.
12:23), its purpose is to forbid the eating of a limb cut from a living animal. And concerning such a limb the Holy One, blessed be He,
said to Noah, Only flesh with the life thereof. which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat (Gen. 9:4). " Maimonides, Book of Holiness,
2:5:1; p. 176. To my knowledge, no Christian commentator has ever adopted this view. The text of Scripture only forbids willful
consumption of blood.
92
Ibid., pp. 8-9.

62
 passive substance. Indeed, we find that all vegetables are permitted.

Next in the order of desirability as human food would come those animals which are herbivorous and,
therefore, nearer the vegetable world, whereas carnivorous animals, such as beasts and birds of prey, would
be forbidden because with the consumption of their flesh, their cruel habits might enter the human being. 93

It is not surprising that Grunfeld does not mention fish at this point, because finned and scaled fishes are
savage carnivores! All Grunfeld has to say about clean and unclean fishes in his two-volume set on Jewish
dietary laws is a brief reference to Nachmanides, whose remarks on this subject, cited above, also sidestep
the issue. Hirsch, from whom Grunfeld got this general idea, wrote, "How the above-mentioned principles
can be applied in the case of fishes is not clear.” 94

In conclusion, the Jewish mystical view is unacceptable from a Christian standpoint because its foundations
are in pagan scale-of-being philosophy rather than in Christian creationism. It replaces a Biblical symbolic
and relational worldview with a Greek ontological one. Moreover, while is certainly is true that what we eat
can influence how we feel and how well we perform, this is not at all the reason given in Scripture for the
dietary laws of Moses. The Jews have been forced to these speculations because of their separation from
the true approach to the matter.95

The Pacifist view

We come now to the first of two modern symbolic approaches. What I am calling the pacifist view runs
roughly as follows: Men were originally vegetarians. Because of sin, God permitted men to eat meat, but
added a restraint. Men were not to be cruel or violent in procuring meat, but were to show kindness to the
animals, just as God shows kindness to man. Since animals image human life, men were to regard violent
animals as unclean, and not imitate them. Only peaceful, non-violent animals were to be regarded as clean.
From this men were to learn peacefulness. Indeed, the prophetic image of the future world is one devoid of
violent animals, with all meat-eating animals returning to a diet of vegetables (Is. 65:25).96

This is a variant of the symbolic/worldview approach, and thus it has much to commend it. 97 The animal
kingdom is an image of the human race, the two worlds paralleling each other symbolically. Human beings
are to acquire wisdom from the study of the animal world, and the particular wisdom in the dietary laws,
according to this view, is that of peace.

Jacob Milgrorn

93
Ibid., p. 9. This citation is a summary of the views of Hirsch, set out at greater length in Horeb, pp. 328-30.
94
Hirsch, p. 329.
95
Most Christians are not aware that many of the most conservative Jews, especially the Hasidim, believe in reincarnation. This is part
and parcel of a mystical worldview. The Jewish doctrine of reincarnation teaches that souls return to this world repeatedly until they
become pure enough to go to heaven. Depending on what you do in this life, you may come back higher or lower on the chain of
being. This is illustrated in a fascinating book, Lis Harris, Holy Days: The World of a Hasidic Family (New York: summit Books
[Simon and Schuster], 1985). For instance: "According to tradition, a convert is actually a Jewish soul that happened to get caught in a
gentile body," p. 137. "A leader of the Apter Hasidim announced one Yom Kippur that he had been a high priest in Jerusalem; and
Moshe Teitelbaum, a Satmarer leader, once revealed to his amazed followers that in earlier lives he had been a sheep in Jacob's flock,
and had participated in the Exodus and witnessed the destruction of the tablets," p. 89. "According to Hasidic belief, most souls have
been sent back to earth in order to....'make amends for wrongs or omissions in a life that had once, or even more than once, been spent
on earth.' New, untainted souls are a great rarity...," p. 89. Not all orthodox Jews believe this, of course, but many do, and it is found in
the Kabbalah. It fits logically with the mystical corruption of the Biblical understanding of the law. For a discussion of
metempsychosis (reincarnation) in Judaism and the Kabbalah, see Elijah Judah Schochet, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition: Attitudes
and Relationships (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1984), pp. 236-244, 251-253.
96
See Samuel H. Dresner, The Jewish Dietary Laws: Their Meaning for our Time (New York: Burning Bush Press, 1959); Jacob
Milgrom, "The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System," Interpretation 17 (1963):288-301, reprinted in Milgrom, Studies in Cultic
Theology and Terminology. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983), pp. 104-118; Jean Soler, "The
Semiotics of Food in the Bible, " in Robert Forster and Crest Ranum, eds., Food and Drink in History: Selections from the Annales
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), pp. 126-138 [originally published in French in Annales (July-August, 1973), pp.
943-955; trans. by Elborg Forster]; and most discursively and helpfully, Schochet, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition.
97
In fact, it is a more sophisticated version of the symbolic approach most commonly found among the Church Fathers; see Jordan,
"Approaches of the Church Fathers."

63
The primary exponent of this view is the influential Jacob Milgrom. The book by Dresner, though
published earlier, leaned heavily on information provided by Milgrom in the form of an earlier draft of his
article.98 Milgrom posits, first of all, that because Adam was a vegetarian in Eden, man would never have
eaten meat had Adam not fallen. Thus, the eating of meat is a compromise, a concession, in view of human
sinfulness. In making the concession to Noah, however, God insisted that the blood must never be eaten,
but poured out. For Milgrom and his followers this means that "man has no right to put an animal to death
except by God's sanction. Hence, he must eschew the blood, drain it, and return it, as it were, to the
Creator.”99 Animal life is only "conceded to man's lust and need.”100

Dresner calls attention to Deuteronomy 12:20, "When the LORD your God extends your border as He has
promised you, and you say, 'I will eat meat,, because your soul desires (likes, craves) to eat meat,
then you may eat meat, whatever your soul desires (likes, craves)." This meat does not need to be brought
to the central altar for sacrifice, since the distance is too great. Its blood, however, must be poured out.
According to Dresner, the rabbis called this "profane meat," distinguishing it from the "holy meat" of the
altar. "It is, however, the term they [the rabbis] give to this profane meat which is striking. They call it b'sar
ta'avah, 'meat of lust' or 'meat of luxury,' after the passage in Deuteronomy 12:20." 101

This sounds rather convincing until we read further, and find in Deuteronomy 14:26 exactly the same
Hebrew phrase in what is obviously a sanctified and positive context: "And you shall spend the money
for whatever your soul desires (likes, craves), for oxen, for sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever
your soul desires (likes, craves); and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice,
you and your household." This surely does not sound like begrudging permission. It sounds like a glorious
invitation.

In fact, eating meat is a sign of man's ascension from the milk of childhood to the fullness of maturity (Heb.
5: 11-13). The progression from Adam to Noah is not downward, so that God must make a concession to
human lust, but upward, in that God bestows a great privilege on man. With Noah, humanity advances in
the likeness of God to the point of being entrusted with the sword of capital punishment and the robe of
judicial authority, and one sign of this is permission to eat meat. Similarly, it is when Israel comes into the
land, and her position is glorified, that she may eat whatever clean meat she wishes, according to
Deuteronomy 12:20. Properly read, this verse is not a concession but a privilege, a privilege to be
celebrated before the throne of God at the Feast of Tabernacles according to Deuteronomy 14:26.

Milgrom and Dresner argue that the (oral-tradition) laws of Kashrut, which pertain in part to the humane
slaughter of animals, establish rituals that make the Jews a peace-loving people when practiced properly.
"Only through a daily regimen of disciplines which remind man that life is sacred can man aspire to a way
of life fully informed by other ethical virtues." 102 While there is truth to this allegation, there are some
qualifying observations to make. First, while compassion for the creation is taught in Scripture, it is not
what pouring out the blood meant. Second, compassion is the work of God's Spirit, not a result of ritual.
Third, the murder of God's own Son by the Jews (in triune conspiracy with Edomites and Gentiles) is the
greatest proof that merely keeping these laws (as the Pharisees did) does not work peace in the hearts of
men.103

Milgrom's scheme falls apart when he gets to Leviticus 11. There is no connection between non-violence

98
Dresner, p. 35. At this time, the anticipated article was called "Jews Are Not Hunters."
99
Milgrom, "Diet Laws," p. 289 (Studies reprint, p. 105); cf. Dresner, pp. 21ff. "The permission to eat meat is thus seen to be a
compromise, a divine concession to human weakness and human need," p. 26.
100
Milgrom, p. 291 (Studies, p. 107).
101
Dresner, p. 25.
102
Milgrom, p. 294 (Studies, p. 110); cf. Dresner, pp. 36ff.
103
Devout Jews, of course, insist that the spirit as well as the letter of the Law must be observed. Still, I cannot see that Jews are any
more pacific than anyone else. Zionists have hardly been peaceful people; but how seriously most of them take the laws of Kashrut is
questionable. On Zionism, see Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1978). My impression
is that the more orthodox Jews, who keep Kashrut strictly, tend to be either suspicious of Zionism, or wholly opposed to it.

64
and cud-chewing or split hooves.104 Scaled fish, which are clean, are certainly predators; indeed, they eat in
the very act of killing. His analogy seems to have weight only in the case of the birds of prey, but even here
the case is doubtful. Nothing in Leviticus 11 identifies these birds as birds of prey, and I shall argue that
this is not the rationale behind the bird list. Rather, birds are clean or unclean according to their feet the
same as the other creatures in Leviticus 11 (see Gen. 8:6-12). Milgrom shifts gears in his essay when he
gets to Leviticus 11, and advocates the religious separation view as the primary motive behind the laws
found there.105

In my view, Milgrom's position is a two-fold category mistake. Kindness to animals is surely taught in the
Bible,106 but it is nowhere linked with the requirement that blood be poured out. That stipulation has, rather,
to do with returning to God the life given by Him and that belongs to Him (Lev. 17:10-12). Deuteronomy
12:16-17 implies that it is analogous to tithing.

Second, the laws of clean and unclean animals do not have anything particularly to do with the law
requiring that blood be poured out. Rather, they have to do with the fact that clean animals have to do with
Israel and God-fearing Gentiles, while unclean animals have to do with idolatry and the heathen nations
(Lev. 20:24-26). Refusing to eat unclean animals means refusing to be incorporated into the ways of the
heathen. This, of course, is part of the thesis of these studies, so my refutation of Milgrom's position is to be
found in the development of that thesis throughout the present series of essays, not just in these few
paragraphs.

Anthropological Approaches

This view is presented most fully by Mary Douglas, and it has become very influential in both Jewish and
evangelical Christian circles.107 Douglas's thesis is that clean animals are those that conform to a rule of
wholeness, especially in their mode of locomotion. Thus, as concerns land animals, clean animals have
cloven hooves; as concerns aquatic animals, clean fish have fins and scales; as concerns swarming things,
clean animals have jointed legs and hop. Clean birds are those that feed in a clean fashion. Douglas points
out that animals are analogous to human beings, and that only some people were permitted to be Israelites
(clean), and only some within Israel were permitted to be priests (holy). The latter had to be unblemished,
and the former had to live a moral "walk." Gordon Wenham has sought to refine Douglas's thesis,
contending that not "natural versus unnatural" but "life versus death" should be the fundamental
category.108

I share Wenham's conviction that Douglas has made some useful observations. Her thesis takes seriously
the details of Leviticus 11, which mainly (though not always) focus on the means of locomotion. Her thesis
also potentially does justice to the fact that the unclean animals symbolize the heathen, while the clean
symbolize the righteous. The present series of studies is at some points a refinement of her insights

In general, the weakness of the "wholeness" position is that it fails to do justice to the background in
Genesis 3. In Genesis 2 and 3 the threat and implementation of death as a judgment for sin are set out.
Those judgments lie behind the laws of uncleanness, because uncleanness is a form of "death."
Uncleanness has to do with the judgments pronounced in Genesis 3 (on the animal, on childbearing,

104
Soler, like others, argues that this requirement excludes land animals that are predators. True, but it excludes many others as well.
Soler, thus, has to supplement his argument by calling attention to "wholeness." Soler, pp. 132ff.
105
Milgrom, pp. 294-297 (Studies, pp. 110-113). Schochet switches gears also, but adopts Mary Douglas's view that "wholeness" is
the qualifying characteristic of clean animals; Schochet, p. 72f. Soler also argues for "wholeness" to explain the fish and swarming
things, though he arrived at this conclusion independently of Douglas; Soler, p. 135f.
106
For a very full discussion, see Schochet, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition, pp. 46-79.
107
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966),
chap. 3, “The Abominations of Leviticus"; Douglas, Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1975), chap. 16, "Deciphering a Meal"; cf. Schochet, op. cit.; Gordon Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979); Wenham, "The Theology of Unclean Food," Evangelical
Quarterly 53 (1981) :6-15; Wenham, "Christ's Healing Ministry and His Attitude to the Law," in Harold H. Rowdon, Christ the Lord:
Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), pp. 115-126.
108
Wenham, "Christ I s Healing Ministry,” p. 124.

65
regarding sweat, the soil, death, etc.), while cleansing has to do with the removal of the signs of those
judgments. As well, unclean animals seem to be in some way or other serpent-like. Moreover, in a search
for a unifying principle, she finds it hard to deal with the birds and swarmers. Douglas does point out that
the "mode of locomotion" is an important marker between clean and unclean animals, and this is indeed the
case.

Douglas has also scored a significant point in pointing out that what may be eaten by the human being has a
parallel relationship to which humans are incorporated into closeness to God. 109 Her thesis is that altar
animals go with priests who are incorporated into the Temple, clean animals go with Israelites who are
admitted to the holy land, and unclean animals go with the heathen who are outside. In these essays, I shall
be refining this thesis. My thesis is that the Levites were figured by the firstborn animals, Israel by the altar
animals, converted Gentiles by the clean wild animals (deer, etc. ), and unconverted Gentiles by the
unclean animals.

Nevertheless, the heart of Douglas's approach is that animals are classified as clean or unclean according to
whether or not they are "whole" or "normal" for the category of animal into which they fit. This thesis
cannot stand.

Michael P. Carroll has pointed out some of the particular difficulties with Douglas's approach. First of all,
he points out that Douglas works only with a three-fold classification of animals, those of land, air, and sea,
while the Bible in Genesis 1 sets out five major classes (air, sea, cattle, wild beasts, crawlers). 110 In later
essays in this series we shall see that the Bible most regularly provides four-fold lists of animals, and that
this is how Leviticus 11 is set out as well. In other words, Douglas will have to ignore or otherwise
dispense with Genesis 1 in order to maintain her approach.

Also, Carroll criticizes Douglas for her approach to animals that have paws. Douglas maintains that
"proper, whole" animals have cloven hooves, while "improper, abnormal" animals have "hand-like" paws.
Carroll writes, "Leviticus 11:27 specifically defines as unclean those four-legged land animals that' go
down upon their paws'. Douglas suggests that 'hands' would be a more appropriate translation than 'paws' in
this passage. In fact, she is only partly correct. The Hebrew term in question really refers to the palm of a
hand or the sole of a foot. This has led most commentators to infer that what is being referred to here are
animals that have pads on their feet, e.g., wolves, lions, bears, etc. Unless one is prepared to argue that
animals with pads on their feet have front appendages that are more 'hand-like' than those of other
quadrupeds (a premise that I personally would find difficult to accept), then the prohibition of 'animals that
go down upon their paws' provides no support for the Douglas argument.” 111

Carroll finally reduces Douglas's theory to tautology. In other words, there is no evidence to support it, and
it is sheer speculation. He writes, "In response to all the criticism raised to this point, it is of course possible
to read Douglas as saying that the animal classification scheme established in Genesis is irrelevant,
and that it is Leviticus itself that associates each animal category with the 'appropriate' sort of animal. But
such an interpretation would make her argument tautological. Why are flying insects unclean? Because
flying insects have four legs and flying creatures should appropriately have only two legs. Why should
flying creatures appropriately have only two legs? Because all other types of flying creatures are defined as
unclean in Leviticus!”112

Carroll is not content with demolishing Douglas's thesis; he also seeks to rehabilitate it. His "alternative
explanation" is as follows:113 First, he contends that Genesis 1:30 allows animals to be vegetarians, but
Genesis 9:3 only allows human beings to eat meat. Thus, any animal that eats meat is crossing the
boundary between "nature" and "culture," a notion derived from Claude Le'vi-Strauss. Such boundary-
crossers are "unclean. " Carroll must admit, however, that clean fish are carnivorous, and that this conflicts
with his thesis. We can also point out that his thesis has nothing to do with the details of Leviticus 11

109
Douglas, "Deciphering a Meal."
110
Michael P. Carroll, "One More Time: Leviticus Revisited," Archives Europeennes de Sociologie 19 (1978) :339.
111
Ibid., p. 341.
112
Ibid., pp. 341f.
113
Ibid, pp. 342ff.

66
(divided hoof, rumination, fins, scales, etc.).

While it is true that Genesis 9:3 only mentions human beings as allowed to eat meat, given the analogy
between men and animals, and man's headship-leadership of the animal kingdom, it is perfectly reasonable
from a Biblical point of view to maintain that permission given to men is extended to animals also.

Moreover, here is as good a place as any to nail down the fundamental point that whether an animal is
carnivorous or not has nothing to do with the clean/unclean distinction. Repeatedly throughout this essay
we have seen that attempts to separate the clean and the unclean in terms of herbivorous versus carnivore,
or peaceable versus violent, founder on the rock of the fish: Clean fish are violent carnivores. The
distinction between carnivores and herbivores is irrelevant to the discussion. Also, from Genesis 7:2 we see
that the distinction between clean and unclean animals was known before the Flood. Man was most likely
herbivorous before the Flood, and so most likely were the animals. (Later essays in this series will discuss
this question.) Thus, on the most likely interpretation, the pre-Flood distinction between clean and unclean
animals could have nothing to do with whether or not they ate meat.

Carroll argues, secondly, that vermin are unclean because they invade the home, blurring the nature/culture
distinction. He finishes by saying that Biblical "leprosy" was some kind of mold or mildew, plant life, and
thus was a kind of plant that broke the separation of nature and culture. As we shall see in these studies,
that is not what Biblical "leprosy" was all about. Moreover, the nature/culture opposition is simply
unknown in Biblical religion, at least in this form. As we shall see, the Bible is concerned with "boundary
transgressors, " and such transgressors are unclean, but this is not because of a distinction between nature
and culture but because of a distinction between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, which are
not the same thing.

Thus, Carroll has some telling criticisms of Douglas's approach, but has nothing to offer in its place except
more anthropological speculations.

Conclusion

The purpose of this essay has been to show that only a symbolic interpretation can have any claim to do
justice to the dietary provisions of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Other approaches simply ignore the
text in favor of hypotheses that are ungrounded and that cannot withstand scrutiny. Accordingly, a new and
thorough look is mandated.

67
 SECTION 06 - ANIMALS AND THE BIBLE

This essay provides a sketch of the Biblical view of animals, and how they relate to man. From this we can
go on in later essays in the series to consider why animals were divided into clean and unclean, edible and
inedible, under the Noahic and Mosaic covenants respectively.

Biblically speaking, all created things reveal God their Creator; and since man is the very image of God,
they accordingly also picture humanity. 1 This is true of rocks, stars, and plants, as well as animals, but
because the animals are the "highest" part of creation, after humanity, they picture human life more fully
than any other aspect of creation.

The symbolic connections between animals and men do not lie first and foremost in internal or otherwise
"hidden" correspondences. Rather, the connection is first of all external or superficial in the strict sense,
lying on the surface. The analogies are primarily in terms of appearances and behavior, not in terms of
internal biology. This is the reverse of the modern approach to the matter. Evolutionary biology sees the
differences between men and animals as superficial, having to do with appearances, while the similarities
between men and animals are organic since they evolved from common roots. Christian creationism does
not deny internal correspondences, but insists that they are the result of design, not of evolutionary process.
Furthermore, in terms of a Biblical worldview, the most important correspondences are external, not
internal; visible, not hidden from view; behavioral, not structural; symbolic, not organic.

This is readily apparent from Genesis 1, for there the classifications of animals are not given in terms of
internal, biological similarity, but of external, visible, behavioral similarity. "Flying things" include bats
and winged insects as well as birds. "Crawling things" include insects, rodents, and lizards. These are the
fundamental Biblical categories, in terms of which the Biblical symbolic worldview is phrased, and thus in
terms of which Leviticus 11 is written. We shall look first at these categories, and then turn to a more
general discussion of the analogies between animals and men as scripture sets them out.

The Categories of Creation

In order to understand the categories of Leviticus 11, and what they mean, we need to assess the animal
classifications given in the creation narratives of Genesis. In addition, we need to try and understand the
wider symbolic meanings of the zones in which these animals live, because the animals are not classified
by biological similarity but by living space: water creatures, air creatures, land creatures; and within the
last: cattle (insiders), beasts (outsiders), and ground swarrners. 2 To get this before us, let us look in depth
first of all at the relevant verses of Genesis 1.

20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm (sherets) with the swarming thing (sherets) of living soul
(nephesh) [the animated swarming thing], and let the flying creature fly about upon (‘al) the earth
upon the face (‘al-peney) of the firmament of the heavens."

Two categories of creature are made here on the fifth day: fish and fowl. The word for fish (dag or dagah)
is not here used (though it appears in vv. 26 and 28). Instead, the waters are said to swarm with swarming
things. The same language is used for the flying creatures: They fly about. 3 In both cases, the animals in
question are enjoined to move without restriction inside their sphere.

1
For a full discussion with Scriptural backing, see James B. Jordan, Through New Eves: Developing a Biblical View of the World
(Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), pp. 19-26.
2
In this study I have received help and stimulation from W. M. Clark, "The Animal Series in the Primeval History," Vetus
Testamentum 18 (1968): 433-49. I do not, however, share Clark's critical presuppositions.
3
Umberto Cassuto remarks that "the text has not ya’uph (Qal, 'flies'] but ye’opheph [Po’lel, 'fly about']: the flying creatures fly about
hither and thither, in all directions." Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part 1: From Adam to Noah, trans. by Israel
Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, (1944], 1961), p. 48. See also Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical
Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. 24.

68
Let us look first at the fish. Why is the word for fish not used here? One possibility is that the Hebrew word
dag or dagah refers only to aquatic creatures with fins and scales. This might receive some support from
Leviticus 11:9-12, which like Genesis 1 only speaks of living things that swarm in the water. The same is
true of Deuteronomy 14:9-10. Thus, perhaps dag or dagah is simply too narrow a term to use for all
animated aquatic life.

This hypothesis cannot stand, however. The summary list of Genesis 1:26 gives the "fish of the sea" along
with the birds of the sky, the cattle, and the crawling things. Similarly, in Genesis 9:2, the fear of man is put
on "fish of the sea" along with birds, beasts, and crawlers. Also, we are told that Solomon spoke of
"animals and birds and creeping things and fish" (1 Kings 4:33). Thus, the term "fish" is in the Bible
completely generic and refers to all water animals.

The reason for bypassing the term "fish" and speaking instead of "living souls that swarm in the waters"
must, then, be related to the purpose of Genesis 1:20. That purpose seems to be to call attention to the
animated motion of these creatures. The use of nephesh for the fish also points to this, in that nephesh
usually means "breath," but has a wider meaning of the living self with all of its drives, intentions,
emotions, and activities.4 These new creatures are not just "alive" in a static sense, in a way that plants
might be said to be. They are alive with purpose and motion. In terms of the progression of development in
Genesis 1, plants have reproduction and living creatures have locomotion.5Plants root in one place, while
animated creatures move about. This emphasis on locomotion will come to the fore in Leviticus 11, where
swarming motion becomes boundary transgression.

Our suggestion receives strength when we look at the flying creatures. These are more than just birds, for
the Hebrew word for bird proper is not used here. 6 The word that is used, ‘of, means flying creature, and
embraces winged insects as well as birds and bats. As with the fish, the emphasis here is on locomotion, in
this case flying. Moreover, as with the swarming fish, the birds fly about, to and fro. Boundaries are not a
consideration for them.7

The water swarmers and flying creatures fill two of the three environments of the "three-decker" world
established in Genesis 1. On the second day, the establishment of the firmament served to separate the
waters above from those below, creating an atmospheric heavens in between. On the third day, the
recession of the waters permi tted the mound of dry land to appear. Thus, within the commonsense horizon
of human life, there are three zones: the heavens above, the earth beneath, and the waters below the earth
(cf. Ex. 20:4).

As we shall see, the sea, since it is below the earth, comes to have a symbolic association with the Abyss,
the place of death. The sea, then, becomes a symbol for the world of the Gentiles, outside the "land" of
Israel. This will be relevant to our understanding of clean and unclean fishes, and is discussed in paper
no.13 in this series.8

Similarly, the firmament heaven is a visible sign of the highest heaven, which is why both are called by the
same name in Genesis 1. The atmosphere between earth and firmament (blue sky) is where the birds fly

4
See Bruce K. Waltke, "nephesh," in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the
Old Testament [TWOT], 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), #1395, 1:587- 591.
5
Notice the emphasis on reproduction in Genesis 1:11-12, translated literally: "Then God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation, plant
seeding seed, fruit tree bearing fruit after its kind in which is its seed, upon the earth.' And it was established. And the earth produced
vegetation, plant seeding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit in which is its seed after its kind. And God saw that it was good."
The same piling up of seed occurs in verse 29 as well: "And God said, 'Behold, I give to you every plant seeding seed which is upon
the face of the entire earth, and every tree which has in it the fruit of a tree seeding seed; for you it will be for food."
6
Tsippor, a word onomatopoietically related to the songs of winged birds ("chirpers"?). They are seen as a subdivision of the flying
creatures in Gen. 7:14, "every flying creature after its kind, every winged bird." For the most part, the birds referred to by tsippor are
clean, but see Ezk. 39:4 for an exception. The AV most often translates "flying creature" as "fowl," and tsippor as "bird," but it is
inconsistent. Modern versions are even more inconsistent.
7
Swarming produces a cloud-effect, and this seems to be a "fifth-day" phenomenon. Later passages of Scripture that follow the seven-
day pattern call attention to a "host" or to a "cloud of incense" in the fifth-day "slot." See James B. Jordan, "The Tabernacle: A New
Creation." Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No. 5.
8
James B. Jordan, "An Exposition of Leviticus 11." Studies in Food & Faith No.13.

69
(though they multiply on the earth). Our verse says they fly "upon" the earth and "upon" the face (surface)
of the heavens. Since one cannot fly attached to something else -- particularly attached to two things
separated by a great distance --"upon" here means "above." They fly "above" the earth and "in front of" the
blue sky. The overall effect is to say they fly between earth and heaven.

To man’s view, they are located in the firmament heaven, just as are the heavenly lights (sun, moon, and
stars, Gen. 1:14, 16). Thus, they are the living creatures of the heavenly environment. As noted, this
environment is associated symbolically with the highest heavens, with angelic (and demonic) powers. Such
beings, as we shall see, are also "flying creatures." Moreover, in the context of Genesis 1 itself, we have
seen darkness hovering "upon the face of" the deep, and the Spirit of God also hovering "upon the face of"
the waters (1:2). That initial non-moral contest of Spirit and darkness takes on an added dimension once sin
enters the world. The contest of righteousness and evil is likened to a contest of light and darkness. This
will inform our understanding of the nature of clean and unclean flying creatures, and is discussed in paper
no. 13.9

21. And God created the great tannins, and every animated living thing that crawls (remesh), with
which the waters swarm (sherets), after their kind, and every winged flying thing after its kind.
And God saw that it was good.

Two additional dimensions of the creation come before us in this verse. First is that of the great "tannins,"
or sea monsters. The reference here is to huge beasts, at this point those that dwell in the water. The term is
used for a smaller reptile in Exodus 7:9-12, but for symbolic reasons. 10 The tannins are never listed with
other animals as a separate category of the animal realm, 11 and they do not figure in the lists of Leviticus 11
and Deuteronomy 14. According to the criteria given there they would have been unclean.

Second, the term remesh is here used for the water creatures. Its meaning overlaps that of sherets, but there
is a distinction. Sherets views these creatures as a teeming, swarming, prolific multitude, whereas remesh
views the same creatures as a creeping, crawling, wriggling mass.12 The idea of locomotion is present with
both terms, but sherets entails also the idea of multiplication and reproduction, while remesh entails also
the idea of wriggling or crawling, motion in close proximity to environment. In this book, I shall use
"crawl" for remesh and "swarm" for sherets.13

The difference in these terms is very important for our purposes. The land remesh crawls about in the dirt
(‘adamah), and it is this soil that is "cursed" in Genesis 3:19. The remesh is also more generally said to
crawl around upon the ‘erets, the term used for an ordered cosmos, but also rendered "earth, land" in
English. On the other hand, the land sherets swarms and multiplies upon the ‘erets, never in the ‘adamah
(dirt). Thus, remesh is fundamentally associated with soil, though it can also be used for sea creatures (but
not for winged creatures), while sherets is fundamentally associated with space or place, and can describe
"teeming, swarming life" in all four categories.

9
Ibid.
10
Tannins as symbols of powerful men and rulers appear later in the Bible as super-beasts and dragons, especially in Daniel and
Revelation. The appearance of the "dragon" in Exodus 7 is picked up by the prophets later on when they refer to Pharaoh and Egypt as
dragons; cf. Isaiah 51:9; Ezekiel 29:3.
11
The only passages that put the tannins in close association with other animals are Psalm 148:7-10 and Job 38:39--41:34. In the
latter, as an illustration of wisdom, ten animals are briefly discussed in five pairs, and then as a climax, Behemoth and Leviathan are
discussed at some length. The structure of the ten-animal list (38:39--39:30) is fascinating. For starters, the first, last, and sixth animals
are cherubim faces (lion, eagle, ox), and next to each of these is a winged bird (lion-raven, ox-ostrich, eagle-hawk), adding to the
cherubim association. In terms of the five pairs, the ox is not paired with the ostrich, however, but predictably with the ass --
apparently the latter association is more important. Thus, the first, third, and fifth pairs are cherubic in association. The second pair
(goat-deer) is clean, while the fourth pair (ostrich-horse) is unclean.
12
Herrnann J. Austel, "sherets," TWOT #2467, 2:956-957. See also J. T. Dennison, Jr., "Creeping Things," The International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia, fully revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-) 1:812, "[Remesh] is a general term signifying the smaller
animals which, to the eye of the observer, appear to creep or crawl along the ground."
13
For simplicity, I shall use remesh and sherets throughout this book to denote the Hebrew root terms, regardless of whether a noun or
verbal form is present in the Hebrew text.

70
 Diagram 6.1

Term Environment Focus

remesh ‘adamah crawling in the earth (soil)

sherets ‘erets swarming in the land (place)

While we return to this matter in paper no. 13,14 it will be useful to take note of the distinction here. The
sherets swarms and multiplies in a given place, and what makes the sherets unclean in Leviticus 11 is that
he, like the serpent, is a boundary transgressor, breaking the bounds of a given place. He reminds the
Israelite not to try and break into the Tabernacle. He reminds the Israelite not to let idolaters break into and
influence his household. The remesh crawls in the soil of the earth, and what makes him unclean is that he
is like the serpent in having the curse-prosecuting soil as his environment. (We take up the curse on the soil
in detail in paper no. 8.)15

What is interesting here is the use of remesh for fishes. While some sea creatures can be said to crawl in the
dirt, most fish do not. We might expect the Bible to take note of this distinction, and say that clean fish are
those that travel in the water, while unclean fish are those that crawl along in the mud (soil). But that is not
what Leviticus 11 says. It simply says that clean fish have both fins and scales, and unclean fish do not. The
distinction between swimmers and bottom-dwellers is not in view at all.

So, all water creatures are said to crawl, in some sense. All water creatures and some land creatures are said
to crawl, while all winged creatures and some land creatures do not crawl. The distinction seems to be this:
Non-crawlers move about basically in the atmosphere. They either fly, or stand erect with only feet
touching the ground. In contrast, crawlers move about in the midst of soil or water, things below the
atmosphere. In terms of this distinction, human beings are not crawlers.

Let us now move on to the land animals.

24. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the animated living creature after its kind: cattle
(behemah), and crawler (remesh), and living thing (beast) of the earth." And it was established.

Land animals were made on the sixth day, along with man. Three kinds of land animals were created. The
cattle, or behemah, are domestic animals in the sense that they live with man. Not dogs and cats, but
livestock and work animals are what is really in view. The "living thing of the earth," generally translated
"beast of the earth," is the "wild" animal. Third is the land crawler.

There is a great deal of overlap between "cattle" and "beast" as these are used in the Old Testament.
Depending on the context, either term can embrace the entire land animal realm. Where a distinction is
drawn, however, it is that "cattle" are those animals close to man. This is seen most clearly in the Mosaic
revelation. God's judgment against Egypt included both men and cattle, and as a result, God claimed the
firstborn of both men and cattle (Ex. 12:12, 29; 13:2, 12, 15). The word "beast" never occurs in these
contexts. This is also true of Leviticus 27:26-27 and Numbers 18:15. The word "beast" is used other places
in Exodus and Leviticus, but never in connection with the firstborn stipulation.

The firstborn of both clean and unclean cattle belonged to God, both ox and ass (Num. 18:15-16). The
firstborn of clean and unclean beasts, however, were not claimed by God, neither deer nor lion. The
situation is fairly obvious, then. Those animals that live with man, so that man is present when they give
birth, are included in the firstborn law. Those animals that do not live with man, so that man is not present
when they give birth, are not included. As a result of this examination, we can see clearly the distinction
between "cattle" and "beast," though we don't know exactly how the Israelites classed every animal. Were

14
Jordan, “Exposition of Leviticus 11.”
15
James B. Jordan, "Diet From Adam to Moses." Studies in Food & Faith No.8.

71
the firstborn of camels and horses given to the sanctuary? 16 How about domestic cats? The Rabbis held, on
the basis of Deuteronomy 23:18, that the firstborn of dogs had to be killed, since their price might not be
given to the sanctuary (cp. Lev. 27:27).17 This indicates to me that the firstborn of domestic dogs were
included under the rule, while the firstborn of wild dogs would not have been. Again, this makes sense, in
terms of the rule.18

This last consideration forces us to make one final adjustment in our rule. Any animal, regardless of
species, that lives with men is under the firstborn rule, and is regarded as "cattle. " Any animal, regardless
of species, that lives apart from men is, thus, a "beast." Domestic dogs are "cattle," and wild oxen are
"beasts."19 Though God created some animals already tame, it is the eschatological destiny of all beasts to
become cattle under the taming administration of Spiritual men (Is. 65:25). 20

Just as there are three environments -- sky, land, and sea -- with animals appropriate to each, so there are
here set out three environments in the land. The cattle live closest to man. The beasts live farther away from
man, but can be tamed. The crawling things are most remote from man. This three-fold division is found in
Leviticus 5:2, “Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast, or the
carcass of unclean cattle, or a carcass of unclean swarming things....”

The notion of boundary is all-important here. Cattle are animals that live with men, while wild animals are
those that avoid men. There is a clear boundary between the two. Wild beasts seldom come into human
environments. By way of contrast, tame animals ("cattle") like to be with people. The exception to this rule
is the swarmer, who has no respect for boundaries. Bugs, mice, and lizards come into human space at will.
Thus the swarmer is a boundary transgressor.

As will appear later, man as God's priest is a heavenly being, with access to God's sanctuary. The cattle, at
least those that may be sacrificed, which are all clean cattle, have access with him. At the other extreme are
the restless sea and the curse-prosecuting soil, both of which, after the fall of man, have to do with sinners
and Gentiles. The remesh crawlers are associated with these two realms: Remesh is only used for aquatic
and land creatures. In between these two poles is the land, a zone of contest between heaven and sheol,
between God and Satan, between "cattle" and "crawler." Here we find the beast of the earth, some clean
and some unclean. Note, however, that the clean beast (deer, elk) does not have sanctuary access.

Diagram 6.2

Earthly sanctuary clean cattle

‘erets land clean & unclean beasts, unclean cattle
Cursed ‘adamah land crawlers: all unclean

For completeness' sake, let us note that while the land is the primary scene of conflict in the Old Covenant,
there is also a conflict in the heavens, with clean and unclean birds, and a conflict in the Gentile seas, with
clean and unclean remesh fish. Thus, all land remesh are unclean, while aquatic remesh come in both
categories.

16
Actually, unclean "cattle" could not be given to the sanctuary. Instead, a redemption in the amount of five shekels of silver was paid
(Num. 18:16).
17
McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical. Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
[1867-87] 1981) 3:572.
18
Perhaps it was a matter of animals that had marketable value versus those that did not. Camels, horses, garbage-collecting swine,
and donkeys would have commanded a price in the market, and so God claimed their firstborn and the people paid the five shekel
redemption. On the other hand, it is doubtful if Israelites ever purchased or sold dogs and cats, so possibly these were not under this
rule.
19
The Bible speaks of wild asses several places, though the Hebrew uses a separate term (pere’) for them (e.g., Job. 6:5; Ps. 104:11;
Hos. 8:9). It is only the domestic ass (hamor) whose firstborn is claimed by God (Ex. 13:13).
20
Hirsch summarizes, "By the term behemah [cattle] is understood those animals which normally subjugate themselves to the service
of man, which form the bamah [high place, throne] for Man's superiority. The idea hayah [beast], on the other hand, comprises all the
others, which nonnally escape his sovereignty and demonstrate an 'independent life.' So in Gen. 7:14 and 8:1. Nevertheless, the term
hayah occurs also as the general idea of living creatures, as in Gen. 8:17 & 19....But the term behemah also occurs in a wider sense to
include the whole animal world as subjugated to Man, as in Gen. 6:7; 7:23; Ex. 9:25." Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch
Translated and Explained, trans. Isaac Levy. Vol. 3: Leviticus, 2d ed. (London: Honig and Sons, 1962), p. 267.

72
What emerges from this look at Genesis 1:20-24 are six categories of animals:

tannins (sea monsters, and other large reptiles)

water swarmers (fish)
winged things (birds, bats, and winged insects)
domestic animals wild animals
crawlers/swarmers

This general category scheme is used throughout Genesis, and the rest of the Bible, with variations due to
context. A comprehensive survey of the animal lists in the Bible is found in the appendix at the end of this
paper.

The survey in the appendix shows that the Bible definitely categorizes animals by environment. Two
environmental category schemes, arising from Genesis 1, can be seen in the Biblical lists. 21 The first
category scheme is that of the heavens above (winged creatures; birds), the earth beneath (land creatures),
and the waters below the earth (aquatic swarmers; fishes). The second category scheme divides the earth
into three zones, with domestic animals, wild animals, and swarmers/crawlers as its three animal
inhabitants.

The literary structure of Leviticus 11 makes use of this double three-fold division. First, vertically, in verses
2-23 are discussed land animals (vv. 2-8), fish (vv. 9-12), and flying creatures (vv. 13-19). Then,
horizontally, in verses 22-45 are discussed land animals, or more precisely "land swarmers," since all the
land animals are considered swarmers here. The double three-fold division does not account for every
aspect of the structure of Leviticus 11, because there is more to the chapter than we have seen thus far. 22 It
does account, however, for some of the broader divisions in the text.

After the rebellion of Adam, each of these environments became a place of conflict between God and
Satan, between the righteous and the wicked. Accordingly, each of these environments has clean and
unclean representatives, except for the crawlers. All crawlers move on their bellies, serpent-like, in the
curse-prosecuting soil, and thus all are unclean. By way of anticipation, we shall find the following: 23

The heavens are God's primary domestic environment. Clean and unclean birds often have to do with
angels and demons. Since Israel were a heavenly people, clean and unclean birds also have to do with
Israel.

Israel, the holy land, was also God's domestic environment. The cattle have to do with people living in that
domestic environment. The clean cattle have to do with righteous Israelites, while the unclean cattle, such
as the ass, have to do with excommunicated Israelites.

The world also belongs to God, though outside Israel it was not His peculiar domestic environment --His
house was not placed there. The beasts have to do with the Gentiles. Clean beasts have to do with converted
Gentiles, and unclean beasts have to do with unconverted Gentiles.

Finally, the sea is opposite pole from heaven. The deep is the abode of the dragon, but it also is God's
territory. The sea has to do with the Gentile world. Clean fish are to be associated with converted Gentiles,
and unclean fish with unconverted Gentiles.

21
As the appendix shows, the animal lists most often have four categories, probably to be associated with the number "four" as
meaning the total breadth of creation (four corners of the earth, four rivers out of Eden, etc.). These four-fold lists entail a conflation
of the vertical and horizontal category schemes. Most often we find bird, fish, and then two of the land animal categories.
22
See Jordan, “Exposition of Leviticus 11.”
23
See ibid.

73
 Animals and Men

Having surveyed the categories of creation, let us now briefly overview the ways in which the Bible sets
forth animals as imaging human life. The purpose of this section is two-fold. First, it will establish the
prima facie credibility of the "wisdom interpretation" of Leviticus 11, common among the early Church
Fathers. Second, I hope to show that this approach, though understandable, is in error. The distinction
between clean and unclean, between edible and inedible, is only marginally related to the lifestyle-imaging
aspects of animal life.

Analogy between man and animal is presupposed from the very beginning of scripture. When God decided
to teach Adam that he needed a helper fitted for him, He brought animals to him to name. As the animals
passed before him, Adam noticed that each had a sexual complement. Adam might have reasoned that,
well, after all, these were animals, and unlike him in that respect. We see, however, that he reasoned
analogously: The animals came in male and female categories, and so should man. These animals were
indeed Adam's helpers, but none was his equal, "fitted" for him. Thus, the entire process of reasoning in
Genesis 2:18-20 presupposes the existence of certain analogies between men and animals.

This is because, as we have mentioned earlier, all created things symbolize or point to God, and thus also
point to God's image, man. This is true of animals as well as all things else. God groups animals with men
in certain special ways, however, which indicate a closer analogy between men and animals than between
men and any other aspect of the earthly creation. Both men and animals stand under the penalty of capital
punishment for murder (Gen. 9:5). More specifically, as regards the cattle, both were to keep the sabbath
(Ex. 20:10; Dt. 5:14), both were under the blessing and curse of the covenant (Lev. 26:22; Dt. 28:4), and
the firstborn of both belonged to God. Additionally, the entire logic of the sacrificial system depends upon
analogy between men and animals.

The Mosaic revelation contains numerous laws concerning animals, such as that ox and ass are not to be
yoked together, and that the ox is not to be muzzled while it treads. Commenting on such laws, Paul writes,
"God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it
was written" (1Cor. 9:8-9). In other words, all the animal laws are really concerned with human life. Not
muzzling the laboring ox (Dt. 25:4), in context (25:5-10), means that the levir is entitled to benefit from the
property of the child he rears for his deceased brother, during the years of the child's minority. 24 Paul
applies this to pastors who care for the Church while Christ is in heaven (1Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5: 18).

In fact, if we press Paul's language, these laws did not concern animals at all, but were "altogether" (pantos)
concerned with human beings. Does this mean that the Jews never needed to keep these laws as they
pertained to animals, but only as they pertained to people?25

Or does Paul's "for our sake" refer to the New Covenant believers, and mean that while the Jews were to
keep the "letter," Christians only need to be concerned with the human dimension? Or is Paul's "altogether
24
Cf. my brief remarks in James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1989), p. 67.
25
Carmichael basically advocates just this point. As regards Deuteronomy 22:10, he argues that it is not expressly forbidden to plough
a field with yoked ox and ass, but only to plough with them together in general, language used for sexual relations and finding its
background and fulfillment in human affairs. He also calls attention to the parallel in Leviticus 19:19, which prohibits mixed breeding
of cattle; Calum M. Carmichael, "Forbidden Mixtures," Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 394-415. In this article, Carmichael argues
that the mixed seed and mixed cloth laws of Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11 were not intended to be taken literally. The
Biblical evidence he marshals is interesting, and his thesis merits serious review. Since an ox cannot be bred with an ass, it does seem
as if it was actually impossible to disobey this law, taken literally. Thus, the Israelite was impelled to consider its application to human
affairs.
As regards Deuteronomy 25:4, he argues that the text does not forbid muzzling the ox while he is treading grain, but only while he is
treading in general, language again used for sexual relations and finding its background and fulfillment in human affairs. This raises
the same kind of question: Why would anyone put a muzzle on an ox while breeding it? The seeming absurdity of the law, as stated,
forces us to look further to an application in human affairs. See Carmichael, Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the
Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), pp. 292-295; and Carmichael, "'Treading' in the
Book of Ruth," Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenshaft 92 (1980) :248-66. Carmichael's writings abound in useful
connections between animal laws and human affairs, but are marred by his commitment to a critical view of the dating of
Deuteronomy. My own comments on the laws of mixtures are found in James B. Jordan, "The Law of Forbidden Mixtures." Biblical
Horizons Occasional Paper No.6.

74
for our sake" only a hyperbole of comparison? It seems to me that the Israelite was to honor both the literal
and the extended meaning of these laws, under the principle that faithfulness in small things is the sign of
faithfulness in larger things (Matt. 23:23; 25:21, 23). Paul's statement makes it clear that in the New
Covenant, the letter of these particular laws is no longer binding.

One thing is clear: The primary focus of the animal laws in the Mosaic revelation is the symbolic and
human dimension. According to Paul, God is not as much concerned with whether or not we yoke oxen
with asses, as He is concerned with whether or not we marry unbelievers.

Not all animals symbolize the same things about God and man, however. The Scriptures help us in seeing
the precise ways in which certain animals image the life of man, both positively and negatively. This is
particularly in evidence in poetry and proverbs. For instance, in Genesis 49 we see Jacob blessing his sons
using animal imagery. Judah is compared to a lion, Issachar to an ass, Dan to a serpent, Naphtali to a deer,
and Benjamin to a wolf. Numerous other passages could be pointed to as well (cf. e.g., Num. 23:34; 24:9; 2
Sam. 1:23; 16:9; 2Ki. 8:13).26

There is little need to expand on this point, however, since the book of Proverbs is familiar to everybody. It
is well known that the Bible draws comparisons between human beings and animals, and in particular
regards. The question now is how much of this is relevant to Leviticus 11. The answer is that very little is.

There is nothing necessarily ignoble or degraded about unclean animals. The Bible has many fine things to
say about the eagle, calling attention to his kingly appearance and superior power. The Bible describes the
speed of the eagle, the sweep of his wings in flight, and his characteristic manner of swooping down to
attack his victims.27 Indeed, one of the faces of the cherubim is that of an eagle (Ezk. 1:10). Yet the eagle
was an unclean animal. The same is true of the lion; indeed, Christ is the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Yet the
lion was unclean. The eagle and lion were every bit as unclean as dogs and pigs, but the Bible praises the
eagle and the lion, while Scripture has nothing good to say about dogs and pigs. And, unclean though the
serpent was, it is used to describe the tribe of Dan in what one writer has called a "flattering metaphor.”28
Jesus told us to be "wise as serpents" (Mt. 10:16).

What this means is that we have to be extremely precise in determining exactly what made clean animals
clean, and unclean animals unclean. It was not their general habits, as described in poetry, prophecy, or
proverbs. It was, rather, the precise details given in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The lion was
defined as unclean, resembling in part the Satan-possessed nations, in only one respect: He does not have
split hooves and does not chew the cud. At the same time, he is a fine and noble beast.

As we shall see in later studies in this series (especially paper no.10: "The Meaning of Clean and
Unclean"), the unclean animals are those associated with God's judgments, and thus are associated in part
with the civil magistracy in Israel. Benjamin, from which came Saul, is like a wolf; the royal tribe of Judah
is like a lion; Dan, who will judge his people, is like a serpent; and so forth. To be "unclean," to minister
God's judgments upon humanity, can be a high and noble calling. After all, God Himself will do this
"unclean" act at the Last Assize. On the other hand, it is possible to minister God's judgments in a violent
and savage way, delighting in destruction. This is how Satan carries out God's will. The point to bear in
mind for the moment is that "uncleanness" is in itself neutral regarding moral estate or intention. Unclean
animals are not wicked or evil, and do not necessarily symbolize wicked or evil forces. They are, however,
agents of judgment.

The wisdom approach to the law of clean and unclean animals, favored by the early Church Fathers, while

26
See my fuller discussion in Through New Eves, pp. 23, 26, 96- 99. See also Elijah Judah Schochet's fine work, Animal Life in
Jewish Tradition: Attitudes and Relationships (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1984), chap. 3. This book is a gold mine of
information. For a very interesting modern attempt to extend these principles, see the lavishly illustrated volumes published by the
Institute for Basic Youth Conflicts, Box One, Oak Brook, IL 60522 entitled Character Sketches: From the Pages of Scripture,
Illustrated in the World of Nature (1976, 1978, 1982).
27
See Schochet, p. 39.
28
Ibid., p. 41.

75
close to the truth, is thus in error.29 It is an understandable error, but an error nonetheless. If we are to
uncover the rationale for the categories of Leviticus 11, we must take that passage in its context, and avoid
the temptation of bringing other contexts to it.

There is one exception: the birds. No rule is given for them in Leviticus 11, and so we shall be forced to
examine other Biblical passages to seek and uncover the rationale(s) concerning them. 30 Even here,
however, our approach will have to be governed by the overarching considerations of the preceding
Tabernacle legislation.

Conclusion

This essay establishes two points. The first is that God designed creation with specific zones, and placed
animals within these zones. These categories are very relevant to Leviticus 11, and to the law of clean and
unclean animals.

The second is that animals image human life. They do so in a variety of ways, as the Bible makes clear
repeatedly. At the same time, the way in which animals image humanity as clean and unclean, acceptable
and not acceptable, is not the same as the way they image other dimensions of human life, and the latter
must not be imported into Leviticus 11 as a hermeneutic. Rather, Leviticus 11 must be interpreted on i ts
own terms, in its own context.

Appendix: Animal Lists in the Bible

The purpose of this appendix is to provide background information, by surveying the animal lists of the
Bible. Before launching into our survey, i t is worth noting that the animal 1ists in the Bible usually are
either three-fold or four-fold. Related to this seems to be the use of four as the number of the corners of the
earth. Thus, a four-fold list, one way or another, is designed usually to indicate the whole of the animal
creation. The three-fold list goes back to the double set of three zones set out in Genesis 1. The vertical set
of three zones is sky (birds), sea (fish), and land (cattle, beast, or crawler; any of the three terms will do).
The horizontal set of three zones is inhabited by cattle, beast, and crawler. Thus, a three-fold list also can
indicate the whole of the animal creation. What we almost never find is what we might have expected, a
five-fold list (excluding tannins).31

Genesis 1:25
beasts of the ‘erets
cattle
crawlers on the ‘adamah

The word ‘adamah is apparently used because the full three-fold land animal category scheme is employed.
The crawlers are particularly associated with the soil.

Genesis 1:26
fish
birds
cattle
"all the earth"
crawlers on the ‘erets

"All the earth" may refer to the beasts of the field (see remarks on Job 12:7-8 below), but if it does not, this
would explain why the phrase "crawlers on the 'erets" is used; to wit, to refer to both beasts and crawlers.

29
See James B. Jordan, "The Approach of the Church Fathers to the Dietary law of Moses. "Studies in Food & Faith No.4.”
30
See Jordan, "Exposition of Leviticus 11."
31
See Clark, "Animal Series" (footnote 2 above)

76
 Genesis 1:28
fish
birds
crawlers on the ‘erets

Here clearly "crawlers on the ‘erets" embraces cattle and beasts. In this context, the phrase is general for all
landed animals. The three-decker universe is in view.

Genesis 1:30
beast of the ‘erets
bird
crawler on the ‘erets

Here "crawler on the ‘erets" may embrace cattle as well as the 'adamah crawlers. Possibly, however, cattle
are omitted from this list because they, being domesticated, are dependent on man for food.

From what we have seen thus far it emerges that "crawlers on the ‘adamah" is a phrase to denote small
animals that live in or near the soil: rodents, insects, lizards. The expression "crawlers on the ‘erets" can be
used for this group, but can also be used for any category of land animal, regardless of whether or not they
move close to the soil. In Genesis 1:28, crawlers includes all land animals. 32

In Genesis 2, the phrase "beast of the field" is used for the first time. In the context of Genesis 2, the "field"
is the area outside the garden sanctuary (2:5, 8). Unlike "beast of the earth," the phrase "beast of the field"
is consistently used exclusively for wild animals. 33 The term "field" (sadeh) is used with respect to three
environments. Anything outside God's sanctuary is called "field." Second, anything outside one's private
dwelling or city walls is called "field," so that a man's field is his property, exclusive of his house and
garden.34 Third, "field" is used for uncultivated land, wilderness, as in the expressions "trees of the field"
and "beasts of the field."

Genesis 2:19
bird
beasts of the field

God brought these to Adam, since they were not domestic.

32
This shows that it is not the action of crawling that makes the crawlers unclean. All animals are said to crawl upon the 'erets, and
that includes clean animals. Moreover, all fish are crawlers, but some are clean. Rather, what emerges is that the land crawler is
unclean because of his association with the curse-prosecuting ‘adamah. His mode of locomotion forces him to the dust, but it is not the
locomotion per se that makes him unclean. This is contrary to the thesis of Mary Douglas, discussed in paper no.5 in this series (James
B. Jordan, "Interpretations of the Mosaic Dietary Laws: A Survey." Studies in Food & Faith No.5). On crawlers and swarmers, see
Jordan, "Exposition of Leviticus 11."
33
Cf. Genesis 3:1, 14;
Exodus 22:31; 23:11, 29;
Leviticus 26:22;
Deuteronomy 7:22;
1 Samuel 17:44;
2 Samuel 17:8; 21:10;
2 Kings 14:9;
2 Chronicles 25:18;
Job 5:23; 39:15; 40:20;
Psalm 8:7; 50:11; 80:13; 104:11;
Canticles 2:7; 3:5; Isaiah 43:20; 56:9;
Jeremiah 12:9; 14:5; 27:6; 28:14;
Ezekiel 31:6, 13; 34:5, 8; 38:20; 39:4, 17;
Hosea 2:12, 18; 4:3; 13:8;
Joel 1:20; 2:22.
34
See James B. Jordan, "The Law of Forbidden Mixtures." Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.6.

77
 Genesis 2:20
cattle birds
beasts of the field

The cattle were already present with Adam. Fishes were not included on this occasion, and apparently
small ground swarmers were not either.

Genesis 6:7
cattle
crawlers
birds

Fish were not wiped out in the Flood (unless fresh water fish were killed by salt water, but the Bible takes
no notice of that). The word behemah is sometimes used for all larger animals, and here apparently
embraces beasts, contemplated as under human dominion. See 7:8 below. The list starts with "man," and
thus is four-fold.

Genesis 6:20
birds
cattle
crawlers of the ‘adamah

This verse restricts "crawlers" to the small animals, so "cattle" probably embraces both livestock and
beasts.

Genesis 7:8
clean cattle
unclean cattle
birds
crawlers on the ‘adamah

Again, "cattle" doubtless embraces beasts as well. Both cattle and beasts came in clean and unclean
categories.

Genesis 7:14
beasts
cattle
crawlers on the ‘erets
birds

Here all four categories of land creatures are listed, and the stress seems thus to be on the entire four-fold
animal creation's being preserved on the ark. 'erets is used here and throughout the Flood narrative because
it refers to ordered, structure cosmos. It is this cosmos, not the soil (‘adamah) that is destroyed and
reformed by the Flood.

Genesis 7:21
birds
cattle
beasts
swarmers on the ' erets

This is the only category list in the Bible to use "swarmers" (sherets) instead of "crawlers" (remesh). The
verse begins "all flesh that crawled on the ‘erets perished." Even birds are included among those who
"crawl on the 'erets" in this instance. Moses could have gone ahead and written "crawlers" a second time,
using it in the restricted sense, as in 8:19. His choice of "swarmers" points to reproduction. All the
"fruitfulness and multiplication" (Gen. 1:22, 28) stopped with the Flood. After the Flood, all animals are

78
again told to multiply, to swarm, sherets (Gen. 8:17). The four-fold list stresses that the entire animal
creation was destroyed, except for those on the ark (and fish, of course).

Genesis 7:23
cattle
crawlers
birds

Once again, "cattle" includes "beasts" here. The list begins with "man," and thus is four-fold, reinforcing
the completeness of the earth's destruction.

Genesis 8:17
birds
cattle
crawlers on the 'erets

In this context, "cattle" probably embraces "beasts,” and "crawlers on the ‘erets" is used because of the
ordered-cosmos setting. The verse explains that, now that the Flood is over, they are once again to multiply
and "swarm." I speculate that the three-fold list here points back to the three-fold divisions of Genesis 1,
since this verse draws heavily on the language of Genesis 1.

Genesis 8:19
beast,
crawler,
and bird;
crawler on the 'erets

Here "crawler on the ‘erets" is a general phrase for the three preceding categories, as the punctuation,
reflecting the Hebrew, indicates. I take beast and crawler in the list to be precise terms, and cattle to be
embraced under the concluding generality.

Genesis 9:2
beasts of the earth
bird
crawler on the ‘adamah
fish

Cattle are probably omitted because they were already under the close "fear" of man. Possibly, however,
they are to be understood with "beasts," and are omitted simply to give us a four-fold list: all the animal
creation under the fear of man.

Deuteronomy 4:17-18
"cattle on the 'erets"
bird of the heavens
crawler on the ‘adamah
fish of the water below the earth

The three environments are clearly set out, after the more general reference to cattle on the ‘erets. I
interpret the first phrase as embracing cattle and beasts, and the last three as giving pointed notice regarding
idolatry in terms of the three spheres. Notice the desire to create a four-fold list.

1 Kings 4:33
cattle
bird
crawler
fish

79
These are the four categories of animals that Solomon spoke of. Beasts are included with cattle. Notice the
desire to create a four-fold list. This continues to be apparent in most of the following lists as well.

Job 12:7-8
cattle
birds
'erets
fish

Here 'erets possibly has reference to the "beasts of the field" (see Genesis 1:26 above). Another possibility
is that "cattle" embraces all large land animals, and ‘erets has to do with "the small living things which
move about on the ground, comprehended in the collective name remesh."35

Psalm 8:7-8
sheep and oxen (cattle)
"cattle of the field" (beasts)
birds
fish

The notion is that man rules over all things, and I believe that is why the unusual expression "cattle of the
field" is used: It connotes tameness as regards the wild animals.

Psalm 148:7-10
tannins;
beasts
cattle
crawlers
birds

Fish are omitted, but surprisingly tannins are included, though several verses apart from the rest.

Ezekie1 38:20
fish
birds
beasts of the field
crawlers on the ‘adamah

The category terms are most precise. Only cattle are omitted.

Hosea 2:18
beasts of the field
birds
crawlers on the ‘adarnah

The notion here is that of taming the wild, so cattle are omitted. The context is the land, so fish are omitted.

Hosea 4:3
beasts of the field
birds
fish

35
F. Delitzsch, Commentary on Job, 2 vols., trans. by Francis Bolton. Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, [19th c.] 1970) 1:198. Delitzsch discusses and generally refutes the idea that ‘erets here could be calling
attention to plant life.

80
It is curious that cattle are not mentioned here, unless they are included along with men in the phrase
"everyone who lives in the land." The three-fold list goes with the triple-decker universe.

Zephaniah 1:3
cattle
birds
fish

Cattle here includes beasts, since total judgment is pictured. Three-fold list goes with three vertical zones of
creation.

Acts 10:12
quadrupeds
crawling creatures
birds

Here is the Greek equivalent of the Old Testament categories. Quadrupeds covers both cattle and beast.
Fish are omitted. Crawling creatures is herpeton.

Acts 11:6
quadrupeds
wild beasts
crawling creatures
birds

Peter elaborates on the vision to make sure his audience knew that he was commanded to kill and eat wild
beasts and not just cattle.

Romans 1:23
birds
quadrupeds
crawling things

Here again, quadrupeds embraces cattle and beasts. Why fish are omitted from the list of idols is a
curiosity.

James 3:7
beasts birds
crawlers
sea creatures (fish)

Since cattle were created tame, James does not list them among the creatures tamed by man. "Sea
creatures" rather than "fish" is used, the only time in the New Testament, probably because James had seals
or some other trainable mind. The point is to notice the sea creature rather than fish in categories at work.

We can conclude from this survey that the Bible categorizes animals by environment. The first category
scheme is that of the heavens above (winged creatures; birds), the earth beneath, and the waters below the
earth (aquatic swarmers; fishes). The second category scheme divides the earth into three zones, with
domestic animals, wild animals, and swarmers/crawlers as its three animal inhabitants.

81
 SECTION 07 - THE MEANING OF EATING IN THE BIBLE

What does it mean to eat? The question can be answered in a variety of ways. For instance, eating is a
social phenomenon, involving closed and open circles: There are some people we don't want to eat with,
people we eat more informally with, people we "put on the dog for," and so forth. Eating is also an
aesthetic phenomenon, entailing both culinary artistry and certain rituals delineated in books of etiquette.
Additionally, eating can be a pathological phenomenon, with extremes of gluttony and drunkenness at one
end, and abstemiousness and anorexia at the other; and between these extremes are found people who eat
compulsively when they are nervous, people who diet constantly to maintain an artificial thinness, and so
forth.

The question, however, is what does eating mean in terms of the Biblical worldview. since eating is one of
the most fundamental of all human activities, we can anticipate that the Biblical view of eating is "all of the
above." For our purposes, however, we shall isolate only a few of the most relevant ones.

Food and Dependence

One of the must fundamental teachings of the Bible and of the Christian religion is that man does not have
life in himself. Man must get life from outside, in order to maintain his life. The way in which this is done
is through eating and drinking. Apart from life, communicated through food and drink, men die. Hunger
communicates to man his lack of independence, his total dependence on something outside himself for life.

Accordingly, the question is: Who or what is man dependent on for life? As we have noted, men need food
for life, but where does food come from? An evolutionary, this-worldly perspective says that the human
person is like a machine that runs on fuel provided by food. Implicit in this perspective is a denial of life, an
assertion that there is finally and ultimately no qualitative difference between a man and a rock. Men are no
more alive than a robot made of steel. The robot runs on electrical energy, and man runs on food.

Even where the older mechanistic worldview breaks down and some kind of vitalism takes its place, the
notion of being "alive" is still fundamentally pantheistic: Man is a "living" animal that stays "alive" by
eating food. From a Christian standpoint, there is not much difference between the mechanistic and the
vitalistic standpoints. Both deny that life is an injection of God's grace from outside the universe, and that
food is merely a channel of that grace.1

The Biblical perspective is far different from either mechanism or vitalism. According to the Bible, man is
given life by the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and also from
the Son, out of eternity into time at every moment of time, to communicate this life. When the Spirit
withdraws, men die.

Christian biochemist Rupert Sheldrake has suggested an analogy that is helpful. Asked about the possibility
of creating life in the laboratory, Sheldrake said this:

Imagine that someone who didn't know anything about transistor radios was shown one, and he
was amazed at the music that came from it and tried to understand it.

He might think that the music originates entirely within the set as a result of complicated
interactions among its parts. If somebody suggested [that the music was] coming from outside
through a transmission....into the set from somewhere else, he might deny it on the grounds that he
could see nothing coming in. Nor could he measure anything because the set weighed the same
1
I should call attention to Magnus Verbrugge, Alive: An Enquiry into the Origin and Meaning of Life (Vallecito, CA: Ross House
Books, 1984). Although I found this book confusing and asseverative in places, it does survey the development of modern biology
from a generally Christian standpoint. I cannot completely endorse the Dooyeweerdian philosophical position that seems to be
intertwined with the discussion.

82
 switched on and switched off, and although he couldn't understand the set in terms of its parts and
their interaction, he might think that as a result of further research, he world be able to do so. So,
he might think he understood the set, or could understand the set in principle, even though, in fact,
he knows nothing about radio waves, etc. He might even try to prove he understood it. He could
take it to pieces. He could find out the things it was made of, silicon crystals, copper wires, and so
on. He might then think he could prove that he understood the set by making a replica. By getting
copper, crystals, and all that, he could make a radio set which would work in the same way as the
original. When switched on, music would come out of it. He could say, "Look, I've fully
understood this thing. I've synthesized one of these things entirely from known materials.”

But still, you see, he wouldn't really understand how it worked. He still wouldn't understand about
radio waves in spite of the fact he'd been able to make a radio set. I think that's just the position
we're in in relation to life. I think the mechanists are like people who try to understand radio sets
ignoring radio waves and concentrating only on copper wires, components, and the way they're
wired together. Those are important of course, and they're really there and if you destroy a
component or take one away the radio won't work properly. But it's only part of the picture.
What's wrong with the mechanistic view is that it's a limited view; like most errors, it is based on a
half-truth.2

What Sheldrake is setting forth by analogy is the Christian view. It is the vitalizing energy of the Holy
spirit that causes living things to be alive.

Does life come from food, then? No. How can it, since food is dead? The flesh we eat is that of dead
animals; the vegetables are dead vegetables. There is no way that we can eat life directly from any other
living thing. The belief that this is possible through wizardry underlies all vampire myths. The vampire
supposedly steals life by drinking the living blood of a living animal or person. Practically speaking, such
behavior would be fruitless. Symbolically speaking, however, vampirism is very important. The Bible tells
us that the life of the flesh is the blood.3 Accordingly, it is the height of idolatrous presumption for man to
attempt to circumvent God's Spirit and get life by drinking blood. God told Noah that man might eat meat
only if he renounced the blood (Gen. 9:4). This stipulation was reiterated to Moses (Lev. 17), and again to
the New Testament Church (Acts 15:28f.).4

It is God's Spirit who makes these dead substances work with our bodies to renew our lives. The action of
the Spirit in communicating general life through food is parallel in concept to His communicating the life
of the New Creation through the dead bread and wine that form the Lord's Supper. Reformed theology has
wavered between the position of Calvin and that of Bullinger on this question. The position of John Calvin
and Martin Bucer has been termed "symbolic instrumentalism," the idea that Christ (and kingdom life) is
communicated to the faithful recipient of the Supper by means of his eating the bread and drinking the
wine. The position of Heinrich Bullinger and John Knox has been called "symbolic parallelism, " the idea
that Christ (and kingdom life) is received by faith while the faithful partakes of bread and wine. 5

Calvin's position is obviously closer to what we think of concerning an ordinary meal. We don't mentally
divorce the act of eating from the expectation of renewed life; rather we expect the Holy Spirit to work
2
Rupert Sheldrake, "Modern Bio-chemistry and the Collapse of Mechanism," in R. A. Varghese, ed., The Intellectuals Speak out
About God (Chicago: Regnery, 1984), pp. 56f. Sheldrake's contribution to this symposium is an interview, and the editor's
transcription is rather crude. I have adjusted some punctuation in the quotation to bring out the sense better.
3
Leviticus 17:11, 14. Cf. Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 244f.; and Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Terminology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983), chap. 8, "A
Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11," reprinted from Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971).
4
Psychotherapist Kathy Snowden, who has worked with satanist ritual abuse cases in Richmond, Virginia, has stated that "torture in
orthodox satanism is not random violence. Satanists believe that life is in blood and that the child who drinks blood is made stronger."
Quoted in Derk Kinnane Roelofsma, "Battling Satanism a Haunting Task," Insight, II Jan. 88, p. 50.
5
The terminology comes from studies by Brian A. Gerrish, especially "The Lord's Supper in the Reformed Confessions, " Theology
Today 23 (1966): 224-243; and "John Calvin and the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper," McCormick Quarterly 22 (1969): 85-
98. Gerrish uses "symbolic memorialism" to designate the Zwinglian view. On Knox, see Richard L. Greaves, Theology and
Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), chap. 5. through the
elements.

83
through the food, and so we ask God to "bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies, through Christ
our Lord. " Such traditional prayers express the Christian belief that dead animal and vegetable matter by
themselves cannot give life. They are rather the instruments by which the Spirit gives life. 6

At creation, God set two trees in the center of the Garden sanctuary, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the
Knowledge of Good and Evil. He told Adam that he might eat freely of every tree except the latter. Clearly
this was an encouragement to Adam to eat of the Tree of Life. Adam decided that he had life in himself,
however, and that he did not need to seek life from God. He seized the forbidden fruit, and lost Eden.

To teach Adam and his heirs that they do not have life in themselves, God caused men to hunger. Adam
would have to labor hard to eat, by the sweat of his brow. Repeatedly throughout the Bible, especially in
the wilderness wanderings, God made His people hungry so that they would cry to Him as the only source
of life. Similarly, Jesus let the crowds that followed Him become hungry, and then He fed them.

Men do not have life in themselves, then, and the only place they can get it is from God. God has appointed
food as the means by which He communicates life to man. God gives life to all men through food. As we
shall see, dietary restrictions are His primary means of separating the grateful from the ungrateful. Those
who truly believe that life comes only from God will respect His dietary boundaries.

Food and History

A second aspect of eating is that food is both fuel and reward. We need food to get going, but good food is
also our blessing for a job well done. Food is, thus, both alpha and omega, and our lives are encircled by
food.

Adam's first full day was God's seventh. Adam began in rest. He began with a day of worship. He began, or
was supposed to begin, at the Tree of Life. This would be his week's "breakfast," his first meal, his alpha
fuel.

Adam's labors would make him hungry, however. He would look forward to coming home for dinner.
Thus, his dinner would be a reward for his labors, his omega food. And, in terms of the weekly sabbatical
cycle, Adam would look forward to eating of the Tree of Life once again with God.

Alpha food -- do you start off the day with a glass of wine? I hope not. Alpha food is bread, not wine. But
how about omega food? Is mere bread a wonderful reward? For a starving man, yes, but not for the royal
family of the King of kings. No, our reward is such wine as makes men marvel. As at the wedding feast at
Cana, it was the best wine that was saved for the last. Christ, our Bread and Wine, is both our alpha fuel
and our omega reward.

It is possible to carry this reflection back into the original garden sanctuary. The Tree of Life was alpha
fuel, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil -- which had to do with enthronement and investiture
--was the omega reward. The first was like bread, and the second like wine. 7 By seizing the reward, Adam
demonstrated impatience. After all, God had promised that eventually he would be given it (Gen. 1:29). 8

6
The same is true of the bread and wine used in Holy Communion. No change takes place in the substances; rather, Christ and the
Kingdom are received with and by means of the bread and wine. No matter how many prayers are said over them, the bread and wine
remain dead bread and dead wine. The leftovers will spoil and turn to vinegar as rapidly as any other dead bread and dead wine. The
miracle takes place in the act of reception, and what makes this food different from daily food is that it is not first creation life that is
communicated, but New Creation life that is given by the Spirit
7
Please note: I am not identifying the Tree of Knowledge with the grape, except in a sense of symbolic parallelism. Note however,
that man's first food was grain and fruit (Gen. 1:29), and this carries over to the bread and wine offered Abram by Melchizedek, the
baker and cupbearer in prison with Joseph (both of whom he replaced), the bread and wine on the table of showbread, and the bread
and wine of the Lord's Supper. Thus, it is not too farfetched to suggest that the Tree of Life is equivalent to bread, and the Tree of
Knowledge to wine.
8
On the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and its relation to enthronement and investiture with authority, see James B. Jordan,
"Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis, II in Gary North, ed., Tactics of Christian Resistance. Christianity &
Civilization 3 (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1983).

84
This is one dimension, I believe, of the meaning of the Mosaic dietary stipulations. As we shall see, these
were definitely sanctuary rules. Acts 10 and 11 make plain that eating the flesh of unclean animals has to
do symbolically with Spiritual dominion over (conversion of) the Gentiles. Such dominion was promised to
Abraham, but it was not to be given until God was ready. To refrain from the flesh of unclean animals was
to exercise patience, and wait upon the Lord's timing. When He was ready, He would give them dominion
over all the world, and let them eat the flesh of all beasts.

Food as Union and communion

In a biological sense, food makes us one flesh with others who eat the same food we eat. If you and I eat
the same meal, the same broccoli you eat is also going into me. The same beef I eat is going into you.
Through the activity of re-creation, these food molecules are processed into renewed flesh, flesh that is in
some sense the same for you and for me. Thus, for us to share a meal is for us in a slight degree to be
mutually recreated as one flesh.

Food renews us. It regenerates and re-creates us. It takes two people and by regeneration makes them one
flesh, while still affirming their individuality. The only other place in common life where this is the case is
in marital relations (Gen. 2:24; 1Cor. 6:16). We shall return to the matter of food and sex below.

The physical aspects of unity created by eating the same foods are not particularly important. My next-door
neighbor might eat all the same foods I do, yet we might have nothing in common or even be at odds with
one another. The true uniting power of food lies in the common meal. It is the shared meal that works some
kind of "covenantal" bond among those participating in it. There are several levels of this. For our
purposes, we can distinguish the following four levels of unity expressed in meals:

1. Hospitality Meals. Here people eat together simply for fellowship. I see no evidence in the Old
Testament that the Israelites were prohibited from enjoying simple hospitality meals with unconverted
Gentiles, even in a Gentile home or tent, provided the dietary laws were not violated.

2. Contract Meals. Here people eat together to seal some kind of business arrangement. Again, I see no
evidence in the Old Testament to suggest that Israelites might not do business deals with unconverted
Gentiles. Since, however, the Israelite was to be the lender and not the borrower (Dt. 28:12), and thus was
supposed to be the stronger party, such contract meals would normally be eaten on Israelite ground rather
than on Gentile ground. The Jewish caravaner would host the Gentile in his own tent, rather than going to
the Gentile's.

3. Covenant Meals. Here people eat together either to form a permanent covenant (such as marriage) or to
celebrate it (as in the family). Since the Israelites were not to form covenants with unbelievers, such
covenant meals could not be shared with them, whether marital covenants or international covenants.

4. Sacrificial/Sacramental Meals. Here people eat together with God. Clearly, since union with God is in
view, the unconverted are excluded.

When we see that sharing a meal has this unitive function, we understand why, in a deep psychological and
spiritual sense, it matters to us whom we eat with. If we are in a state of tension with another person, we
don't feel comfortable eating with him. In our culture we don't institutionalize this phenomenon in terms of
in- group and out-group meals, but we still experience the underlying realities. 9 If anyone has ever asked
you out to lunch "to talk over our problems and differences," you know what I mean. You don't want to eat
with him, and you certainly don't want to become beholden to him by his paying for the meal! Better to
have such tense conversations away from food.

9
In-group meals are still found, of course, in the military, in lodges, and in other organizations. These do not visibly have religious
meaning in our culture, however, as they do in archaic cultures.

85
There are several dimensions of this that are generally relevant to our consideration of Leviticus 11.

Covenant Union

The first is that God is willing to sit down and share a meal with His people. This is only possible when the
estrangement between God and His people has been overcome, and thus those occasions when God eats
with His people are signs that they are at peace.

More than this, though, the covenant meal strengthens and seals the relationship between God and His
people, and creates a new dimension to their union in that both are eating the same food. This is particularly
evident in the rules for the Peace Offering. Let me quote from what I have written elsewhere: "In the Peace
Sacrifice a meal was shared among the offerer, the officiating priest, and the Lord. Some of the
characteristics of this meal were as follows:

1. The offerer eats part of the sacrifice (Lev. 7:15-17).

2. Some of the meat is given to the Lord, Who gives it back to the priest to eat (Lev. 7:28-34;
10:14f.; 21:22).
3. The fat and certain organs are burnt up, turned into smoke, as food for the Lord (Lev. 3:11, 16;
22:25).
4. The unleavened bread is burnt up as food for the Lord, while leavened bread is eaten by offerer
and priest (Lev. 7:11- 14).
5. Wine is poured out for God to drink, while the participants also drink wine (Num. 15:1-10).
6. Some examples of Peace Sacrifices are found in Genesis 18:1-8, Genesis 31:54, Exodus 18:12,
and Exodus 24:1-11. Passover is a variant of the Peace Sacrifice." 10

What all this means is that in the communion meal, God is willing to become one "flesh" with us. In the
New Covenant, this is realized in the Lord's Supper. When we, to use Biblical language, eat the flesh and
drink the blood of Jesus Christ (John 6: 53), we become one with Him; but since God the Father has also
"accepted" Christ's sacrifice, and "incorporated" Him into heaven, then the Father is also "eating" the
sacrifice of Christ. In this way, God and man are symbolically joined in Christ, who is Himself the God-
man.

Union between God and His people was signified through the sacrificial system in the Old Covenant. God
would refuse to eat a meal with any man who was unclean, because cleanness was a precondition for
approach to the sanctuary area, as well as a condition for eating any food offered there (Lev. 11:43-44;
7:19-21). Eating the meat of unclean animals was, thus, incompatible with eating sacrifices. This helps
establish that unclean animals were images, at this point, of demonized persons, and to eat their flesh was
to eat at the "table of demons.” One cannot eat at both the table of demons and the table of the Lord.11

A Sweet Savor

Another dimension of union and communion is that eating the same food causes us to smell the same.
Arthur Custance has called attention to this phenomenon:

One final aspect of family life relates to the face that in simpler societies, or in the higher cultures
that have a very stable diet, all the members who "belong" have a tendency to develop the same
characteristic body odor. A foreigner has a body odor that is different and for that reason apt to be
"unpleasant." Food has a tremendous effect in this respect when it is not varied from meal to meal
and when washing of the body is not an important part of daily life. One of the first things that a
man will do when he returns after a period of absence is to bury his nose in the necks of his
10
James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985), p. 121. Judges 6:17-24 is another
instance of a Peace Sacrifice.
11
In other words, clean animals were neutral. One might eat them and eat either unclean animals or sacrifices, but not both. Unclean
animals and sacrifices were incompatible.

86
 children in order to delight in the familiar odor which is apt to be most readily detected here where
the clothes are vented. Our noses are challenged with so many conflicting odors that we become
comparatively indifferent. In biblical times it was not so.12

Those who hunt deer with bow and arrow, and thus must get close to the animal, avoid meat for days in
advance in order to conceal their odor. American guerillas in Viet Nam ate Vietnamese food for weeks
before going into the bush, so that they would not get sniffed out by Viet Cong adversaries.

If we eat the flesh of Christ, we smell like Christ to God the Father, and to the world. This is exactly the
point Paul makes in 2 Corinthians 2:14-15, "But thanks be to God, who always leads us in His triumph in
Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For we are a
fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the
one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life." Similarly, Ephesians 5:2 calls
Christ's sacrifice a fragrant aroma to God. Additionally, the Philippians' gift to Paul in his need is termed "a
fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God" (Phil. 4:18). All of this, of course, is based on
the "sweet savor" sacrifices of the Old Covenant, which are said to turn away God's wrath (Gen. 8:21).

This provides another dimension, then, to the Levitical provisions. When the faithful Israelite ate his
portion of the sacrifices, especially of Passover, he took on the smell of the sacrifice, and became himself a
sweet smell to God, acceptable to God. Similarly, by eating only the flesh of clean animals in his daily diet,
he smelled clean. It was a smell appropriate to his status as a priest to the nations.

The Marriage Supper

A third dimension of food as union and communion is the analogy between eating and sexual relations.
Both are "one flesh" phenomena, but they run in opposite directions. A common meal is generally an open
event, while sexual relations are wholly private and intimate. The common meal can include a vast
multitude, while sex is to be monogamous. Moreover, in the meal, the one-flesh union is a result
of the life-giving event of eating, while in sex, the one-flesh union is either sufficient unto itself, or else
results in new life. A full understanding of union and communion would involve both of these God-
designed images, both publicly common and monogamously intimate, both the result of life's impartation
and the place of new life's generation.

For these reasons, and doubtless for others as well, sex and food are commonly joined in all cultures. In
America today, it is customary for the bride to feed the groom a piece of wedding cake, and vice versa, at
the wedding reception. And indeed, the Lord's Supper of the Church is called nothing less than "the
Marriage Supper of the Lamb, " a phrase that combines both lines of imagery. 13

Analo1ies between sex and eating run all through the Song of Solomon. 14 Yet such analogies are carefully
restricted in Biblical religion. Because of the intimate and monogamous character of the Biblical idea of
sexual relations, these can never become a religious or sacramental rite. As I have written elsewhere:

In paganism, the marriage relation between a man and his god is seen in sexual terms. Thus,
sexual relations are sacramental in pagan religions, and repeatedly in Scripture this "fertility cult"
form of religion is warned against (for an example, see 1 Sam. 2:22). Because of the
Creator/creature distinction, there is no sexual relationship between God and man. The sexual
relationship between man and woman symbolizes the spiritual marriage between God and His
bride. The act of this Spiritual marriage is not ritual fornication in a temple, but the communion

12
Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man. Doorway Papers, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), p. 285. Elsewhere Custance
calls attention to Genesis 33:4; 45:14; 46:29; Luke 15:20; and Acts 20:37 in this regard.
13
See Gary North, "The Marriage Supper of the Lamb, " in James B. Jordan, ed., The Reconstruction of the Church. Christianity &
Civilization 4 (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985); and James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23
(Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), Appendix F, "Proleptic Passover."
14
The same associations are found in Proverbs, though as a warning against adultery: "The lips of a strange woman drip honey" (Prov.
5:3). The Proverbial harlot invites the foolish youth to food as well as bed, "Sacrifices of peace offerings are with me....Let us drink
our fill of love" (Prov. 7:14, 18).

87
 meal. Eve is said in 2 Corinthians 11 to have committed fornication with the serpent; what she
actually did was eat the serpent's food. Similarly, the act of marriage between God and His Church
is nothing more and nothing less than the Holy Eucharist.15

Mary Douglas, in her work on Leviticus 11, notes that there is in many cultures an in-group/out-group
relationship between what you may eat and whom you may marry, what you may not eat and whom you
may not marry. She fails to notice any such correspondence in Leviticus, however. 16 Yet, while the
correspondence is not made explicit, it is implicitly present. The Hebrews did recognize an analogy
between sex and eating, as we have seen, and only a few chapters later in Leviticus we have an extended
discussion of the boundaries of sexuality (Lev. 18 and 20). It is interesting to notice that these chapters are
not written in terms of marital contracts, but instead in terms of sexual relations (marriage being implied
but not stated).17

To do full justice to this would extend this paper unjustifiably, so I shall give forth my present reflections
and opinions at this point, and leave further research for later (or for others). I see a parallel between eating
and marriage in the following way. There was food that was forbidden to Israelites because it was holy.
Holy food was only for God's immediate household, the priests, and it was a sin for a citizen to eat it (Lev.
22:1-16). This was a restriction on eating food that was too intimate. Similarly, the Israelite was not
allowed to marry anyone who was too intimately related to his father's household. 18

At the other end of the scale, there was food that was forbidden to Israelites because it was detestable. As
we shall see, unclean animals signified (in part) the unconverted pagan nations, and thus to eat such the
flesh of such animals was to become incorporated -- one flesh --with such pagan peoples. Leviticus 20:22-
26 makes plain the parallel between eating abominable foods and forming covenants with abominable
peoples. Since marriage is a covenant, it clearly follows that Israelites were not to enter marriage covenants
with abominable peoples.

Finally, the clean animals signified (in part) Israelites and other God-fearing people. In a general way it
seems that the sacrificially acceptable animals related to Israel, and the clean wild animals to God-fearing
Gentiles. It was perfectly permissible for Israelites to marry such persons, just as they might eat the flesh of
clean wild animals. The most famous example of this, one contested at the time, is Moses' marriage to a
Cushite woman (Num. 12). The marriage of the Israelitess Bathsheba to the Hittite Uriah is another. 19

Returning to the relationship between incestuous sex and encroachment upon holy food, we can notice that
there were no sacrificial meals until the Exodus. The patriarchs before Noah, those after the Flood, and the
Hebrew patriarchs offered whole burnt sacrifices, but they never ate any portion of them. It was a distinct
15
Jordan, Law of Covenant, p. 259f.
16
“Looking back from these examples to the classifications of Leviticus we seek in vain a statement, however, oblique, of a similar
association between eating and sex.” Mary Douglas, Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1975), “Deciphering a Meal,” p. 262. In a later essay included in the same volume, ”Self-Evidence,” she does begin to take note of the
associations: “If the case be conceded that the people who abhorred [animal] anomalies in the relevant period also did not accept any
obligation to exchange their womenfolk beyond the range of a narrowly defined kindred….” p. 309.
Douglas is definitely inclined to find such an analogy, but her understanding of the data of Leviticus is unfortunately marred by her
acceptance of critical dating methods, and thus she does not find corroboration for her hypothesis. Yet, elsewhere she writes, “The
table, the marriage bed, and the altar match each others' rules, as do the farmer, the husband, and the priest match each others' roles in
the total pattern.” Douglas, “Critique and Commentary,” in Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Studies in Judaism
in Late Antiquity 1 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), p. 139.
17
The expression "uncover the nakedness of" is the refrain in these chapters, an explicit reference to the "one flesh" aspect of marital
union. Compare Genesis 2:24-25.
18
If this analogy is accepted, the next step would be to make a full study of the prohibitions and penalties of Leviticus 18 and 20,
which differ pointedly in detail, and compare them to the various kinds of prohibitions and penalties involved in the sacrificial system,
which also differ pointedly in detail. Even if such detailed correspondences could not be found, however, the general analogy could
still be valid.
I suggest that the capital cases of Numbers 20:10-16 are all pre-Mosaic, the instances of incest stemming from Genesis 2:24. They are
in some sense parallel to the prohibition on drinking blood, given at the Noahic Covenant. With the Mosaic Covenant comes an
expansion of the dietary laws (for Israel only), and also an expansion of the incest laws (for all mankind). The dietary laws are
sanctuary laws, and have reference only to Israel; while the incest laws are land laws and refer to all humanity. See further my remarks
in Jordan, "The Mosaic Dietary Laws and the New Covenant." Studies in Food & Faith No.12.
19
Bathsheba was granddaughter of Ahithophel, which may account for his joining Absalom against David; see 2 Sarnuel-23:34 with 2
Samuel11:3.

88
benefit and advantage of the Mosaic economy that God pitched His tent in the midst of Israel and set up a
system whereby they might eat at His house with Him. Once the Tabernacle was set up, all kinds of
boundary rules and laws of cleanness came into being as a result. Among them was the restriction of holy
food only to the priests.

Parallel to this, there was no prohibition on most forms of "incestuous" sex before the establishment of the
Tabernacle.20 Cain obviously married his sister, and so did Abraham (Gen. 20:12). The laws prohibiting
consanguineous sex came in with the Tabernacle legislation. 21 Since these laws applied to all men (Lev.
18:24-30), not just to Israel, the idea seems to be that the establishment of the Mosaic Covenant and the
creation of the Tabernacle had implications not only for Israel (food laws) but also for the world (incest
laws). The Tabernacle was not only the center of Israel, but of the whole world. The change of priestly law
at the sanctuary changed social law in the world around the sanctuary.22

With the publication of the New Covenant, all believers have full access to God's house, and all are entitled
to priestly food in the same degree. Does it follow that the laws against the Levitical additions in the area of
incest are also "repealed"? The Church has always maintained not, and has resisted pushing the analogy at
this point. If the construct I have suggested in the preceding paragraphs is correct, it lends support to those
who take the prohibition on "fornication" in the Jerusalem Decree to be a reference to the Levitical incest
laws (Acts 15:20).23 Along these same lines, we note that in the New Covenant believers are free to eat the
meat of any animal, whether formerly clean or unclean, while believers are still forbidden to marry
unbelievers and to eat at the table of demons. 24 Thus, the analogy between sex and eating is sustained but
altered in the New Covenant.

Sacrifice

The Biblical notion of sacrifice has two aspects. First, the sacrifice is a substitute for the offerer, and the
death of the sacrifice is a substitute for the death of the offerer. Second, at the same time, the sacrifice
represents the offerer, and God's acceptance of the sacrifice is God's acceptance of the offerer. Such
acceptance involves incorporation into God's family, readmission to His presence (at however great a
distance), and this is signified by God's "eating" the sacrifice. As we shall see in the next section, the
sacrifices are all termed God's food.

Meredith G. Kline has set out the basic idea here, and his remarks, while difficult reading, are worth
quoting at length:

Consecration is one of the chief structural principles of the covenantal order of life. At its highest
level, consecration has been identified as the essence of religion, but at an elementary level it may
be defined as simply the subordination of the interests of one person or thing to those of another.
Such subordination of interests assumes various forms, and among the specific forms of
subordination-consecration met with in the phenomena described in the creation record sacrifice
and death are especially important. In the interrelationship of the lower orders of creation to one

20
Parent-child incest was forbidden from the beginning (Gen. 2:24). This was one of the sins of the Sodomites and Canaanites, as we
see in the case of Lot (Gen. 19:30-38; Lev. 18:24-30). Once the Mosaic system came into being, parent-child incest received the death
penalty (Lev. 20:11, 12, 14), while the newly added areas of incest received lesser penalties (Lev. 20:17-20).
21
This change is sometimes ascribed to the fact that the original vast gene pool of humanity, present among the patriarchs, had by this
time become sufficiently specialized that there was, for the first time, a danger of inbreeding. As a result, God prohibited incest.
Whatever truth there may be to this observation, it is not the rationale given in Leviticus 18 and 20, where the reasons are given in
highly "ceremonial" language.
22
On the relationship of sanctuary to land to world, as concentric radiating circles, see James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes:
Developing a Biblical view of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), chaps. 12-19.
23
F. F. Bruce remarks concerning the abstention from "fornication" that it is "here intended not in the common sense of the word (for
abstention from that was in any case stringently enjoined on all Christians), but in the sense of transgression of the degrees of
consanguinity and affinity prohibited in Leviticus 18:6-18. These marital prohibitions were basic to the Jewish marriage law and have
been part of Christian canon law from the time of this Jerusalem decree." F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday/Anchor, 1969), p. 287f.
24
Paul writes, "Food is for the belly, and belly is for food; but God will do away with both it and them. Yet the body is not for
immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body" (1Cor. 6:13). In context Paul is making it clear that in the New Covenant
food is nothing in itself either way, while sexual matters are of extreme importance.

89
 another there were forms of subordination that did not amount to sacrifice. For example, the
realms of light and darkness, the order of day and night, are pictured in Genesis 1 as subordinate
to the dominion of the sun and moon, but this was simply a matter of their being regulated. When
we move along, however, to the use made of the soil by the plants or to the way the air is utilized
by birds and beasts or the waters by the fish of the seas, something more is involved. There is here
an assimilation of lower elements into higher orders and in this process these elements undergo
conversion and loss. We may regard this as an elementary form of sacrifice. When something
belonging to the organic, living level of creation is sacrificially consecrated to the interests of a
higher creature, as when plants are assigned as food for animals and men (Gen. 1:29, 30), death is
an appropriate term for this form of sacrifice (cf. In. 12:24). In this elementary sense at least, death
was thus part of the pattern of consecration that informed the world-structure from its
beginnings.25

While there is no "Great Chain of Being" in the Bible,26 there is indeed a chain of "beings" in which the
lower serve the interests of the higher. Plants consume energy from the sun and minerals from soil and
water, incorporating these elements into themselves by transforming them. Animals consume plants
(though "death" is not involved in this, if we stick with Biblical language), and thereby incorporate plant
matter into themselves by transformation. Men consume animals (at least after the Flood), and death is
indeed involved here. What Kline is saying is that, apart from sin, consecration is the basic idea in sacrifice.
It is only because of sin that the elements of wrath and substitution came in. Apart from sin, there would
have been no "sting" in death; death would simply have been a transition from a lower (less glorious) to a
higher (more glorious) stage of maturity and existence (1Cor. 15:56).

At the top of the "chain, " God consumes men, incorporating them into His Kingdom. A familiar text that
points in this direction is Revelation 3:16, "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will
vomit you out of My mouth." What are we doing in Jesus mouth? Apparently, just as we "eat" Him in the
Lord's Supper, so He "eats" us, incorporating us into His body, the Church. The picture in Revelation 3:16
is, thus, of excommunication, being cast out of Christ's body.

Incorporation into God's Kingdom is by transformation, or transfiguration. The boundary is death, signified
by baptism. We must die and be resurrected to enter the Kingdom. We must become living sacrifices. Such
a death, however, does not obliterate our consciousness; rather, it transforms us and releases our Godly
potential.

It is important to see this aspect of sacrifice if we are to understand the place of Leviticus 11. The Israelites
were being incorporated into God's Kingdom in a new way. They would get to live in His land, but if they
disobeyed Him, they would be vomited out, as Leviticus 18:28 and 20:22 state it. Lands do not vomit, of
course. It is persons who vomit. If God tastes His people and finds them unclean, He will spit them out.

In a more precise way, this is true of the Tabernacle environment. The right to enter the Tabernacle
precincts and offer sacrifices -- food for God -- was only for those who were clean, ceremonially and
morally. Only such persons could signify their incorporation into God by giving Him sacrificial food that
represented themselves. Only such persons would God "eat" into His Kingdom.

God would not eat the unclean nations, so Israel was not to eat the flesh of animals that symbolized those
nations. If Israel ate detestable food, God would find them detestable, and would spit them out. The
analogy is profound and consistent.

A similar image in the Bible is that God Himself is our habitation (Dt. 33:27; Ps. 71:3; 90:1; 91:9; cp. Ezk.
11:16). Some people are taken into God's habitation, and some are excluded. This corresponds to the
distinction between clean and unclean, and is analogous to the idea that God incorporates some and not
others.

25
Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 3 vols. (by the author, 1981) 1:75f.
26
See Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge: Harvard, 1936). For a Christian critique, see Rousas J. Rushdoony,
The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Phillipsburg, NJ: Craig Press, 1968), esp. chap. 3.

90
Food for God

In the Bible the notion that man is food for God, and by extension that the sacrifices and offerings are food
for God, stands in clear contrast to the beliefs of the pagan peoples around Israel. G. E. Wright has written
concerning the feeding of the pagan gods:

The daily cult was essentially a provision for the god's daily needs. The sacrifices, offerings, and
libations were his needed food and drink; and this belief in the deity's physical need seems never
to have been spiritualized in the texts we have. One disillusioned Babylonian skeptic could thus
infer that because his god so needed his service, that service should be withheld that the god be
taught "to run after thee like a dog." We also recall the statement in the Babylonian flood-st0ry
...to the effect that after the flood had receded and the flood-hero was able to offer sacrifice, the
gods were so hungry that they "crowded like flies about the sacrificer." 27

Not so the God of Israel. He is exhaustively self-existent, and has no need for either food or human
companionship. That He chooses to desire human companionship is wholly an act of free grace, and His
request for "food" is only a symbol of His gracious invitation to humankind. As Asaph put it, God says, "If
I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and its fullness. Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or
drink the blood of male goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most
High" (Ps. 50:12-14). In other words, God has no need for food or drink, and He has no need for any
human assistance. The point of the sacrificial system is to symbolize God's judgment, but also God's
acceptance of the offerer. Now in fact, the sacrifices of thanksgiving and of vows were two species of
Peace Offering (Lev. 7:15-16), and did indeed involve giving God the food of bulls and the drink offering
of blood. These actions were only symbolic, however. They portrayed the consecration of the human
person to God.

Human beings were not acceptable food for God in the Old Covenant, because of sin. Accordingly, they
were excluded from His full presence, the Holy of Holies. In the Mosaic system, however, Israelites were
permitted to offer themselves as food for God by means of substitutes. Only with the coming of Jesus
Christ was a man found who was acceptable "food" for God, and only Jesus was permitted to enter fully
into God's presence (Rev. 4-5). In union with Him, of course, we all have this privilege. God smells Jesus
in us, and we taste like Him, because we have been united to Him and because we have "eaten His flesh
and drunk His blood": and so, God is pleased to "eat" us into His full presence.

The book of Leviticus calls the sacrifices "food for God" (literally "bread of God") in several unquestioned
passages. Speaking of the Peace Offering, which as we have seen was shared among citizen, priest, and
God, we read "then the priest shall offer up in smoke on the altar, as food, an offering by fire [or, food
offering] to the LORD" (Lev. 3:11). Similarly verse 16: "And the priest shall offer them up in smoke on the
altar as food, an offering by fire [or, food offering] for a soothing aroma; all the fat is the LORD's." As we
shall see in a moment, "offering by fire" should be rendered "food offering," but even if this is not
admitted, these verses still state that the fat (inward parts) of the Peace Offering were God's food. Also,
Leviticus 21:6 says, concerning the priests, "they present the offerings by fire [food offerings] of the
LORD, the bread of their God." Similar statements are found in Leviticus 21:8, 17, 21, 22; 22:25. God
refers to the sacrifices as "My food" in Numbers 28:2, and a similar statement is in verse 24.

Regarding the expression "offering by fire," Wenham can be consulted for the arguments for retranslating
this as " food offering."28 He is apparently persuaded, for that is how he translates it. At any rate, if this is
correct, then the Whole Burnt Offering is called God's food (Lev. 1:9, 13, 17), as is the Cereal Offering
(2:3, 10; 6:17-18), the Peace Offering (above, and 7:30, 35), the Purification Offering (4:35; 5:12), and the
Compensation Offering (7:5). Finally, the twelve loaves of showbread are also considered a specimen of

27
G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), p. 144.
28
Wenham, Leviticus, p. 56.

91
Cereal Offering, and are called "food offerings" (or "offerings by fire") in Leviticus 24:7-9.29 Since these
were not burned up, though the incense placed on them probably was, "offering by fire" does not seem to
be as accurate a rendering as "food offering.” 30

As we have seen, it is the "fat" of the sacrifice that is considered God's food, and thus turned into smoke for
Him to inhale -- the sacrificial equivalent of eating. This is not Just any fat on the animal, but the fat of the
inward parts, given in Leviticus 3:3-4 as "the fat that covers the inner parts and all the fat that is on the
inner parts, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is on the loins, and the lobe of the liver,
which he shall remove with the kidneys" (cf. vv. 9-10, 14-15). The summary of these verses is that "all fat
is the Lord's. It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: You shall not eat
any fat or any blood" (vv. 16-17).

What emerges from this is that "fat" includes the kidneys and the liver, as well as the fat around them. "Fat"
thus correlates to "inward parts." The kidneys, claimed by God, are part of a man's inward being. They are
tested by God (Ps. 7:9; Jer. 11:20, 17:10). They instruct or convict a man (Ps. 16:7; 73:21). But most
importantly, God possesses the kidneys (or reins) of the righteous (Ps. 139:13). The word translated here as
"loins" also denotes the inward parts of a man (Ps. 38:7), and the liver is also used for the inner man (Prov.
7:23; Lam. 2:11).

It is the inward parts that belong to God. Only God knows the heart. Only God tests the kidneys. As the
Lord reminded Samuel, "God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the appearance, but the Lord looks at
the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7). It is forbidden for a man to try and take possession of the inward parts of another
man, whether through cannibalism or brainwashing or any other means. The rule of man over man is to be
limited only to the externals of life. In the kingdom of God, the inner man is sacrificed and taken into the
life of God though the outer man perishes until the day of resurrection. 31

Men were also forbidden to drink blood, because blood is the very life of the flesh (Lev. 17). As we have
noted above, the Biblical notion of sacrifice starts with death, but includes also the notion of incorporation.
The shedding and pouring out of blood has the meaning of the death of the sacrifice. 32 But the pouring out
of blood at the altar is, among other things, also "drink for God" (Ps. 50:13). That this is so is evident from
the parallel between this and the drink offering of Numbers 15:1-16, which must accompany all Whole
Burnt and Peace Offerings. Both were apparently poured out at the base of the altar, as implied by
Philippians 2:17 and 2 Timothy 4:6, and as stated by the non-canonical Ecclesiasticus 50:15.33 Wine is
called the "blood of grapes" in Genesis 49:11, establishing a symbolic linkage. The flagons that contained
the wine for libations were placed on or with the table of showbread (Ex. 25:29; 2Chron. 4:8), 34 and as we
have seen the showbread was God's food.

Such lifeblood belongs only to God. David refused to "drink the blood" of his worthy comrades, and
instead poured out their gift to God (1Chron. 11:17-19). Since human life belongs only to God, man may
never take it, except at God's command and thus only for the punishments He specifies. The eating of flesh
without blood is designed as a perpetual reminder of the Noahic Covenant, in terms of which God
delegated the right of capital punishment to human authorities (Gen. 9:3-6). It reminds us that human life is
not ours to take, and that killing in wartime or as a punishment must only be done strictly under Divine
authority.

Thus both the inward parts (the fat) and the essential life (the blood) of a man belong to God.

29
See ibid., p. 310
30
Incense was placed atop the loaves (Lev. 24:7). In the normal cereal offering, incense was burned with that part of the bread burned
on the altar (Lev. 2:1-2).
31
The sacrificial system distinguishes three zones in the sacrifice. The fat (inward parts) and the blood (life) are associated as the
innermost aspects of the man, and were always for God only. At the other end is the skin, which was never put on the altar. In between
is the flesh, which in some sacrifices was given to God and in others was not put on the altar.
32
See A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word "Blood" in Scripture (London: The Tyndale Press, 1948).
33
See also the remarks of Henry W. Soltau, The Holy Vessels and Furniture of the Tabernacle (Grand Rapids: Kregel, [1851] 1973),
p. 63.
34
See the remarks in C. F. Keil, The Books of the Chronicles. Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, [19th c.] 1968), p. 321.

92
Understanding these provisions not only makes for a restraint on totalitarianism in state and church, but
also communicates to us the necessity for total consecration and devotion to God, as His food.

A final observation: We noticed that God's food is turned into smoke for Him. The smoke hovering over
the brazen altar of sacrifice and the golden altar of incense replicates God's Glory Cloud hovering out
Mount Sinai. That cloud is a symbol of His host.35 When the sacrifice is turned into smoke, and is accepted
by God, it joins the cloud. The sacrifice represents the worshipper. When the sacrifice becomes smoke and
is "eaten" into the Glory Cloud, it means that the worshipper is acceptable to God and is incorporated into
His glory host.

Vomiting

The reverse of eating is vomiting or expulsion. God accepts, or eats, the righteous man, but expels the
wicked. In the ritual of the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat is expelled from the camp (Lev.
16:10). Similarly, in the ritual for cleansing a leper, one bird is killed, and the other is expelled (Lev. 14:7).
The scapegoat is sent to Azazel, a reference to the demonic realm. He is not sent there as a gift, but as a
means of returning him to where he belongs. A parallel to this is found in Zechariah 5:6-11, where
wickedness is placed in a counterfeit Ark and carried by unclean counterfeit cherubim to a counterfeit
temple, the demonic Tower of Babel in Shinar (see Rev. 18:2). Just so, Jesus expelled the demons from the
Gerasene demoniac into swine (Mark 5:1-20). Probably referring to the scapegoat, Jesus on another
occasion stated that when a demon is driven out of a man, he wanders in dry places (the wilderness; Matt.
12:43; Luke 11:24).

All of this generally correlates with man's expulsion from Eden, Jesus' cleansing of the Temple, and the
ascended Christ's threat in Revelation 3:16 to spit out apostate believers from His body. Just so, God
threatened to spit out the Israelites if they rendered themselves detestable by eating unclean animals and
making alliances with the heathen (Lev. 20:22-26; 11:43).36

When God spits out the wicked, He allows them to be devoured by His enemies, until the final day of
judgment when all are cast into hell. Satan, the Azazel who rules the demonic realm, thus "eats" those who
refuse to be "eaten" by God. We can think of the Leviathan in the water, the roaring lion on the earth, or the
angelic prince of atmospheric powers, each manifesting Satan in one of the three realms and each seeking
to devour humanity (Eph. 2:2; 1 Pet. 5:8). When Jonah rejected God, God spat Him out and the Leviathan
swallowed him; but when Jonah repented, the fish found him unacceptable and spat him back out (Jonah 1-
2).37 Similarly, those who will not be "eaten" by God receive the curse of the covenant, which is to be
devoured by the wild beasts and birds of prey (Gen. 15:11; Dt. 28:26, 49; 2Ki. 9:10; Rev. 19: 17-18).

God's food is cooked on His altar hearth. The idea is that the righteous man is consecrated to God, and
eaten into His kingdom, into His presence, into the "body of Christ." The altar, by its very position, is a
ladder to heaven.38 The righteous pass through the flames, and are purged, and then enter heaven. By way
of contrast, the wicked are not accepted by God. They are placed on the altar hearth, but are never cooked.
The fires burn them forever.39 In terms of the Old Testament, the alternatives were either sacrifice or

35
On the cloud of God as an image of angelic and human society arrayed around Him, see Jordan, Through New Eyes; and Meredith
G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980).
36
Hirsch comments on Leviticus 20:21-22, "the Land is not like other lands, it does not tolerate sinful inhabitants, it throws them out
as one throws out food or material which is not assimilative." Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch Translated and Explained,
trans. Isaac Levy. Vol. 3: Leviticus, 2d ed. (London: Honig and Sons, 1962), p. 582.
37
What happened to Jonah was a prophetic type of what would happen to Israel. The Gentile sea of Assyria would swallow them,
because God was going to spit them out for their sins. In time, however, they would repent, and be put back on the land.
38
That is, one encounters the altar on the way to the Tabernacle or Temple, which represent heaven. The altar represents the holy
mountain. In Ezekiel 43:13-17, the altar even has a pyramidal shape, and though this was not the case earlier in Tabernacle and
Solomonic Temple, it reveals a fundamental aspect of the altar's meaning. On ladders to heaven, see Jordan, Through New Eves, pp.
87-90, 189-192, 212-213, etc.
39
Revelation 19:10; 20:10, 14-15; 21:8. In a similar image, 1Corinthians 3:12 states that God places both precious jewels and wood
into His church. When the latter catches on fire, it serves to refine the former, but the wood, hay, and stubble are not refined but
destroyed. In an as-yet-unpublished manuscript entitled The Shekinah Glory, Duane E. Spencer convincingly argues from Psalm
68:17, Isaiah 6, Hebrews 1:7, and other passages that the "fire" images and ultimately refers to God's seraphic (flaming) angels. The
angels refine the saints and make them ready for God, while they torment the wicked in eternal "fire."

93
destruction. God's consumption of the sacrifices indicated His acceptance of His people. The destruction of
the wicked, by the very fire of the altar in "herem" warfare, indicated the alternative.40 Similarly, the
lifeblood of the wicked is not symbolically brought into God's presence and poured out to Him, but is shed
away from His presence, outside the camp, even as criminals were executed outside the camp (Lev. 24:14,
23; Num. 15:36; Luke 4:29; Acts 7:58).

In terms of Leviticus 11, God will only incorporate righteous persons into His kingdom. Those who render
themselves detestable by eating unclean animals, or by entering into covenants with the heathen, will be
expelled. Similarly, those who presume to play God by eating fat or blood will also be expelled. 41

Food as Test

Our final consideration is of food as test. In the Garden of Eden, God set up two special trees, and restricted
access from one of them, establishing a test for humanity. The test was in terms of obedience, and also in
terms of patience, since Adam knew that God had designed all food for him and that eventually the
restriction would be lifted (Gen. 1:29). There was no restriction on the fruit of the Tree of Life, however,
and by marking it out and placing it in the center of the Garden, God clearly invited Adam to eat of it.

The Tree of Knowledge has to do with reward -- omega food, while the Tree of Life has to do with
foundations -- alpha food. This theme of testing is relevant to Leviticus 11. God had originally given man
all flesh as food, that of unclean as well as that of clean animals (Gen. 9:3). With Moses came a new
restriction. Israel could deduce that the Mosaic restrictions were temporary, because they were part of the
laws of defilement. They knew from Genesis 22 (the "postponed" sacrifice of Isaac) that the Messiah would
be the final Sacrifice, and that His sacrifice would bring definitive cleansing to humanity. Thus they knew
that the prohibition was temporary.

The clean animals had to do generally with Israel, which was God's alpha food, the foundation. The
unclean animals had to do with the Gentiles, His omega food, the eschatological reward that would be
gathered in during the latter days.

As a result, we must see the laws of Leviticus 11 as eschatologically qualified. It is true that these laws
were symbolic, and that refusal to eat the flesh of unclean beasts symbolized, in part, refusal to make
alliances with pagan peoples. In that sense, the laws were simply moral-symbolic, and had no typological
or eschatological reference. At the same time, though, Israel knew that her task was to be a priest to all
nations, and that one day all nations would convert and be incorporated into (new) Israel. In terms of this,
they could have and should have realized that the prohibition on eating the flesh of unclean animals was
temporary.

The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was good fruit. Like all other trees, it was good to look at and good for
food (Gen. 2:9). This is true, in principle at least, of the meat of unclean-animals. It smells good when
cooked, and has good food value. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was only to be given when God was
ready, however, and not to be seized prematurely. It signified investiture with rule and authority, something
that newborn babies like Adam and Eve were not ready for. 42 Similarly, the flesh of unclean animals was
only to be given when God was ready. It signified the spiritual rule of the church over the world, the
incorporation of all nations into the kingdom of God.

Israel's restraint in this matter was to be a sign that they were not yet ready for such world dominion. Their
failure to keep these laws, both in letter and in spirit, was accordingly the same sin of presumption that
Adam had committed, and like Adam, it resulted in their expulsion from the land.

40
See my remarks on the use of altar fire in torching cities in Jordan, Judges, pp. 10f., 310. For an extended study of the altar hearth
fire, see Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty: A Theological Investigation (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986).
41
Ultimately, this "expulsion" is into the very presence of God. As Spencer has shown, Biblical imagery shows the lake of fire
proceeding from the throne of God (Dan. 7:9-11) : Spencer, ibid. Thus, all creation is eventually drawn into God's presence, which is
light and joy for the elect, but simultaneously fire and darkness for the rebellious.
42
See Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in Genesis."

94
 SECTION 08 - DIET FROM ADAM TO MOSES

The purpose of this essay is to survey the period from creation to Moses, with an eye to background
relevant to our consideration of the Mosaic dietary laws.

In the Garden

Originally God gave man permission to eat fruit and grains: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding
seed [grains] that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; it
shall be food for you" (Gen. 1:29). In processed form, grain becomes bread, and fruit becomes wine. Bread
and wine are frequently encountered as symbols of the eschatological blessing of the Kingdom of God, and
are associated as the food of kings (Gen. 41). Melchizedek's serving Abraham bread and wine is a picture
of God's gift of the kingdom, and a type of Christ's serving bread and wine to us (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7).
Pharaoh's baker and wine- server spent time in prison with Joseph, who eventually replaced them both. 1

We are not told that God forbad the eating of flesh, but the post- Flood statement of Genesis 9:3 certainly
implies it: "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green
plant." This certainly appears at face value to be a change in arrangement, and thus it rather begs the
question to assert that men were given permission to eat flesh in the Garden or before the Flood. As we
shall see, the granting of flesh as food is associated with man's elevation to rule, and is thus almost certainly
a new thing in Genesis 9.

The land of Eden, with its Garden, is pictured as a land of food. The outlying lands, Havilah, Cush, and the
rest, are described as producing other raw materials (Gen. 2:11-12). This also becomes an important
relationship and symbol in the rest of Scripture. Canaan is the new Eden, and the Tabernacle and Temple
precincts are the new Garden.2 The Israelites are seldom pictured as engaged in mining or other industry.
The emphasis is rather on food production. When Solomon built the Temple, he got the raw material from
an outlying land, Tyre, in exchange for food (1Ki. 5:9). The leaders of Israel and her prophets were all
engaged in the food industry. In the New Testament, it is largely fishermen whom Jesus called to serve as
His ministers. (This was a shift from the land of Israel to the Gentile sea.) 3 The priestly work, thus, entails
giving food to the world, a point highlighted in the liturgy of the church, which includes the Lord's Supper.

All this is general background to understanding the position of Israel in the world, and the relationship of
Tabernacle worship to the nations. There are specific details in Genesis 2-3 that pertain to the Mosaic food
laws, however, and to these we now turn. There are three areas we must briefly survey: the configuration of
the garden, the nature of Adam's task, and the judgment pronounced by God for Adam's sin.

The Configuration of the Garden

We are told that God planted a garden eastward in Eden, or more literally, in the eastern part of the land of
Eden (Gen. 2:8). There is accordingly a distinction between the land of Eden and the garden of Eden. The
garden is a garden-sanctuary, for it is where God meets with man. This arrangement gives us a world in
three sections: an earthly sanctuary, a homeland, and the outlying world. This same configuration is found
later on, when the land of Canaan is set aside as a new land of Eden, and the Tabernacle precincts (later the
Temple precincts) are a new Garden of Eden.4 Agreeably, the Gentile lands outside are equivalent to
Havilah, lands that supply non-food items in exchange for Canaan/Eden's bounty. After the Fall, these
outlying lands can be characterized as a restless sea or as a wilderness, both considered in a bad sense, but

1
See my remarks on this in Jordan, Primeval Saints: Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis (available from Biblical Horizons), chap. 10.
2
Genesis 13:10; Exodus 15:17; Isaiah 51:3, Ezekiel 31:8-9, 16-18; 36:35; Joel 2:3. In these passages, the distinction between land and
garden is not always rigid, in that the domesticated portions of the land are gardens. The special domestic garden-tent-house of God is
the Tabernacle/Temple precincts.
3
See our discussion of this in paper no.13 in this series: "An Exposition of Leviticus 11," chap. 3.
4
I have taken up these world models in much more detail in James B. Jordan, Through New Eves: Developing a Biblical view of the
World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988).

95
before the Fall they were simply places of undeveloped potentiality. Had Adam not fallen, his descendants
would have followed the rivers out of Eden to the other lands,5 and doubtless would have established new
garden-sanctuaries in those places, so that we would have had a Garden of Cush and a Garden of Havilah. 6
This was not to be, however, until the coming of the New Covenant, when the Church is planted in every
land.

The land of Eden was high ground. We know this because its river flowed into the Garden, and from there
into four heads. Tracing the rivers backward from the Tigris and Euphrates, and pre-Flood rivers in Havilah
and Cush (perhaps flowing in the Jordan and Nile valleys), we come to an area in Armenia, in the "far
north" (Is. 14:13-14), the same area Noah began the race anew years later (Gen. 8:4). 7 As Eden was high
ground, so also the Garden was high ground, but not the highest point: The river arose in Eden and then
flowed into the Garden. An important symbolic theme in the Bible begins here, as the Mountain of the Lord
is said to grow until it becomes the highest of all mountains. By the time of Ezekiel, the mountain paradise
is much higher (Ezk. 40:3). By the time of John's vision, the top of the mountain actually pokes through the
firmament into heaven itself, to the very throne of God (Rev. 21:9--22:1).

This idea of potential growth of the sanctuary into the highest of all mountains is pictured by the altar in the
Temple courtyard, the garden area. The altar in Ezekiel 43:13-17 is clearly a stepped pyramid, a holy
mountain configuration. This indicates that all altars are replicas of the holy mountain, and this makes
sense because it is on the holy mountain that God meets with man. What else could an altar be, then? At
any rate, the altar in the Tabernacle (three cubits high, five by five square) was much smaller than the one
in the Temple (ten cubits high, twenty by twenty square), which in turn was less mountain-like than the one
in Ezekiel.

Similarly, the waters also grow and develop. From the Garden, the river flowed out to the four corners of
the world. In the Tabernacle there was a small laver in the courtyard-garden area, and no outflow. In the
Temple this small laver became a bronze ocean of vast size, attended by ten smaller chariot-like lavers, yet
still with no outflow (1Ki. 7:23-39). In Ezekiel's Temple there is no laver or ocean, but instead a river flows
out, though in only one direction and only to the borders of the promised land (Ezk. 47).8 In John's Temple
the river is fourfold, and flows from the very top of the mountain at the throne of God.

What all this helps do is establish in our minds that the original world configuration was like these later
symbolic world models: a world, a homeland, and a garden sanctuary. We also know that the Tabernacle
and Temple were models of heaven and the highest heaven, agreeably placed on the holy mountain of the
garden sanctuary (1Ki. 8:27-30; Heb. 8:5; 9:23). Was there such an earthly heaven centered in the original
Garden of Eden? It would seem so, in that there were two special trees placed in the center of the Garden
(Gen. 2:9).

The two trees in the center of the Garden would correspond to the Holy Place. When God, who is Himself
the Holiest of All, arrived at the two trees to meet with Adam and Eve, this area would become Most Holy,
corresponding to the Holy of Holies. The two trees, with the other trees planted by God in the garden, are a
proto-house. When these trees are cut down and hewn into planks, they form the walls of the Tabernacle,
and the box of the Ark of the Covenant. Later, such trees form the foundation for the walls of the Temple.
Thus, the wooden houses in the center of later garden-sanctuaries find their primordial expression in the
trees of the first garden.9

The two central trees were the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. A study of the
nature of this second tree will show that it is associated with judicial authority, not with mere knowledge or
5
Thus the rivers (water) are associated with the outlying lands, as the Gentile sea is associated with the Gentile lands and wilderness.
6
See the discussion in James B. Jordan, The Sociology of the Church (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986), pp. 86ff.
7
See the map in Jordan, Through New Eyes, p.151 (diagram 12.4). An interesting though sometimes questionable study on this is D.
F. Pocock, “North and South in the Book of Genesis,” in J. H. M. Beattie and R. G. Lienhardt, eds., Studies in Social Anthropology:
Essays in Memory of E. E. Evans-Pritchard (Oxford, 1975).
8
On the limitations of Ezekiel's vision, see Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, "The Wall Around Paradise," Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987):271-
279.
9
On the woods of the Tabernacle and the Temple, and their specific meanings, see James B. Jordan, "From Glory to Glory: Degrees
of Value in the Sanctuary." Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.2.

96
even wisdom.10 It has to do with investiture with authority, and that is why God postponed Adam's eating
there from. Adam and Eve were created naked, like babies, but as God's images they would eventually be
clothed, even as God is clothed in His cloud of glory. Such clothing would be bestowed, not seized, for it
was a sign of office.11 Such clothing would be vestments, outward signs of investiture with authority.
Investiture with authority does not come until a man has matured through experience. The new-created
Adam was not yet ready for the Tree of Knowledge.

Clearly, though, Adam needed life. There was no restriction on the Tree of Life, and on that first sabbath
day, when God planned to meet with man in the cool of the evening, fellowship would naturally have taken
place at the Tree of Life. The faithful man knows that he does not have life in himself, and goes to God for
life. The faithful man does not seize authority, but patiently waits for God to bestow it. Adam, of course,
reversed all of this.

Adam's Task

Adam's duty was to dress (cultivate) and keep (guard) the Garden. Dressing was essentially his kingly task,
and guarding was essentially his priestly task. Adam was not yet a prophet, for a prophet is a member of
God's heavenly council, and that office answers to maturity, which Adam did not yet possess. 12

A study of the nature of priesthood in the Bible shows its measuring and guarding function (Ezk. 40ff.). 13
Adam was concerned with boundaries, therefore. He was to secure the boundary of the Garden, and protect
it from assault. Since his bride was positioned in the Garden, it was quintessentially she who was to be
protected. God had made Adam first and had explained things to him. It was Adam's job to instruct Eve, to
feed Eve, and to protect Eve. These are the priestly tasks, traditionally called the three marks of the Church:
Word, Sacrament, and Government. These are the ways in which the heart of the Kingdom is maintained.

God allowed Satan to invade the Garden. Possibly, since the Garden was a domestic environment, it was
unusual and striking for the serpent or dragon to be there. Remember that the domestic animals were at
home in the Garden with Adam, but that the beasts of the field were brought to him to name (Gen. 2:19-
20). They did not inhabit the Garden. There is no reason to think that the dragon might not visit the Garden,
but perhaps his presence there should have alerted Adam: God had already brought animals to Adam on
one occasion, to teach him that he needed a suitable helper. Now here was another beast of the field in the
garden. Why was it here?

Once the serpent began to speak, however, Adam knew it was his business to guard. Satan was an invader,
a boundary transgressor, seeking to wreak havoc in the domestic and liturgical environment of the Garden.
It was Adam’s task to speak up and defend Eve, but he failed to do so. Instead of feeding her, he let the
serpent feed her. Instead of teaching her, he let the serpent teach her. Instead of guarding her, he allowed
her to be seduced (2Cor. 11:1-3).

This is not to say that Adam should have killed the serpent. The essence of guarding is to guard the heart
(Gen. 26:5; Dt. 11:1; Josh. 22:3; 1Ki. 2:3; 2Chron. 8:14; Ezk. 48:11; Zech. 3:7). In that sense, though,
Adam should have stood as a warrior. He should have rebuked the serpent, or the fallen angel who was
using it, as Jesus rebuked Satan through Peter (Matt. 16:23), or as the Lord rebuked Satan in the heavenly
Temple (Zech. 3:2; Jude 9). It is only those who have passed the test as warriors who can become kings. 14

10
For detailed analysis, see Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis, " in Gary North, ed., Tactics of
Christian Resistance. Christianity & Civilization 3 (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1983).
11
Since the clothing is actually the very glory of God Himself given to men, it stands to reason that it can only be bestowed. Since
nakedness is primordial, and glorification is eschatological, it follows that clothing is an eschatological phenomenon: God bestows
glorious clothing on men as they mature.
12
On the nature of prophet as advisor, see George Vandervelde, "The Gift of Prophecy and the Prophetic Church," ICS Academic
Papers, August 1984. Available from the Institute for Christian Studies, 229 College St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, MST 1R4. In
1983, I wrote that the office of prophet was only a post-lapsarian function introduced to correct sin. I have since revised that opinion.
(Jordan, "Rebellion," p. 40, n. 2.)
13
See comments in Jordan, "Rebellion."
14
See the discussion in James B. Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty: A Theological Investigation (Tyler, TX: Geneva
Ministries, 1986), chap. 3.

97
Adam failed at every point. Had he passed the test, and stood guard, he would eventually have been made a
full priest, prophet, and king, and been given to eat of the Tree of Judicial Authority.

The Judgment of God

God's judgment on the travesty in the Garden entailed several dimensions. As we shall see in the tenth
paper in this series, Leviticus 11-15 is in some ways a seriatim (point by point) commentary on these
judgments.15 Here it is important to take note of three aspects of judgment: God cursed the soil with
reference to man; He cursed the serpent; and He exiled man from the sanctuary.

First of all. the curse on the soil: This was an indirect threat against man, for man is made of the soil of the
earth. It is important to note that soil in and of itself is not cursed. Genesis 3:17 is most specific: "cursed is
the ground for your sake" or "because of you" or "with reference to you." Thus, it is only with reference to
man that the soil is defined as cursed. It is really man who is under judgment.16

There are several different words for curse in Hebrew. The word used here, ‘arar, basically means "to
separate from or banish."17 It means that something is separated from something else, in the sense of being
opposed to it. Why would the soil be opposed to man? Because the soil is "righteous" and sides with God,
and thus opposes man, who is now at enmity with God. The soil would not longer cooperate with man, and
thus bring judgment into his life. The soil, siding with God, will bring about that judgment. The soil,
sticking to the man, will cry out to God for judgment against the man. The soil becomes God's appointed
prosecutor of the curse.

Accordingly, dirt is something that a righteous man would want to wash off before coming into God's
presence. With the coming of Christ, the world has been cleansed and the curse on the soil removed. But
this was not the case under the Old Covenant.

There can be little doubt but that it was for this reason that men always wore shoes in the Old Covenant.
Shoes kept their feet from contact with the curse-prosecuting soil. As we shall see, clean animals also wear
"shoes." The only time a man did not wear shoes was on holy ground, for holy ground did not prosecute the
curse (Ex. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The priests did not wear shoes in the Tabernacle and Temple for this reason.
Additionally, the curse on the soil explains the frequency of foot washing as we find it in the Old Covenant,
right up to the crucifixion (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 43:24; Jud. 19:21; Luke 7:44; John 13:3-15i. If seeds are shod
with husk, they are protected from defilement. 18 Additionally, the Tabernacle as God's footstool was shod
in dolphin skin, the stuff of luxurious sandals.19

If a man deliberately went unshod, it was a sign that he was identifying himself with God's judgments and
curse. Going barefoot was a sign of mourning (2 Sam. 15:30; 19:24; Ezk. 24:17, 23), of captivity (Job
12:17, 19; Is. 20:2; Mic. 1:8), or of abject poverty (Luke 15:22). Once the period of mourning or distress
was over, he would wash his feet and return to wearing shoes.

The curse of death upon the dust played a role in the third Egyptian plague, when the dust became a living
death of lice (Ex. 8:16-17). To throw dust on someone was to wish him dead, and to throw dust on your
own head was a sign of mourning (Josh. 7:6; 2 Sam. 16:13; Job 2:12; Lam. 2:10; Acts 22:22-23; Rev.
18:19). To shake the dust off your feet or garments was to leave a curse on someone or some place (Matt.
10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). The enemies of God will "lick the dust," implying either

15
See James B. Jordan, "The Meaning of Clean and Unclean." Studies in Food & Faith No.10.
16
E. J. Young writes, "How can ground be cursed? Ground is something inanimate and not responsible. How is it possible for a curse
to be placed upon it? What is meant of course is that the curse upon the ground is with respect to man, so that the one who will feel the
effects of the curse is not the ground, inasmuch as the ground is insensible and without life, but man himself….Although the man
himself is not cursed, the ground through him receives that curse, and thus the curse reaches him." E. J. Young, Genesis 3: A
Devotional and Expository Study (London: Banner of Truth, 1966), p. 131.
17
The seminal study in this area is Herbert c. Brichto, The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible. Journal of Biblical Literature
Monograph, Series 13 (Philadelphia: society of Biblical Literature, 1963).
18
See Jordan, "Exposition of Leviticus 11," chap. 10.
19
See James B. Jordan, "The Tabernacle and the Dietary laws," Studies in Food & Faith No.9.

98
that they are destroyed or put into mourning (i.e., they taste judgment: death; Ps. 72:9; Is. 49:23).

It is tempting to say that "unclean" simply means "dirty. " This would make sense, since dirt is curse-
prosecuting. The primary Hebrew term for uncleanness, tame, does not seem to be related to dirt per se, and
since ceremonial uncleanness involved so many things, it is best not to try and relate the two concepts of
dirt and uncleanness too closely.20

Remember, dirt in itself is not unclean. It is only in connection with sinful man that soil is a curse-threat,
and related to uncleanness. A dramatic story that illustrates this principle is found in 2 Samuel 6: 6-7.
Nowhere did the law say that the Ark of the Covenant might not come in contact with the soil, but the law
clearly stated that the Ark might not be touched by (sinful) human hands (Num. 4:15). Uzzah's
presumptuous sin was that he assumed his own hands were cleaner than the dust into which the Ark was
sliding, a point God took issue with! In fact "holy Tabernacle dust" was used in the Jealousy Inspection of
Numbers 5 (v. 17). It was only when in contact with sinful human beings that soil became a threat. Thus, if
the woman were guilty, the soil would bring a curse to her when she drank it.

Clearly, though, one would not bring curse-prosecuting soil into the presence of God. When the Israelite
layman drew near to offer sacrifice in the forecourt of the Tabernacle and Temple, he unquestionably
removed his shoes and washed his feet before entering. Also, in Deuteronomy 26:14, the faithful profess
never to eat God's festive gifts in a state of mourning. Given the association of dust with death and
mourning, we can be certain that they washed themselves2 and particularly their feet, before participating
in the feast.21

The death of Christ removed the curse from the world, and thus from the soil. It is no longer improper to go
barefoot at the beach or to wear shoes in church.

Second, the curse on the serpent: The curse on the serpent separates him from all other animals. English
Bibles that read "Cursed art thou above all cattle and above all beasts of the field" (Gen. 3:14) are
misleading. A proper translation would be "cursed are you away from all cattle and away from all beasts of
the field.”22 As E. J. Young writes, "The thought is not that of comparison, as though the Lord had said that
all the beasts would be cursed, but that the serpent would be cursed more than any. Rather, in the curse the
serpent is separated from the other beasts.” 23

Because the curse on the serpent is unique, and in fact may only have extended to the particular serpent that
Satan used to tempt Eve, we cannot say that this curse established the distinction between clean and
unclean animals.

Rather, the distinction between clean and unclean animals, which existed before the Flood (see discussion
below), would seem to arise from the curse on the soil. Genesis 2: 19 stresses that "Out of the soil the
LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, " and comparing this to Genesis 1:
24, we can see that all animals are considered to be made of earth. The soil would prosecute the curse to
man, and thus everything that comes from the soil would potentially have the same function. The soil
would yield thorns and thistles, as well as good plants (though the terminology "clean and unclean" is not
used of plants), and the soil would become alive as "thorny animals" (unclean) as well as "good animals"
(clean).

At the same time, the curse on the serpent provides categories that explain the distinction between clean
and unclean in the animal kingdoms. Those animals that one way or another resembled the serpent were

20
Tame may be related to an Egyptian Arabic word meaning silt or alluvial mud, but even if it is, this association does not mean that
the root meaning of tame is dirt or mud, only that the association is there. Cf. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K.
Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) #809, p. 349.
21
According to Edersheim, this was clearly understood in the days of our Lord: "Thus, 'no man might go on the Temple Mount...with
shoes on his feet'--sandals only being allowed; nor 'with the dust upon his feet....'" Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and
Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [19th c.] 1972), p. 65.
22
See Brichto, p. 83.
23
Young, p. 97.

99
categorized as unclean. The curse on the serpent was that he would crawl in the dirt and that he would eat
dirt. Once the soil was given the task of prosecuting the curse of death to humanity, those animals that are
most closely associated with the soil joined in that function. The specific details of the analogies are set out
in Leviticus 11. The grounds for those details are set out here.

1. The serpent would crawl on its belly, unshod. Accordingly, land animals and fish that are unshod (lack
scales), that travel in the dirt, were also categorized as unclean.

2. The serpent would eat dirt. Dirt includes the soil, carrion, and manure. Men and animals are made of the
soil, and in death return to it. Devouring carcasses is the same as devouring dirt. Excrement is rather
obviously also in this category.24 Accordingly, birds that devour carrion were categorized as unclean. In
Micah 7:17, the apostate nations are compared to serpents who eat dust.

3. The serpent had transgressed boundaries, and had assaulted the woman. Enmity was placed between the
woman and the serpent. Accordingly, boundary transgressors that swarmed into the domestic environment
were categorized as unclean.

4. The serpent had assaulted the son of God, Adam (Luke 3:38). Enmity was placed between the seed of the
woman and that of the serpent. Accordingly, any animal that kills men, and any domestic animal that rises
up to kill a man (Ex. 21:28), was categorized as unclean. 25

We must reiterate here what we noted concerning the soil, which is that the serpent was not itself cursed --
at least not in some absolute sense. We noted in an earlier essay that the Bible sometimes speaks favorably
of the serpent, that Jesus tells us to be wise as serpents, and even refers to Himself the serpent lifted up in
the wilderness (John 3:14).26 We recognize that the language of Genesis 3:14-15 runs in two directions. At
one level, there is the change in the nature of the animal itself; but at the other level there is the enmity
between the woman's seed and the seed of Satan. The serpent, being a creature of God and a "non-moral
agent" was not guilty of anything, and is unfallen. The curse is really against Satan.

Perhaps it is as if God came to the animals and said, "I need a volunteer to help Me put a test before Adam
and Eve." It was Serpent who stepped forward and volunteered. "You must let yourself be possessed by
Satan for this purpose," said God. "Whatever You wish, Master," replied Serpent.

After the Fall, God commissioned His friend Serpent to threaten man, to remind him of the fall. Serpent,
agreeing with God that man deserved death, readily agreed to this task. Thus, in himself, Serpent is a fine
fellow. The Bible even compares God’s people to a serpent --Samson being the illustration of this --and
Jesus tells us to imitate the wisdom of the serpent (Gen. 49:16-18; cp. Jud. 13- 17; Matt. 10:16).

Thus, the serpent was not cursed in himself, but only cursed with respect to man. Just so, unclean animals
were not unclean in themselves, but only unclean with respect to man.

At this point we have shown a close association between "curse" and "uncleanness." This is explored in
greater depth in paper no.10 in this series. 27 For now, the overlap between the two concepts is this: both
prosecute death to sinful humanity. The curse is death, and unclean things speak of death. A person under
curse is under death, in some sense, and a person who has become defiled through contact with a source of
uncleanness is also under death in some sense.

24
See the discussion in James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985), pp. 64ff.
25
Note Finkelstein' s comments on the ox that gores a man: "The real crime of the ox is that by killing a human being -- whether out of
viciousness or by an involuntary motion -- it has objectively committed a de facto insurrection against the hierarchic order established
by Creation: Man was designated by God 'to rule over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the skies, the cattle, the earth, and all creatures
that roam over the earth' (Gen. 1:26, 28). Simply by its behavior -- and it is vital here to stress that intention is immaterial; the guilt is
objective -- the ox has, albeit involuntarily, performed an act whose effect amounts to 'treason.' It has acted against man, its superior in
the hierarchy of Creation, as man acts against God when violating the Sabbath or when practicing idolatry. It is precisely for this
reason that the flesh of the ox may not be consumed." J. J. Finkelstein, The Ox That Gored (Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society, 1981), p. 28.
26
James B. Jordan, Faith No.6. "Animals and the Bible." Studies in Food & Faith No. 6.
27
Jordan, "Clean and Unclean."

100
According to Romans 8:18-22, the serpent and the other items in the created world would prefer not to have
to act as humanity's judges. Such a task is not what they were designed for, and it is as "unnatural " for
them as sin is "unnatural " to man. Thus, the creation groans and yearns for the day when humanity will be
restored, and creation can happily re-subject itself to man.

I recognize that Genesis 3: 14 uses no circumlocution, but says directly to the serpent, "Cursed are you
above all other animals." God did not say to Adam, "Cursed is the serpent for your sake. " What does this
mean? We have to insist that the animals bore no blame for the fall, and are innocent. This includes the
serpent. Neither the serpent nor any other animal has ever done anything to deserve God’s curse. Only men
and angels can sin.

Is the physical universe -- the soil -- cursed? We have seen that it was not cursed, and bears no curse. It is
only a curse for man. It mediates God's judgment upon humanity. Man, made of soil, finds God's judgment
mediated to him through his very created being. The very being of man -- made of soil -- rebels against
man's sin.

It is somewhat different with the serpent and the rest of the animals. They experience the judgment of
mankind, because they are in a kind of covenant union with humanity. They suffer innocently. It is for this
reason that the sacrificial system was possible. An innocent animal suffers for the sins of the worshipper.
An innocent sheep or bull experiences the curse and judgment due the worshipper. Now, I suggest that the
serpent, being the craftiest of all animals (Gen. 3:1), was in a sense their head and king. More than any
other, he would experience -- innocently -- the curse put upon humanity. Al though serpents were not
offered on the al tar, Jesus directly compares His crucifixion to Moses' lifting up of the serpent on a pole in
the wilderness. Just as the innocent serpent -- wisest of all animals -- took the brunt of God's curse, so the
innocent Jesus Christ -- Captain of the New Humanity -- would take God's curse.

We shall have more to say about this after we have considered the Tabernacle, 28 but for now, in summary,
the curse on the serpent is:

1. Not for any crime of his own, since animals do not sin.

2. Real in the sense that the serpent and all animals suffer in union with humanity for sin.

3. Real in the sense that the judgment for sin is to be turned over to more sin, and animals can act this out
for us.

4. Illustrative, because animals are innocent, and their suffering is "substitutionary" though ineffectual,
while Christ's innocent suffering was substitutionary and effectual.

Throughout the present series of studies I shall endeavor to avoid expressions like "curse on the soil” and
the "curse on the serpent,” and instead refer to the "curse-prosecuting soil" and "curse-manifesting serpent."
Diagram 8.1 summarizes this discussion:

Diagram 8.1

Humanity Both sinful and under curse Curse-threatened

Animals Not sinful, but under man’s curse Curse-manifesting
Creation Not sinful, and not cursed Curse-prosecuting

Animals that travel in the dirt and that eat dirt are not only curse-manifestors but become potential curse-
prosecutors. Many of them (lions, bears, leviathan) were violent beasts that prosecuted the curse toward
man in more direct ways, but this fact is not relevant for the precise meaning of the clean/unclean

28
See Jordan, "Tabernacle and Dietary laws."

101
distinction.29 Eating such "dirty" animals had no ill effect until the Tabernacle was set up. with the erection
of the Tabernacle, however, the contrast between God's holy presence and the curse-manifesting unclean
animals became too great for comfort. The Israelite who ate the flesh of a curse-manifestor was taking a
great risk if he subsequently drew near to God.

To close this off, let me take up a question that the discussion raises. Because the soil, thorns, and animals
are God's good agents to prosecute God's righteous judgments against humanity, then are we simply to bow
before their judgments? Are we supposed to submit to these judgments, because we deserve them, or are
we supposed to wrestle against them? The Bible clearly teaches that we are to wrestle against the
manifestations of God's curse and judgments. This is because God Hirnself wants us to wrestle with Him in
this area. God sets Hirnself as our enemy, but invites us to argue with Him and wrestle with Him. Such
wrestling must be done in Christ, but it must be done all the same. Thus, David argues forcefully with God
in the Psalms, for instance. Similarly, God invited Jacob to wrestle with him, and put many adversaries in
his way, not to make him weak but to make him strong.30 For this reason, if an animal kills a man, the
animal is to be put to death (Gen. 9:5; Ex. 21:28), not because the animal is "bad" or "wicked, " but because
the animal is an adversary God has raised up to oppose us for our good.

The curse on the soil, with its thorns and bears, is not designed to destroy humanity, but to chastise us.
These curse-prosecuting agents point to the Last Judgment, when there will be no more wrestling, but
because they are "little judgments" they also have a positive function. They remind us of our sin when they
bring disasters upon us, and they also give us opportunity to become strong in the Lord as we wrestle them
down through the strength of Jesus Christ.

Third: Exile from the Sanctuary. One other dimension of God’s judgment against Adam must be mentioned
here, for it will play a large role in the history of the Old Covenant. God exiled Adam from the Garden-
sanctuary. Previously, Adam had had access to God’s Tree of Life; now he was denied it. Access versus
exile is a major theme in the Old Covenant. As we shall see, in the Old Covenant the exile from God was
overcome in varying degrees for various persons. Gentile believers had some access to God, but not much.
They might visit the holy land and attend the Feast of Tabernacles, but they might not dwell in the land and
thus did not have the same frequency of access to the Tabernacle/Temple precincts as the Israelites
enjoyed. The Israelites had greater access, but they might not come into the Holy Place. The Aaronic
priests had still greater access, but they might not enter the Holy of Holies. The High Priest might enter the
Holy of Holies, but only once a year, and he might not pass the barrier formed by the cherubim. All this
will be discussed in greater detail as we proceed.

Cain

The story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 is part two of the story of the Fall in Genesis 3. Genesis 4
recapitulates the events of Genesis 3, only showing a progressive deterioration.31 When Adam disobeyed
God, he was cast from the garden sanctuary. When Cain disobeyed God, he was cast from the land of Eden.
Later, when humanity continued to reject God, they were cast from the world by the Flood.

This progressive casting out is accompanied by progressive curses. Adam was not cursed directly, but only
indirectly through the curse on the soil. Cain, however, was more directly cursed, in the same language as
that used of the serpent: “And now you are cursed from the ground which opened her mouth to receive your
brother's blood from your hand" (Gen. 4:11). It seems most likely tome that the second clause should be
taken as restrictive: Cain was cursed (banished) from that ground which had drunk Abel's blood, to wit, the
ground of the land of Eden. As later studies in this series will demonstrate, when an unclean or cursed
person comes into a holy place, he brings down God’s wrath upon himself. For this reason, Adam could no
longer go into the holy sanctuary ground of the Garden. Now this phenomenon is replicated at another

29
See Jordan, "Animals and the Bible."
30
See my discussion in Jordan, Primeval Saints, chap. 8
31
An excellent survey of the parallels between these two stories is Alan J. Hauser, "Linguistic and Thematic Links between Genesis
4:1-16 and Genesis 2--3," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980):297-305. The progression from Adam to Cain to
Noah is repeated in the progression from Ham to Nimrod to Joshua, from garden/sanctuary curse to land/city curse to obliteration.

102
level. The land of Eden is too holy for Cain, and he must dwell outside of it in a region of greater curse.

Later on in Israel's history we see this same principle. Clean converted Gentiles might visit Israel, but if
they were uncircumcised they did not dare settle down there. Similarly, clean Israelites might visit the
sanctuary, but since they had not been ritually constituted priests, they did not dare dwell there. The land of
Canaan was still under the curse on the soil, but it was relatively better than the other lands, being a land
that " flows with milk and honey," and as we mentioned above, being a land of food.

The generation of Noah's time was not given a new curse, since they were removed from the earth
altogether.

God threatened Israel with this same progression. If they sinned, their soil would become hard and the
heavens as bronze -- they would experience an intensified curse on the ground. If they continued
impenitent, they would be cast out of the land al together, experiencing the direct curse of Cain (Lev. 26;
Dt. 28).

A few further reflections on this are important at this point. In Biblical religion, Satan is not an independent
agent, free of God's control. Rather, Satan is God's tool. He is an evil, unwilling, and ungrateful tool, but he
is nonetheless God's tool. He is a tool God uses to prosecute the curse against man. Thus, the very word
"Satan" means prosecutor. The same thing is true of the satanized Gentile nations. Such nations as Assyria
and Rome were God's tools, His scourges for Israel. They were not aware that God was thus using them,
but He was.

In the economy of creation, the Cainite peoples are curse-prosecutors, as well as being under the curse
themselves. If the Israelites formed alliances with unconverted Gentile nations, they brought curse-
prosecution near to themselves, and God would judge them by letting them live under the curse of pagan
Gentile domination.

This was symbolized by the unclean animals. They represented the unconverted Gentile nations. If
Israelites ate them, this was equivalent to forming alliances with pagans. In both cases, it resulted in a
heightening of curse-prosecution, and resultant judgment from God.

Diagram 8.2

Satan Nations Unclean Animals

judicial function curse-prosecutor curse-prosecutor curse-prosecutor

moral status evil evil good

Noah and the Flood

In Genesis 7:2, God told Noah, "You shall take with you of every clean animal seven pair, a male and a
female; and of the animals that are not-clean two, a male and his female." It is thus clear that the
differences between clean and unclean animals were known before the Flood, before men were even eating
flesh. Accordingly it is obvious that the distinction does not have to do with eating or food value, but is
symbolic.

Even if it were the case that the clean/unclean distinction was introduced for the first time at the beginning
of the Flood,32 it still was not related to eating. It was not until after the Flood that Noah was given
permission to eat meat, and he was given permission to eat any and all flesh. Thus, the clean/unclean
distinction in animals predated man's maturation to a meat-eating stage, whether the distinction dated from
32
Notice that God's original command to Noah, given 120 years before the Flood, was simply to take a pair of every animal and bird
(Gen. 6:19-20). Then, 120 years later, as the Flood began, God announced that Noah was to take seven pairs of clean birds and
animals. This could be taken as indicating a change in orders. (It is normally understood from Genesis 6: 3 that God gave Noah 120
years to preach and build.)

103
the Fall or from the beginning of the Flood.

I have written elsewhere concerning the fact that new stipulations in each new covenant are anticipated
during the centuries before that new covenant is formalized. 33 Thus, for instance, Israel had already
developed rule by elders and evidently some kind of central sanctuary while they lived in Egypt (Ex. 4:29;
33:7),34 but in Exodus 18 God formalized rule by elders in the Mosaic covenant, and in Exodus 25-40 God
formalized worship at a sacred tent, the Tabernacle. Just so, I believe that men gradually came to
understand the difference between clean and unclean animals during the 1656 years between the Fall and
the Flood. At the Flood, however, God formalized the distinction, because that distinction would be
essential to the new covenant, the Noahic Covenant that He was introducing at that time. Under the new
Noahic Covenant only clean animals would be eligible for sacrifice.

The unclean animals are not called unclean, but "not-clean.” The difference in Hebrew is marked. They are
not called tame, but they are called "not taher." The reason for this is that the term tame, “unclean," has an
almost exclusively cultic (ritual, sacrificial, explicitly religious) use. With one exception, the term
“unclean" never appears until Leviticus 5, after which it occurs constantly in the text.35 It appears,
therefore, to be intimately associated with the Tabernacle as God's house. That which had simply been
"not- clean" earlier, now becomes "unclean" in the presence of God. The use of a new and separate word
seems to imply a sharper contrast, which indeed the Levitical law as a whole provides.

This raises the question as to whether these "not-clean" animals of Genesis 7 are the same as the "unclean"
animals of Leviticus 11. In the total absence of any evidence to the contrary, and with no theological reason
to suspect any, we can only assume that the same animals are in view. Had Noah made a list, it would not
have contradicted the lists in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

We are not told the criteria in operation for distinguishing clean from not-clean animals. Presumably they
were the same as later inscripturated in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It is noteworthy that the not-clean
raven apparently had no qualms about lighting on corpses and trash floating on the waters, while the clean
dove "found no resting place for the sole of her foot" (Gen. 8:7, 9). The clean land animals are described in
terms of their feet in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

After the Flood, Noah "built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird
and offered burnt offerings on the altar" (Gen. 8:20). This means that every clean animal was offered in
sacrifice, including animals that later were excluded, such as deer and gazelle. Why would this be?

There are two considerations to bear in mind. First, Noah was at that time and throughout his life what we
can call a Gentile or "third-class priest." He did not inhabit a holy land, a new Eden, nor did he officiate in
a heavenly Tabernacle with a Garden sanctuary precinct. Later, when Abram was called to be a priest to the
nations, there was a new covenant, a new world arrangement. Abraham became a "second-class priest, " a
calling signified by circumcision. It appears that at that time the list of sacrificial animals was restricted to
cattle, sheep, goats, turtledoves, and pigeons (Gen. 15:9). These are the only animals used later in the
Levitical system. With the Mosaic covenant, we have the establishment of "first-class priests," the house of
Aaron, who were priests for Israel.36

33
Jordan, Through New Eves, pp. 197-198, 221-227, 241-242
34
Exodus 33:7 is sometimes mistranslated, "Moses took his tent." Actually the text says, "Moses took the tent." It is clear from 33:8
that this was not Moses' personal tent. Thus, this passage indicates that there was already some central meeting place, a tent, in Israel.
35
The exception is Genesis 34:5, 13, 17, the story of Shechem's assault on Dinah. I believe that the language of uncleanness is used
here by way of anticipation, because it was precisely the "abominations of the Canaanites" that had rendered them detestable and
resulted in their destruction, and against which the laws of Leviticus are directed.
36
This threefold distinction is carefully maintained in Psalms 115:9-11, 118:2-4, and 135:19-20. In the New Covenant, of course,
these distinctions were overcome.
Note that when God made the world to start with, He first created the entire earth (Gen. 1), then the land of Eden, and finally He
planted a garden in the east part of Eden. This same progression is seen from Noah to Abraham to Moses. It is also seen after the exile
when Daniel restores the world by taking dominion over the empire, and then the people return to the land, and finally rebuild the
Temple.
For completeness, let me add that the primacy (in one sense) of the Melchizedekal "third-class priesthood"
is maintained at each point. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20), and the uncircumcised

104
It appears, therefore, that the domestic animals of Genesis 15 and of Leviticus are priestly animals. Noah,
however, was sacrificing for the entire world. Accordingly, he sacrificed all clean animals.

The second consideration is that Noah's sacrifice established not simply one priestly nation, but established
a new world. Thus, it made sense for him to sacrifice the entire clean portion of the animal kingdom, and
not just the priestly, Edenic-domestic portion. When God smelled that sacrifice, He agreed never again to
destroy the world (Gen. 8:21).

After the Flood and the world-sacrifice, God established a new covenant with Noah. We might expect
things to go back to the beginning, but instead we find a distinct progression. We noted earlier that Adam
was created a naked infant, who was supposed to grow up and acquire wisdom and eventually be invested
with authority. After the Flood we find the first stage of this progressive investiture. Man is given the right,
for the first time, to execute capital punishment. Such a control over human life is obviously a bequest from
God, who alone is Lord of life. Along with this change, and tied to it, is the permission to eat meat; that is,
to kill animals in order to get meat.

Agreeable to this theme we find an emphasis on Noah's robe of authority (Gen. 9:20-27). Ham's attempt to
seize Noah's robe corresponds to Adam's seizure of the fruit of the Tree of Judicial Authority. Unlike
before, however, this time the action is thwarted. As God pronounced judgment in the original Garden
scene, so Noah pronounces judgment now. All this goes to show the progression in the maturation of true
humanity.37

The analogy between men and animals is relevant to Genesis 9:3-7.38 Men would now be allowed to kill
animals for food. Men would also be allowed to execute other men. At the same time, men were not
allowed to drink the blood of animals, but had to pour it out and return it to God. This meant that the
privilege of eating meat was only given on God's terms. Similarly, men were not allowed to execute capital
punishment for just any crime, but only for those specified by God, which at this point meant murder only.
Wanton bloodshed is here set as equivalent to drinking blood, vampirism (cf. Rev. 17: 6). 39

Finally, we must note carefully the exact wording of Genesis 9:3, "Every moving thing that is alive shall be
food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." Notice that the distinction between clean and
"not-clean" animals was known before the Flood. Notice further that here God gave permission to eat of
any and every animals, without distinction. There was no more restriction on eating animal flesh than there
had been on eating plants. Just as one Tree had been forbidden, so in the Noahic covenant, blood is
forbidden. But not unclean animals.

This establishes clearly that "clean" does not mean or imply edible, and "unclean" does not mean or imply
forbidden as food. It was an innovation of the Mosaic economy to state that the flesh of unclean animals
was to be regarded as detestable. Noah could eat all the rabbit, pork, camel, horse, dog, lobster, crab, and
shrimp he wanted.40

Gentile priest Jethro led Aaron in worship and instructed Moses on the constitution of Israel (Ex. 18:12ff.). Hiram of Tyre helped
sponsor the Temple, and Cyrus and other Persian kings helped reestablish Israel after the Exile. Both Hiram and these Persian kings
were "priest-kings" of their nations.
37
I have discussed the sin of Ham in Primeval Saints, and in "Rebellion."
38
Notice the phrasing of verses 4-6a, "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, its blood. And surely I will require your blood of your
lives, from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of every man, from the hand of every man's brother I will
require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood …” One can hardly miss the analogy.
39
The traditional Jewish interpretation of the Noahic provisions is that eating meat was a concession to human weakness rather than a
sign of elevation to new authority, and that the prohibition on eating blood does not refer to vampirism or to drinking blood, but to
harvesting the limb of a living animal. This latter interpretation is grounded in "oral law tradition," not in the wording of the text. For
criticisms, see my remarks in Jordan, "Interpretations of the Mosaic Dietary Laws: A Survey." Studies in Food & Faith No.5. On
vampirism, see my remarks in Jordan, "The Meaning of Eating in the Bible." studies in Food & Faith No.7.
40
"One thing must be said, however. Even though man was allowed, ‘every herb bearing seed,’ does this mean he was supposed to eat
every one? There are hundreds of plants that grow from seeds that are highly toxic to man. Does God mean from Genesis 1:29 that
man should eat of every plant? Of course not! The verse simply means that God has no religious restrictions concerning the eating of
plants and that' every herb bearing seed' may be eaten without ritualistic distinction. It is likewise with the animals. When God said
'Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you' (Genesis 9: 3), he didn't mean that man should eat every animal. God was only

105
The fact that Noah had permission to eat the meat of unclean animals also sheds light on the fact that the
Bible nowhere uses the expression "unclean meats" or "unclean food." Thus, to be precise, animals came in
the categories of clean and unclean, while meat came in the categories of edible and detestable. Under the
Noahic covenant, some animals were clean and some were unclean, while all meat was edible and none
was detestable.

The Hebrew Patriarchs

Was it all right for Abraham to eat the meat of unclean animals? Did Abraham eat pork? We have seen that
the sacrificial animals were most likely restricted to five in number once Abraham was covenantally set up
as a “second-class priest,” a priest of the land. Did this imply a restriction in diet as well? There is no
reason to think so, and good reason to believe that Abraham could eat whatever he wanted, except for
blood.

First, under the Abrahamic covenant, men were circumcised, but there was no Passover meal. That
additional sacrament came in with Moses. It was Passover that made all Israel God's special people and tied
them to His house as His domestic servants. As we shall see, the dietary laws were laws of the household,
and thus only came into play when that household was set up at Passover. The rejection of the flesh of
unclean animals is the negative side of the Passover meal.

Second, Leviticus 11:45 specifically ties the dietary restrictions to the Mosaic exodus, not to Abrahamic
circumcision: "You shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that crawl on the
earth, for I am the lord, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, to be your God: thus you shall be holy
for I am holy." The new dietary restrictions were an implication of the building of the Tabernacle, not
simply of the call to priesthood. Eating unclean food, and the other forms of uncleanness, rendered a man
unfit to enter the Tabernacle precincts. This was not relevant to the Abrahamic covenant.

Third, there is an additional dynamic in the historical progress of the covenants that also sheds light on this.
Adam was given a shame-covering garment of skins. Noah, elevated above Adam, was allowed to eat
animals from which those skins came. Similarly, Abraham was given a shame-covering of circumcision.41
Moses, elevated above Abraham, was given permission to eat of Passover and other sacrifices. With Noah's
elevation came a restriction on eating blood. with Moses' elevation came a restriction on eating the meat of
unclean animals.

Diagram 8. 3

External (Clothing) Internal (Food) / Restriction

World Adam: skins of animals Noah: flesh of animals / no blood

Priestly nation Abram: circumcision Moses: Passover / no detestable meat
New Covenant John: baptism Jesus: Lord's Supper / no table of demons

Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that Abraham was under any dietary restrictions except that
prohibiting the drinking of blood.

showing Noah that there were to be no religious, or ceremonial, restrictions on which animals man could eat." Ernest L. Martin, "The
Dietary laws of the Bible, " Foundation for Biblical Research Exposition Paper (1974), p. 7; available from Academy for Scriptural
Knowledge, P.O. Box 7777, Alhambra, CA 91802-7777.
41
“Second, circumcision means the removal of shameful clothing, and implies that the man who is naked before God is truly clothed.
We go back to Genesis 3: 7 to find that Adam and Eve, in sin, felt a sense of shame, and this sense of shame was localized in their
'private parts' (note that expression). They made aprons of leaves, but God removed them, and re-clothed them Himself. The foreskin
is a kind of apron, and its removal is a removal of shame, according to Joshua 5:9. Men must uncover their nakedness before God,
confessing their sin and shame, before they can be clothed in righteousness (compare Zechariah 3:3, 4).” James B. Jordan, The Law of
the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), p. 79.

106
A new dietary restriction appears in Genesis 32:32. After successfully wrestling with God all night, Jacob
found as his reward that God had dislocated his thigh. This incident showed that Jacob had successfully
matured through the painful course of conflict God had set for him. His reward, a limp, was a sign that he
was numbered among those whose heels are wounded, not among those whose heads are crushed.42 To
memorialize this event, "to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket
of the thigh, because He touched the socket of Jacob's thigh in the sinew of the hip."

Among other things, this verse the Israelite mind with analogies men would never think to do this, shows
how thoroughly permeated was between men and animals. Modern but it came naturally to them.

We are not told the rationale. Possibly God's stroke against Jacob was seen as a judgment --a lesser
judgment that was a sign of victory as opposed to a devastating head-crushing judgment that would be a
sign of defeat --but a judgment nonetheless. The Hebrew word for "touch" (naga') in Genesis 32:25 ("He
touched the socket of his thigh"), is also used for a blow or for a plague. It is used sixty (1) times in
Leviticus 13-14 for the stroke of leprosy.43 Since God's "touching" Jacob resulted in a permanent
disablement, it is clear that not mere touching is involved, but something more like a blow or stroke. Thus,
the idea of judgment is very likely. In that case, it is probable that this muscle was avoided as somehow
unclean or death-dealing (curse-prosecuting), for as we shall see, uncleanness is an institutionalization of
the judgment for original sin.

On the other hand, God's stroke against Jacob might have been seen as a blessing, since the alternative was
destruction. Jacob had been in the very holy presence of God, and had seen His face, so to speak. Perhaps
this sinew was avoided because it symbolized something too holy for ordinary men to eat. Under the
Levitical system, the layman was not supposed to eat the food specially set apart for the priests (Lev. 22).
Possibly this portion of the animal was regarded as holy, since it had been touched by God, and thus was
not eaten.

It is more likely that the first suggestion is correct, especially since, according to Edersheim, the "sinew of
the thigh" was not allowed to be sacrificed.44 This was how the rabbis reasoned at the time of our Lord, and
it is all we have to go on regarding how the Jews viewed this matter. Had the sinew been regarded as holy,
it would have been sacrificed. That it was neither sacrificed nor eaten indicates that it was regarded as
somehow unclean, probably because it was a sign of God's stroke against father Jacob.

42
See my remarks in Jordan, Primeval Saints, chap. 8.
43
See Jordan, "Clean and Unclean."
44
Edersheim, p. 127.

107
 SECTION 09 - THE TABERNACLE AND THE DIETARY LAWS

As we have already seen, the meat of unclean animals was declared detestable, inedible, at Mount Sinai.
The reason for this, generally speaking, was the nature of the new covenant inaugurated at that time. To a
general consideration and overview of this new covenant we now turn our attention.

Passover and the Tabernacle

God delivered Israel from Egypt by bringing judgment against that nation, and most pointedly against the
firstborn son of every household in the land. Only those households protected by the blood of the Passover
Lamb were spared this judgment. What was unique about the Passover was not that it was a blood sacrifice
to avert judgment, for such had been practiced since the time of Adam. No, rather what was new was that
for the first time ever, a sacrifice was eaten by men. For the first time, God permitted a people to share a
meal with Him, and to eat a portion of His sacrifice.

This act elevated the Hebrews as a people --all those participating in Passover --into a new status. They and
they alone were permitted to draw near and eat a sacrificial meal with God. In view of this changed
situation, God announced at Mount Sinai that He would build a tent for Himself in their midst, and dwell
with them. This tent is called the Tabernacle, and God's dwelling with His people is called His tabernacling
with them. Their firstborn sons, claimed by God at Passover, would be priests, and would serve Him at His
tent. All Passed-over Israelites would be permitted to draw near, into the forecourt of the tent, and
fellowship with God (Lev. 1:3, etc.).

Because of the failure of the firstborn to guard God's holiness, God substituted the Levites for them (Ex.
32:29; Num. 3:41). Nevertheless, the Tabernacle was built, a place where God would camp with His
people. At its center, the Most Holy Place or Holy of Holies, was God's throne room. God's "name" sat
enthroned upon the wings of the cherubim, with His feet resting on the mercy seat. 1 Into this room only one
man, the High Priest, could go, and only once a year, to clean the footstool (Lev. 16).

The outer room, the Holy Place, was the living area of the Tent. In it were three pieces of furniture. There
was a lamp to give light. There was a dinner table with bread on it. And there was an incense platform. We
today use potpourris and scent-sprays to make our homes smell nice. In the ancient world, before flush
toilets were developed and when animals lived very close at hand, the noisome smells were stronger, and
people burned incense regularly to make their homes smell nice.

Outside the Tent was the kitchen area. Before the days of gas and electric ovens, people who could afford it
put their kitchens in rooms off to the side, or even in a separate building. Just so, the kitchen was outside
the Tabernacle. Here the animals were slaughtered, gutted, and skinned. They were washed in the sink (the
laver) and cooked on the altar (the stove).

Such was God's tent, His house. God did not want His house to be made filthy, of course. It had to be kept
clean, because if the people let it get too run down and filthy, God would leave. Now, while doubtless
physical dirt was wiped off of the Tabernacle furniture, it was mainly moral filth and ceremonial
"uncleanness" that defiled His house. (After all, the soil under the Tabernacle was "holy ground" and thus
was cleansed from the curse of Genesis 3.) The purpose of the Purification Offerings was to cleanse the
house of these defilements. Blood was put on those parts of the house that had become unclean, blood
being the "detergent" (Lev. 4).

The Bible tells us that the Tabernacle and its courtyard symbolized the heavens and the earth, God's
dwelling places.2 Heaven is God's throne, and the earth His footstool (Is. 66:1; Matt. 5:35; Acts 7:49). This
1
See Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, [1978] 1985), chap. 13. 1
Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16; Psalm 80:2; 99:1. The distinction between God Himself and His "name" is
made in 1 Kings 8:27-30.
2
See Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), chap. 2. See also James B. Jordan, "The Tabernacle: A

108
was set out in two ways in the Tabernacle. In the Most Holy Place, the heavenly throne was pictured by the
mercy seat and the winged cherubim. God's "name" sat enthroned on the outspread wings of the cherubim,
with His feet on the mercy seat that covered the Ark of the Covenant. In the ritual of the Day of Atonement,
the mercy seat was cleansed with blood, so that God would not have cause to remove His feet and leave the
Tent.

Second, the Most Holy Place itself was a model of the highest heaven, with the firmament or earthly
heavens pictured in the Holy Place, and the earth pictured in the courtyard. The courtyard al tar was the
holy mountain of the earth (Ezk. 43:15; Ex. 20:24), that reached toward the sky, pictured in the Holy Place
behind the first veil, a veil of sky blue. Hidden above and beyond the blue sky was the heaven of heavens,
behind the cherubirn-embroidered second veil. Since the earth was God’s footstool, it was necessary to
keep it clean so that God would dwell among men with His holy feet on clean soil. The two altars,
signifying the earth in two aspects, had to be kept clean for this reason, and so they too were daubed and
sprinkled with blood of Purification Offerings. The golden or sky altar before the veil was thus part of the
earthly or visible heavens, and it was cleansed, as was the courtyard altar.

More than this, however, the Tabernacle symbolized humanity as God's true Temple. The Tabernacle was a
symbol of the Israelite body politic (1Cor. 3:16). For this reason, when the citizens of Israel sinned or
became symbolically unclean, corresponding invisible marks "appeared" in the Tabernacle. That is, as the
people sinned and came under judgment, the Tabernacle also came under judgment. The more unclean
(under judgment) the people became, the more unclean the Tabernacle, its furniture, vessels, curtains,
pillars, etc. became. To cleanse the Tabernacle, then, symbolized cleansing (removing judgment from) the
people (cp. Ex. 24:4, 8). Only a cleansed people could draw near to God, and God would remain dwelling
only in the midst of a cleansed people. Only a cleansed people could form a throne for God, so that He
would be willing to sit enthroned on the praises of Israel, His feet resting on them (Ps. 22:3).

For this reason, the traditional translation of Purification offering as Sin Offering is not far from the mark.
Because this sacrifice was used for non-sinful forms of uncleanness (e.g., after childbirth, Lev. 12:6), it is
better to use the more general term "Purification Offering" for it. The point to bear in mind is that it is not
the Tabernacle as an inanimate object that needs purification, but only the Tabernacle in its capacity as a
symbol of the human person and human body politic.

Recognition that the Tabernacle was wholly symbolic is the only approach to the matter that is consistent
with Reformed theology. The creation is not fallen, and is thus in no need of atonement or consecration.
Accordingly, the Protestant Reformers were opposed to any kind of consecration of the elements of
communion, of the waters of baptism, of church buildings, or anything else except human beings. Only
human beings are fallen, and they alone need salvation. The idea that the creation is fallen and inadequate
to express God's design is founded on Greek philosophical notions, particularly neo- Platonism, and is alien
to the Bible. For an example of Protestant reasoning, see the Censura of Martin Bucer.3 On the same
philosophical base, Protestants oppose the notion that God had to prepare a "special vessel" in the Virgin
Mary in order to give birth to His Son. The Protestant view is that as a creature Mary was perfectly good
and adequate for the task, despite her personal sinfulness.

The neo-Platonic view is that there is something inadequate, inferior, or even bad about the material world,
so that it must be somehow transformed before it can be used by God or in the Kingdom. The issue is the
goodness of the creation, and the exclusivity of man as moral agent. Only man is fallen, and only man
needs redemption. Such things as ferocious wild animals, thorns and thistles, tornadoes and earthquakes,
and the like, are all God's friends. They are His curse-prosecuting agents to bring deserved judgment on
sinful man. The world, being unfallen, takes God's side and seeks to punish man.

This position means that all the anointings and sprinklings of material objects in the Old Covenant were
symbolic. The objects (altars, walls, garments, curtains, etc.) symbolized people. It can be pointed out, of

New Creation." Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.5.

3
In E. C. Whitaker, Martin Bucer and The Book of Common Prayer. Alcuin Club Collections 55 (London: Alcuin Club, 1974), esp. p.
98.

109
course, that Calvin and the other Reformers did not consistently take this line of approach in their
expositions of the Mosaic law. As we saw in the first paper in the present series, 4 Calvin was fearful of
"symbolic" interpretations, and with good reason given the excess of random allegorization to which his
period was heir. Nevertheless, it must also be pointed out that the Reformers can hardly be faulted for not
having made detailed studies of the Mosaic law, since they had far too many more pressing duties to
perform. The symbolic approach is the logical outworking of the Reformation position. It is also, of course,
as I have shown in more detail elsewhere, the Biblical position.5

Ultimately, then, the entire Tent was symbolic. The veils signified ranks of guardians around the Throne,
places where God's "feet" would rest. The veils of cloth became defiled when the people they represented
became defiled. To cleanse the people, blood was put on the three altars (the third being the mercy seat
itself; Lev. 4; 16). Cleansing these three central items had the effect of cleansing all the other elements of
the Tabernacle gathered round them. 6

The ranks of guardians stood to keep people away from God, lest God either become angry and destroy
them, or become even angrier and pack up and move out, leaving His House desolate and abominated, and
leaving his people to their doom (Ezk. 8-11). Thus, these ranks of guardians were shoes between God and
the cursed soil of humanity. Accordingly the veils were also shoes. The outermost veil was significantly
made of the same stuff as fine shoes: dolphin leather, and this correlation is made plain in the allegory of
Ezekiel 16:10, "I clothed you with embroidered cloth, and put sandals of dolphin leather on your feet; and I
wrapped you with fine linen and covered you with silk." Except for the silk, this is a description of the
Tabernacle and its veils.

The shoes acted as barriers, preventing God from hearing the call of the soil. The soil called down the curse
upon men, because it was cursed with reference to man. The shoe-barriers around God's throne thus
represented mediators, who would stand between God and His sinful people, and prevent Him from judging
them.

The only kind of people God would permit to draw near to Him were people who properly imaged Him
(Gen. 1:26). Such people also needed to be shod. Of course, since the Tabernacle was set up on holy
ground, they did not have to wear shoes there (Ex. 3:5; Josh. 5:15), but they had to wear shoes everywhere
else. Symbolically, their shoes separated them ethically from the world of sin, and judicially from the curse
that the soil was trying to put upon them. Being shod symbolized that they were both judicially righteous,
separated from the curse due for sin, and ethically righteous, separated from sinful behavior.

As we shall see, the animals that symbolized God's holy people were all animals that wore shoes or that
were particular about where they set their feet. If a man ate an unshod animal, he became symbolically
unshod himself, and could not enter the sanctuary precincts to offer sacrifice. Just as he would wash his
dirty feet before he entered the sanctuary barefoot, so the man who ate an unshod animal would have to
become cleansed, by washing, before he might enter the sanctuary.

If an unclean person entered the sanctuary, God would become angry. Such entrance was regarded as an
encroachment, and to get before us the seriousness of this matter, let us briefly turn to a consideration of the
sin of encroachment.

The Death Penalty for Encroachment 7

God had threatened Adam with death for taking forbidden fruit from His garden. God had stationed

4
James B. Jordan, "An Introduction to the Mosaic Dietary laws." Studies in Food & Faith No.1.
5
James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical view of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988).
6
I have discussed the Tabernacle at greater length in Jordan, Through New Eyes, pp. 204-217. For a complete study of the veils and
their symbolism, see James B. Jordan, "From Glory to Glory: Degrees of Value in the Sanctuary." Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper
No. 2.
7
I have discussed this matter at greater length in James B. Jordan, "The Death Penalty in the Mosaic Law: Five Exploratory Essays."
Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.3, chap. 3, from which the following remarks are partially extracted.

110
cherubim with flaming sword to kill anyone who tried to storm the gates of paradise. At Mount Sinai, God
said, "Beware that you do not go up on the mount or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain
shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 19:12). God also threatened to kill anyone who broke through and gazed
(Ex. 19:21).

The First Mosaic Covenant

This was because God was present there, and encroachment upon holy ground brings death. At the time of
the first Mosaic covenant, the firstborn sons of Israel were to function as priests and guards (Ex. 19:22, 24;
24:5). God spoke the Ten Commandments, but they rightly terrified the people, who asked for a mediatorial
barrier to be set up between themselves and God (Ex. 20:18-26). Accordingly, Moses went into the Cloud
and he alone ran the risk of drawing so near to God.

God spoke the Book of the Covenant to Moses, who wrote it down. Then Moses had the firstborn sons, the
priests, offer sacrifice, and Moses and seventy of the elders of Israel, along with Aaron and his sons, went
halfway up into the Cloud to seal the covenant (Ex. 24). Thus, in this, the first Mosaic covenant, the High
Priest was Moses, assisted by Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders. The priests were the firstborn
sons, who were to guard Israel's holiness.

God gave the directions for the Tabernacle, a series of barriers to shield the people, and wrote the Ten
Commandments, and Moses brought them down unshielded. The interface between God's holy law and the
golden cal f idolatry of the people resulted in a tremendous slaughter. The tablets were shattered, the
covenant broken. The firstborn sons had failed as guards, and the Levites were put in their place. To protect
the people, God moved His pre-Tabernacle tent outside the camp, putting distance between Himself and
them. God said, "should I go up in your midst for one moment, I would destroy you" (Ex. 33:5).

Moses begged God to return to the midst of the people (Ex. 34:9). God’s response was to write the Ten
Commandments again. Apparently these remained in God’s tent outside the camp until the Tabernacle and
Ark could be built to house them, thereby sheltering the people from them. God did not move back into the
camp until the law was thus hidden (Ex. 40).

The first Mosaic covenant, thus, was given in Exodus 19-24, and broken at the golden calf. The second
Mosaic covenant came in when God wrote the Ten Commandments a second time, making alterations in
the priesthood. With a change of priesthood comes a change in law (Heb. 7:12).

The death penalty for encroachment was accordingly changed. The Tabernacle was a model of the holy
mountain. God had given His law to Moses at the top; that law was now put into the Most Holy Place. God
had put an altar at the bottom that only select young men (firstborn) could approach. Now that altar was
replaced by the one in the Tabernacle courtyard, and only Aaronic priests could approach it (Lev. 1:3-8).8
Between the foot and top of the mountain was a middle area at which the elders of Israel ate with God. In
the new arrangement, the priests were the ones who could enter the Holy Place, where the table of
showbread was placed (Num. 1:51; 3:10, 38; 4:20).

Leviticus 4 and 16 help explain the system of equivalences. Most serious defilements, defilements of the
Most Holy, were caused by the unintentional sins of the High Priest and the highhanded sins of the people
(Lev. 16:11-19). This corresponds to Moses' position in the first Mosaic covenant. Moses was supreme
priest, and "strongly" represented the entire nation. Moderate defilements, defilements of the Holy Place,
were caused by the unintentional sins of the anointed priests and of the entire nation as a body politic (Lev.
4:3-21). This corresponds to the elders in the first Mosaic covenant, for they went mid-way up the
mountain, and "less strongly" represented the body politic of the nation. Least serious defilements,
defilements of the Courtyard and Bronze Al tar, were caused by the unintentional sins of the common
people and their leaders, including the Levites (Lev. 3:22-35). This corresponds to the firstborn sons of the
first Mosaic covenant, who officiated at the altar at the base of Sinai.

8
See discussion in Haran, pp. 184-185.

111
The Second Mosaic Covenant

There were changes, though, since Levites did not officiate at the Altar, but only guarded it (cp. Ex. 20:22,
26 with Lev. 1:3-8 and Num. 3-4). In the second Mosaic covenant, each stage of access is reduced. Moses
spent two 40-day fasts at the top of Sinai, but the High Priest could only enter once a year, on the one-day
fast of the Day of Atonement. The elders ate a meal at the mid-point, but the priests had to take the
showbread outside to eat it. The firstborn officiated at the altar, but the Levites could only guard it.

With this reduction, there was now no penalty for touching the outer curtains of the Tabernacle, as there
had once been for touching the mountain or crossing its appointed border. The Israelite layman might enter
the forecourt, the first quarter of the Tabernacle court, though he might not approach the altar. It seems that
this lessening of penalties, and ability to come somewhat nearer, is a result of the layers of barrier that have
come in between God and the people: The Ark was a box around the tablets of the ten commandments,
shielding the people from their direct assault. Then there was the veil between the Holiest and the Holy
Place. There was yet another veil between the Holy Place and the courtyard. The Tabernacle was topped
with three additional layers: goats hair, red lambskin, and dolphin leather. All these layers seem to protect
the people from God's fire.9

The penalty for encroachment still stood, of course. When Madab and Abihu brought strange fire (fire not
taken from the divinely ignited altar), they were themselves consumed by the cherubic fire of God's
judgment. God threatened to kill anyone who approached the altar or the Tabernacle proper (Ex. 28:43;
30:20-21), and Levitical guards were stationed roundabout to enforce this stipulation (Mum. 1:51; 3:9-10).

Nevertheless, even this was too much. When the people sinned, God slew them over and over again. God
was still too close. The people broke the second Mosaic covenant by refusing to enter the land, and God's
wrath came upon them. The culmination of this is seen in Numbers 17: "Then the sons of Israel spoke to
Moses, saying 'Behold, we perish, we are dying, we are all dying! Everyone who comes near, who comes
near to the tabernacle of the Lord, must die. Are we to perish completely?"' (Num. 17:12-13)

The Third Mosaic Covenant

As a result, and we move here into the realm of the third and final Mosaic covenant, God changed the rules
again. From now on, He said, laymen will still die if they encroach, but so will the Levites and priests if
they fail to warn the layman (Num. 18:1-22; cf. Num. 8:19). The tithe owed by Israel to the Lord would be
given to the Levites as blood money, payment for the risk they were taking (Num. 18:21-32). Ashes of the
heifer were newly provided to cleanse the defilement caused by death in the camp, because God was killing
so many people (indeed, that whole generation), and because the presence of such defilement would cause
God to leave if unatoned for (Num. 19). Then Aaron died, and with a change of priests comes a change in
law (Num. 20:22-29). Immediately the people, released from wilderness refuge, began to conquer Canaan
(Num. 21:1-3), and eventually the law was republished in a new form by Moses, in anticipation of their
entrance into the land. Deuteronomy, thus, is the major statement of the third Mosaic covenant. 10

In my opinion, the punishment for encroachment gives perspective to all other death penalties. Adam's task
was to guard. His failure to guard brought death upon him. The same was later true of the firstborn sons,
and then of the Levites. It is failure to guard God's holiness that is the ultimate capital offense. How
severely such offenses are punished depends on two factors:

1. Who is doing them, be he layman or priest, the latter being under stricter rules (Lev. 22-22)

9
See Jordan, "From Glory to Glory. " The shields symbolized layers of people. Kline has suggested that the veils, in addition to their
blue heavenly symbolism, also embodied flaming designs. Kline, p. 40.
10
Hebrews 7:12 says that when the priest is replaced, the law changes. In its most moderate form, this happened each time a High
Priest died, for at that point all death sentences for accidental manslaughter were cancelled and men hiding in the cities of Refuge
were released (Num. 35:28; cp. Num. 20:22--21:3; Josh. 24:33). A more powerful change in law came with the house of Ithamar was
replaced by that of Eleazar at the time of the building of the Temple, for at that point there was a new covenant. See my discussion of
this in Jordan, Through New Eyes.

112
2. Where they are being done, near to or far from God's house, the former being under stricter rules.

These are really one rule. Those associated with God's household, having access to His house, are under
stricter rules than those not associated therewith. For instance, if the daughter of a priest committed
harlotry, she was slain and then her body burned (Lev. 21:9; with sacrificial fire, undoubtedly). Since the
priest corresponded to the elder, the same possibly might have been true for the daughter of an elder. The
daughter of a layman guilty of the same crime was simply stoned (Dt. 22:21). What we notice here is that
the death penalty is alike for both offenders; it is only the mode of administration that differs.

Guardian Levites

There is a running debate between scholars Jacob Milgrom and Menahem Haran over whether or not the
Levites were armed as they guarded the Tabernacle. Milgrom maintains that they were, while Haran says
that their guarding consisted only of verbal warnings, while God Himself was executioner. Milgrom seems
to have the better position, because (1) people were clearly put to death by human agency at Sinai (Ex.
19:12-13; 32:25-28), (2) Edersheim points out that in Jesus' day people were executed immediately for
encroachment and unclean trespass, and (3) Haran considers the Tabernacle rules only as an ideal created
by priests of the later monarchy, and thus does not take Exodus 19 and 32 into consideration. 11

Milgrom's study conclusively shows that the English "keep My charge," when referring to Levitical guards,
means "do guard duty." This evidently meant putting encroachers to death (Num. 1:51; 3:10, 38; Num.
18:7).

The priests guarded the Holy Place, while the Levites guarded the courtyard. "The Levites are responsible
for trespassing by laymen (Num. 18:22-23) and by Levites (v. 3b) --those who approach from the outside --
and priests are responsible for trespassing by Levites (v. 3b) and priests (v. 7a) within." 12

The rebellion of Korah, like the apostasy at the Golden Calf, is a case history in encroachrnent. 13 The
rebellion in Numbers 16 had two aspects. The Reubenites, of the rejected firstborn tribe, objected to Moses'
civil leadership. The Levitical Korahites objected to Aaron's priestly office. While Korah did not physically
encroach, he claimed the right to do priestly tasks. "It is not where they ventured to go but what they
ventured to do that condemned Korah and his cohorts." 14 The aftermath was a plague against the whole
nation. "As a consequence of the Korahite plague the people develop a phobia towards the Tabernacle: they
will not come near it (Num. 17:27-28). To allay their fright, assurance is given them that henceforth priests
and Levites alone will share the fate of the encroacher (Num. 18:1-7): there will be no more indiscriminate
mass repercussions (Num. 18:22-23).”15 That is, there would be no more mass destructions of Israelites by
God.

The Levites as a whole were liable for any instance of encroachment, and that is why they were armed. The
encroacher was a potential mass murderer of all Levites.16 For this reason, the Levites were given the tithe,
which formerly had gone to the Lord. The tithe is to be associated with ransom money, and "the Levites are
a ransom for Israel, a lightning rod to attract God's wrath upon thernselves whenever an Israelite has
trespassed upon the sancta."17

11
Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology: The Encroacher and the Levite (Berkeley, University of California, 1970); Haran,
Temples and Temple-Service, p. 182; Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services as They: Were at the Time of Christ
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [19th c.] 1972), p. 89.
12
Milgrorn, Studies, p. 10.
13
The sin of the Golden Calf was the moral equivalent of sancta encroachment, breaking through the line and touching the mountain
or looking at God. "Now when Moses saw that the people were let loose, for Aaron had let them go loose" (Ex. 32:25). The idea is
that Aaron and the elders and firstborn had failed to guard, restrain, the people, with the result that they had encroached. As a result,
judgment came upon the people.
14
Ibid., p. 19.
15
Ibid., p. 23.
16
Ibid., pp. 22-27.
17
Ibid., p. 31. The application of this set of affairs to the substitutionary work of our Lord is obvious. No longer would the single
encroacher (Adam) bring judgment upon the entire nation (humanity), but rather the single encroacher would bring judgment upon the
substitute Levites (Jesus).

113
Thus, we have three phases to the penalty for encroachment.

1. In the First Mosaic Covenant, all Israelites, especially the firstborn sons and elders, were responsible to
kill the encroacher; otherwise, wrath would come upon the whole nation, as it did at the Golden Calf.

2. In the Second Mosaic Covenant, this was revised so that Levites were armed and they were responsible
to kill the encroacher; otherwise, wrath would come upon the whole nation, as it did at the Korahite
rebellion.

3. In the Third and final Mosaic Covenant, another revision was introduced. The Levites were armed and
were responsible to kill the encroacher; otherwise, wrath would come upon all the Levites.

We have made this brief survey of the laws of encroachment in order to become more familiar with the
boundaries of the Tabernacle area, and how seriously God took them. It is the establishment of these
boundaries that calls into being the laws of uncleanness, for the laws of uncleanness have to do with who
does and who does not have access to the sanctuary.

Holy Ground18

The laws of encroachment show us that the closer we get to God, the more seriously He judges us. James
says something similar in James 3: 1, "Let not many become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such
we shall incur a stricter judgment." James is not saying that the clergy are holier in the precise old
Covenant sense of having closer access to the sanctuary, which is not true, but more generally that "from
everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they
will ask all the more" (Luke 12:48). The basic notion is the same, however. Rank is a privilege, and entails
a higher standard.19

We can distinguish several zones of holiness, each nearer to God than the previous, and each with stricter
rules. Let us take as our center the Wilderness Camp. According to Leviticus 13:46, the "leper" had to
move outside the boundary of the Wilderness Camp and dwell alone until his "leprosy" went away. This
was not true for any other kind of uncleanness. Other kinds of uncleanness simply meant that you were not
to come into the Tabernacle courtyard to offer sacrifice. Also, in the Wilderness Camp all animals eligible
for sacrifice (ox, sheep, goat) had to be offered as Peace Offerings when slaughtered: You had to bring any
such animal you killed for food to the Tabernacle and give part to the priest (Lev. 17: 3-4). This was not
required later in the land (Dt. 12:5-21).

When the Wilderness Camp organized for war, i t became the wilderness War Camp. This was not the
same as the regular War Camp, because women and children were included. All the same, the wilderness
War Camp was holier than the mere Wilderness Camp, and once it was organized (Numbers 1-4), certain
unclean persons were ordered to encamp outside its boundaries. These were "lepers" (who were already
outside), persons defiled by a human corpse, and persons, male or female, who had a serious genital
discharge (Num. 5:2). "You shall send away both male and female; you shall send them outside the camp
so that they will not defile their camp where I dwell in their midst" (Num. 5:3). 20 This did not include more
moderately unclean persons such as menstruants, women after childbirth, men after a nocturnal discharge,
or couples after marital relations.

The War Camp itself was holier still. During the conquest of Canaan, women and children were not in the

18
This section is an abbreviation of part of Jordan, "Death Penalty," chap. 4.
19
For a comprehensive introduction to the Tabernacle and Temple symbolism in this area, see Jordan, "From Glory to Glory."
20
"The military character of the wilderness [war] camp is observed in the arrangement of the camp and its march (cf. Num. 2, 10), the
use of the ark in war (Num. 10:35-36), the use of trumpets (Num. 10: 9), the use of the term saba [host, army] (cf. 1: 3, etc; 2:4, etc.;
10:14, etc.), and the battle situation the Israelites found themselves in during their whole march. " David P. Wright, The Disposal of
Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
101 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 171.

114
War Camp (Josh. 1:14) that removed menstruants and parturients. During holy war, all the men apparently
took Nazirite vows and became temporary warrior-priests.21 The War Camp was thus holy in a way
analogous to the Tabernacle precincts. According to Deuteronomy 23:9-14, a man who had a nocturnal
emission had to move outside the War Camp until he was cleansed. Also, no latrines were permitted inside
the War Camp. This was because of God’s presence in the War Camp. Men avoided their wives during the
war-vow, because of the defilement of emission (Ex. 19:15; Lev. 15:18; 1 Sam. 21:4; 2 Sam. 11:11).
Because they were temporary priests, they could eat holy bread (1 Sam. 21:3-6).22 The bottom line was this:
The Nazirites were temporary priests, and the War Camp was a temporary Tabernacle courtyard, subject to
exactly the same rules of holiness.23

Diagram 9.1

Degrees of Holiness

Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies)

Holy Place
Tabernacle Courtyard/War Camp
Wilderness War Camp/Levitical Cities
Wilderness Camp/Cities24
Holy Land
Gentile World

Thus, the Tabernacle area consisted of carefully established and guarded zones of graduated holiness. The
Israelite citizen was admitted to the "doorway" or forecourt of the Tabernacle area in order to offer
sacrifice. Only clean persons were allowed to do so, however. Before the Tabernacle was set up there were
no such holy places on the earth, and so the rules of cleanness had no relevance. After the establishment of
these areas, however, the rules of cleanness had to be set up. To these we must now turn our attention in
detail.

Tabernacle and Society

As a symbol of society, as well as of the human person, the Tabernacle was also a symbol of various sub-
societies. Another way to put this is that as the Tabernacle represented the central covenant between God
and Israel, so it was analogous to other covenants within Israel. It is important to see this because it sheds
light on the relationship between Tabernacle law and other laws.

Elsewhere I have argued that the laws pertaining to the Tabernacle are analogous to the social laws of
Israel, and that one cannot be fully understood without the other. 25 Here we need to note also that it is the
analogy of the Tabernacle to the human body that explains the dietary laws of detestation. Just as God will
not accept unclean and sinful persons into His Tabernacle, so the Israelite is not to accept detestable food
into his body.

Mary Douglas's remarks on this subject are helpful. She writes that

the purity rules of the Bible....set up the great inclusive categories in which the whole universe is
hierarchised and structured. Access to their meaning comes by mapping the same basic set of rules
from one context to another. In this exercise the classification of animals into clean and unclean,

21
On this see James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985), pp. 93, 221-227.
22
The priests were to take the bread out of the Tabernacle and eat it in a holy place, to wit, the Tabernacle courtyard (Lev. 24:9). The
holy War Camp was at the same level of holiness as the Tabernacle courtyard, so the warriors could be given showbread.
23
The prominent use of the number five in the Tabernacle, the number of military organization, points to this connection as well.
James B. Jordan, The Sociology of the Church (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986), pp. 214-218.
24
See Jordan, "Death Penalty," chap. 4.
25
Jordan, "Death Penalty," chap. 2.

115
 the classification of peoples as pure and common, the contrast of blemished to unblemished into
the attributes of the sacrificial victim, priest and woman, create in the Bible an entirely consistent
set of criteria and values. The table, the marriage bed, and the altar match each others' rules, as do
the farmer, the husband, and the priest match each others' roles in the total pattern. [These
analogies] make it possible to grasp the meaning of cultic purity and sexual purity and the
agricultural rules against mixtures.26

Exodus 25-40 presents the Tabernacle as a microcosm of the universe, as a new creation. It accomplishes
this by referring constantly back to the original creation event of Genesis 1. 27 This being the case, the
Tabernacle (later the Temple) is the point at which the system converges. As we have sought to show,
however, the Tabernacle as a material structure is irrelevant. It is as a symbol for the religious body politic
that it has its meaning. Thus, the "Archimedean point" in the system is the religious body politic of Israel,
signified by the Tabernacle. (By "religious body politic" I include not only the sociology of the nation of
Israel, but also the Glory Cloud of God, the individual human person, and the Incarnate Word of God, who
fulfilled all of these things in Himself.)

This means that the Tabernacle as such is not the center of the system. Rather, it is the covenant between
God and Israel that is at the center, and the ethico-judicial personal relationship between God and man that
is signified by everything else. As Douglas writes, "since it is clear that the temple rules and sex rules and
food rules are a single system of analogies, they do not converge on anyone point but sustain the whole
moral and physical universe simultaneously in their systematic interrelatedness." 28

A complete study of these analogous systems would magnify the present series of studies way beyond its
already considerable size. In order to begin to do justice to the dietary laws, however, we must have some
idea of these analogies before us. To get us thinking along these lines, let me simply list a series of
instances. This list is by no means complete, and is intended simply as suggestive. In some cases, more
information will be supplied as we progress in this study.

1. Penalty laws for the sanctuary are analogous to penalty laws in society.

2. As the Tabernacle was God's kitchen, and had to be kept holy, so the domestic kitchen had to be kept
clean (Lev. 11). As the implements in the Tabernacle kitchen represented Israelites in various capacities, so
the implements in the domestic kitchen represented members of the household in various capacities.

3. As the Tabernacle signified the human body, so the individual Israelite had to be pure. Laws of "leprosy"
come in here.

4. As the Tabernacle incorporated people into union with God, and this was symbolized by the sacrifice of
animals, so the Israelite had to be careful what persons he incorporated into covenant with himself,
symbolized by which animals he incorporated into his body.

5. God was married to Israel, and the Tabernacle and Temple represented this (Ezk. 16; Ruth 3:2-6; 2 Sam.
24:16-25; 2Chron. 3:1). The laws of sexual purity thus bear analogy to the laws of religious purity (both
being covenantal). The laws regarding issues from the private parts, and the defilement of the bed (Lev.
15), receive their context here. The relationship between Solomon's Temple and Solomon's Song is
clarified.

6. The Tabernacle was God's throne, which meant that He was enthroned upon His people's shoulders. In
Leviticus 15, discharges defile chairs, seats, and saddles, referring to the way the members of a person's
household form a throne for him, and are defiled when he becomes corrupt.

26
Mary Douglas, "Critique and Commentary, "in Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity: in Ancient Israel. Studies in Judaism in late
Antiquity 1 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), p. 139.
27
See Jordan, "The Tabernacle: A New Creation."
28
Ibid., p. 140. By "physical universe" I take it Douglas means the physical position of Israel in the land, which would be lost of they
persisted in sin.

116
7. The Tabernacle was God's house, a house of "living stones" -- people. Man's house could become
"leprous, " symbolizing the corruption of the human environment of a household. Jesus' two "cleansings" of
the Temple were "leprosy" inspections in accordance with the laws of Leviticus 14.29

8. The holiness of the land, and the Year of Jubilee, are analogous to the holiness of the Tabernacle and the
need to cleanse it periodically.

9. The priests represented Israel, and thus the laws for purity that pertained to the priests are analogous to
the moral laws that governed Israel.

10. Laws of land and field bear analogy to laws of the Tabernacle, the food-producing farmer being
analogous to the food-offering priest.

I have listed these analogies to be suggestive. Obviously, a good deal of study would be needed to
substantiate and then fill out each of them.

The concept presented here is not new. The Church traditionally has seen the Song of Solomon as an
analogous portrayal of the marriage between God and His people. This analogical "mode of thinking" thus
has extensive roots in the history of interpretation. Another term for what we are doing here is "analogical
reasoning," the comparison of grids and analogies between systems.

The impact of the “science ideal" upon Western thought has meant that in Biblical exegesis there has been
a tendency to reduce hermeneutics to a “science," and the "art of reading" has been downplayed. 30 Only
inductive reasoning (proof texting) and deductive reasoning (logical deductions from proof texts) has
received much attention. Comparison of grids and analogies (analogical reasoning) has played little role
until recently. This is probably because analogical reasoning depends a great deal upon sensitive “artistic"
reading and meditation, and it is much harder to “prove" the conclusions of analogical reasoning in such a
way as to satisfy the modern science ideal.

Nevertheless, it is obvious to anthropologists, such as Mary Douglas, that human beings live by such
analogies, and it is also obvious that such systemic analogies exist in the Bible. Earlier generations, not
being as fearful of symbolism and typology as modern "scientific" exegetes tend to be, were aware of this.

I don't wish to be read as despising the fruits of scientific exegesis, and neither do I wish to be understood
as giving a blanket endorsement to everything ever written in studies of the Tabernacle, sacrificial system,
Song of Solomon, etc. All the same, the tradition in the Church has always taken seriously symbolism,
analogy, and typology. It is too bad that it takes a secular scholar like Douglas to remind Christian scholars
of this dimension of the text.

Another Look at Genesis 3

Now that we have arrived at the Tabernacle, we are in a position to do fuller justice to some of the
dimensions of Genesis 3, and thus to the distinction between clean and unclean animals.

What God offered humanity in the beginning was Himself. God is Three and One, and His self-disclosure
often takes the form of three gifts offered to mankind. This is presented for us in the Tabernacle, where the
three essential gifts are Authority, Knowledge, and Life.

True authority, knowledge, and life are heavenly gifts. In the Tabernacle and Temple, a pot of the life-
giving manna was in the Holy of Holies, and the showbread was in the Holy Place. Life comes from
heaven. In the area of knowledge and wisdom, the ten commandments were in the Ark in the Holy of

29
See J. Duncan M. Derrett, "No Stone Upon Another: Leprosy and the Temple," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30
(1987):3-20.
30
C. S. Lewis's An Experiment in Criticism (Cambridge University Press) is an excellent introduction to the "art" of reading.

117
Holies, and a full copy of the law was next to it. The Ark was an altar, representing the Word of God, the
Divine Mediator, and corresponding to this was the altar of incense in the Holy Place. Authority was
connected with Aaron's rod, in the Holy of Holies, and with the lampstand in the Holy Place. In the Old
Covenant, such life, knowledge, and authority were relatively restricted, locked up in the forbidden
Tabernacle and Temple. In the New Covenant, these "mysteries" are freely published, for in Christ
redeemed man has acquired the right to them.

Diagram 9.2

Person General Manifestation Most Holy Holy Place Courtyard

of God

Father Integrity (Holiness) Aaron's Rod Lampstand Pillars31

of Personhood Priest King32 Priest
Power, Authority &King

Word Conformity to the Father's Law/Ark Incense Altar Bronze Altar

will
Law, Knowledge, Wisdom

Spirit Fellowship with the Father Manna Showbread Laver &

and the Son Bronze Sea
Life, Communion (Christ) Israel All men

We saw in paper No. 8 of this series that Adam was to guard, teach, and feed Eve. 33 In the sanctuary, at the
center of the world, these were quintessentially priestly tasks. We find that the priests of Israel were to
guard the sanctuary, teach the people, and administer the food of the sanctuary. Later on, we find that the
kings of Israel do these same three things, but in the land, not in the garden-sanctuary. The kings guard the
boundaries of the nation by use of the militia; they lead the people to worship by example; and they oversee
the "food" (economy) of the nation by means of justice (negative sanctions against crime).

Thus, we use the words "priest" and "king" and their respective adjectives ("priestly, kingly") in two ways.
In terms of function, every priest (guard) is also prophet (teacher) and king (feeder); and every king
(overseer) is also prophet (wise man) and priest (warrior, guard). In terms of office, the priest is the "elder"
for the sanctuary, and the king is the "elder" for the land. Diagram 9.3 (p. 20) expands on this, showing
maturation in each area.

It is also helpful and important to see how these three gifts worked out in worship. The order of sacrifice, as
we see in Leviticus 9:15-21 was this:

1. Purification Offering, to deal with sin.

2. Whole Burnt Offering, signifying total commitment.
3. Peace Offering, signifying peace and fellowship.

In other words: Confessions, Consecration, and Communion. This can be seen in terms of the three gifts as
follows:

1. The first act of worship is to Amen the revelation of God the Father. This entails confession of
sin and absolution. Those whose sins are forgiven are made clean, the initial step of glorification,
and enabled to come into God's presence to hear His word and eat His meal. The glorified person

31
On the pillars in front of Solomon's Temple, and their association with priest and king, see James B. Jordan, "Thoughts on Jachin
and Boaz." Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.1
32
Lampstand imagery comes to be associated closely with the Davidic house; 2 Samuel 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; 2
Chronicles 21:7; Psalm 132:17; Zechariah 4:2.
33
James B. Jordan, and Faith No.8. "Diet from Adam to Moses." Studies in Food and Faith No. 8.

118
 is seen in Aaron's Rod, the Lampstand, and the two Bronze Pillars of the courtyard.

2. The second act of worship is to Amen the revelation of God the Word. This entails standing
before God as a member of His host and offering Him prayer and praise, in response to His Word.
This is seen in the three altars (Mercy Seat, Incense, and Bronze) that represent the people as
dedicated to God. The blood of the sacrifices was put on these items, and not ordinarily on other
things, because they represented God's host. The placement of the Ten Commandments inside the
Ark shows the relationship between consecration (sacrifice) and prayer (incense) and hearing the
Word of God.

3. The third act of worship is to Amen the revelation of God the Spirit. This entails sitting with
God as a member of His family and communing with Him. Communion is sacramental, which is
what the manna, showbread, and laver speak of.

Diagram 9.3

Apprentice Stage Journeyman Stage Master Stage34

student worker king35

witness guard priest36
hearer teacher/seer prophet/counselor37
mature member deacon elder38

We can also see the three-fold motion in the sequence Courtyard, Holy Place, and Most Holy, to wit:

1. The motion is from the kingly to the prophetic to the priestly, though all three are present in
each stage. In the courtyard, the believer is established as (Kingly) pillar, receives (Priestly)
baptism, and deals with sin at the altar, which (Prophetically) mediates for him. The most
important aspect, however, is the fact that his sins are removed and he is allowed to enter. This is
the first part of worship, the restoration of the person by the Supreme Person of the Father.

2. From there we move to the zone of Consecration, coming after Confession and before
Communion. This is the area of the Holy Place. The twelve loaves of showbread represent the
gathered host. The lamp stand shows the leaders of that host, especially the King as Chief
Layman. The al tar of incense speaks of prayer.

3. Finally we arrive at the Most Holy, where we eat the body of Christ, the true Manna, receive his

34
By "king," "priest," and "prophet" I have in mind separate functions, not the actual offices held in Israel. The kings of Israel were
priests to guard the land, and the priests of Israel ruled in the Temple. The elder in the Church, and the ruler in the civil sphere, is to be
prophet, priest, and king. Since every human being is inseparably all three of these things, to hold office as one it inevitably to hold
office as the other two in some way or other. We have seen that Adam as priest was to teach, feed, and guard in the sanctuary. His
teaching was prophetic, his feeding was kingly, and his guarding was priestly. Thus, it seems to me that the use of the term "king" for
civil ruler emphasizes that he is primarily to be a worker: a servant-leader; while the use of the term "priest" for ecclesiastical ruler (in
the Old Testament, at least) emphasizes that he is primarily a guardian.
35
Solomon was first and foremost a student of the world (I Kings 4:33). In order to dress the garden, one must first understand it. Next
comes working with it. Finally comes dominion over it. Elsewhere I have written that the stage before kingship is to serve as a
warrior. This was true in Israel, but it actually shows the "priestly" role of the king as guardian of the land and its boundaries.
36
One has to witness in order to learn where the boundaries are. Then one is ready to stand guard, and eventually to serve as priest. On
the arming of the priests as guards, see Jordan, "Death Penalty," pp. 28-31.
37
1 Samuel 9:9. I am assuming that the distinction is that the seer in principle only spoke what he saw, while the prophet is a
consultant as well as a spokesman. The point of this verse seems to be that the era of judge-warriors was matched with seers, and
when the warriors were elevated to kings, the seers were elevated to prophets. If we assume that the term "seer" is simply a synonym
for prophet, then we can come up with another term for this slot, perhaps "teacher."
38
The age of voting membership (confirmation?) is 20 (Num. 1:2); the age of diaconal service is 25 (Num. 8:24); the age of eldership
is 30 (Num. 4:3).

119
 Law into our hearts (represented by the Ark), and are led by our High Priest (represented by
Aaron's Rod).

This is displayed in Diagram 9.4. The movement in this chart is both from right to left (Courtyard -- Holy
Place -- Most Holy) and top to bottom (Discipline -- Word -- Sacrament).

Diagram 9. 4

Adam Church Holy of Holies Holy Place Courtyard

Guard Bride Discipline Aaron's Rod Lampstand Two Pillars

Glorify

Instruct Bride Word Ten Commandments Incense Altar Bronze Altar

Lead Instruct Lead in Lead in
worship consecration

Feed Bride Sacrament Manna Showbread Laver/Sea

Commune with

We now need to look back at the curse on the serpent. In paper No.8 we saw that plants, soil, rocks, stars,
air, and water do not suffer under any kind of curse. 39 Animals, however, do suffer under a curse, but it is
not a curse they deserve. The suffering of innocent animals is a pointer always to the undeserved innocent
suffering of the Lamb of God. We can expand on this observation now.

According to Romans 1, the primary form of God's judgment against men is that He gives them over to sin
more and more. That is, He elects not to intervene and save them. Ultimately that is what the curse of death
is: God's refusal to intervene, and His turning men over to sin. Now, if the animal kingdom is to image
humanity, and innocently experience the curse, then the animal kingdom must also innocently act out what
it means for men to be turned over to sin. The animals who act out these parables are not bad in themselves
-- in fact they are good. Their actions, however, display what it means for men to be cursed and given over
to sin.

Thus, the serpent's lifestyle -- crawling in the dirt, eating dirt, and rising in rebellion against man -- is an
image of God's judgment against men. When God turns men over to sin, they progressively manifest the
death-inversion of the three gifts of God. Instead of submitting to God's Fatherly authority (Aaron's Rod),
they rebel against every authority. Instead of ascending God's Holy Mountain and receiving His Word
(signified by the Ten Commandments and the mediatorial altars), they crawl in the dirt as far away from
God as they can. Instead of communing with God's Spiritual life-giving gifts (manna), they eat the death-
dealing dirt.

Diagram 9. 5

God Sinner Serpent and Unclean Animals

Authority Rebellion Enmity: boundary transgression

Word/Mediation False doctrine/Flight Crawl in dirt: unshod
Communion Table of Demons Eat dirt: don't chew cud; eat carrion

We overcome exile by justification and glorification. This takes place at the entrance of the Tabernacle
courtyard. Here the Father declares us clean, and we are once again holy persons, after His image. Enmity
is no more. Just as persons who were at enmity with God had no place in His courtyard, so animals whose

39
Jordan, "Diet from Adam to Moses."

120
lifestyle (swarming, boundary transgression) spoke of enmity were not acceptable either in the courtyard or
in the belly of anyone seeking admission. I suggest that the requirement that clean animals have shod feet
fits in here, in that the shod foot indicates that the animal "renounces" the life of the world and "chooses"
the life of God by separating from the world. The shoe separates him and thus makes him "holy."

We overcome crawling in the dirt by consecration to God and by ascending His holy mountain. This is
what the Holy Place was about. Here the Son acts as our Holy Mountain Mediator and gives us His
Word. Divided hoofs help us climb the mountain, giving us hinds’ feet for high places.

We overcome eating dirt by communion with God at the Holiest of All. Of course, Israel was largely kept
at arm's length in this respect in the Old Covenant, but the idea was still presented in the Tabernacle. I
suggest that the requirement of rumination fits in here.

121
SECTION 10 - THE MEANING OF CLEAN AND UNCLEAN

Table of Contents

122
Chapter 1 - Introduction

In this essay we examine the relationship between the ordination of the priesthood in Leviticus 8 and the
laws of uncleanness in Leviticus 11-15. Our goal is to come to a general understanding of the nature of
uncleanness in the Old Covenant.

In Leviticus 8, the Aaronic priesthood was set up. The following chapter records the performance of
Aaron's first acts as priest. At the beginning of Leviticus 10, we find the fall and destruction of Aaron's
sons, Nadab and Abihu. Immediately after this, God spoke to Aaron and told him that the priests were not
to drink wine while on the job, because their task entailed making "a distinction between the holy and the
profane, and between the unclean and the clean" (Lev. 10:10). Appropriately, then, Leviticus 11-15 sets out
exactly what these distinctions were, and then Leviticus 16 shows how Israel was to be restored when she
fell into a condition of general uncleanness.

This section tracks in a general way the content of Genesis 2-3. An examination of this literary feature will
accomplish two important things. First, it will give us a good idea of what "clean and unclean" meant.
Second, it will isolate the specific concerns of Leviticus 11, and demonstrate that these are in the area of
idolatry.

Before moving into this consideration, however, we need to engage in a general introductory discussion of
the nature of clean and unclean as these are understood in current literature, and we also need to address
some presuppositional matters that influence how clean and unclean are understood.

123
Chapter 2 - Current Views

The difficulty of arriving at a simple definition for "cleanness" and "uncleanness" in the Bible is pointed to
by Wenham. He writes:

The basic meaning of cleanness is purity. For example, "clean," i.e., pure, gold was required for
plating the ark and other items of tabernacle furniture (Exod. 25:11, 24, etc.). That cleanness
basically means purity is shown by the frequent use of water to purify unclean persons and things
(Lev. 11:25, 28; 14:8- 9, etc.). Once fire was specified as an alternative means of purification
(Num. 31:23). But cleanness is a broader concept than purity. It approximates to our notion of
normality.1

Referring to Mary Douglas's work, Wenham goes on to posit her notion that "wholeness or normality" is
"the notion implicitly assumed to be essential to holiness and cleanness." 2

In a later essay, however, Wenham states that he has come to believe that the antithesis of life and death is
more important than the antithesis of normal and abnormal. "It is against this general background that the
laws of human uncleanness must be understood. Life and death are antithetic. And because God is the
creator of life, anything that smacks of death must be excluded from his presence. Thus, since bleeding
leads eventually to death, women suffering from bloody discharges are contagiously unclean (Lev. 12:
15:19-30)."3

Life versus death is a helpful paradigm, especially when we consider how many of the cleansing rituals
involve washing. Washing removes dirt, and the soil is curse-prosecuting under the Old Covenant (Gen.
3:17). That curse is death, so dirt can easily be associated with and symbolize death. For this reason, the
washing of feet was a prominent part of Old Covenant life (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 43:24; Jud. 19:21; Luke 7:44;
Ex. 3:5; Josh. 5:15).

This does not take us far enough, however. In the case noted by Wenham above, it is true that loss of blood
can be seen as loss of life, especially since “the life of the flesh is the blood" (Lev. 17:11). This being so,
however, why is not all bleeding unclean? Why only bleeding from the "private parts"?

It is best to step back and consciously insist that the antithesis of clean and unclean does not exactly
correspond to anything else. It is a separate and unique category scheme, and overlaps such concerns as
created normality versus abnormality and life versus death. There is, however, a range of things connoted
by "clean versus unclean" that is not exactly the same as any other set of anti theses. This being the case, an
inductive study of the subject is mandated. What do all the things designated "unclean" have in common?

My thesis, however, which I shall now attempt to demonstrate, is that uncleanness has to do with all the
judgments passed by God in Genesis 3. Thus, it certainly has to do with the curse that is prosecuted by the
soil, and with death. It also, though, has to do with the distress of childbearing, and with animals that are
serpent- like in their behavior. In a broad sense we can call all these judgments "abnormal, " since they
were not part of the original creation design and since they reveal the abnormal condition of man and the
world after the fall. In this sense, Mary Douglas is correct --but only in this sense. In other words, we must
specify abnormality in terms of Genesis 3. Similarly, in a broad sense we can call all these judgments
"forms of death," but again we have to allow Genesis 3 to specify precisely which "forms of death" are
unclean.

1
Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979), p. 20.
2
Ibid., p. 24f. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1966), chap. 3: "The Abominations of Leviticus."
3
Gordon Wenham, "Christ's Healing Ministry and His Attitude to the Law," in Harold H. Rowdon, ed., Christ the Lord: Studies in
Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p. 124. The statement that God is the
"creator of life" is theologically questionable. Life does not seem to be an aspect of the creation, but rather the quickening influence of
the uncreated Spirit of God as He, the "Lord and Giver of life" gives life to created things. Wenham is not concerned at this point in
his discussion to get into this distinction, of course.

124
It might be best simply to stipulate an equivalent term for uncleanness that brings out the thrust of its
meaning. I suggest "covenantal death." We can stipulate that "covenantal death" embraces those aspects of
death that are found in Genesis 3, and which (I contend) are expanded symbolically in Leviticus.
"Covenantal death" will have to do with those judgments that God brought against humanity in the
beginning, judgments that are called "death" in Genesis 2 and 3 ("dying you shall die"). These judgments
are not directly placed upon humanity but are mediated to humanity through the soil and the serpent.

The use of the term "covenantal death" will prevent us from speculating about these matters in terms of the
way we commonly think of death and dying in our culture, and will force us to define "death" precisely in
the way the details of Scripture do so.

Before turning to this in detail, however, a few remarks are in order about the view often encountered in
critical literature today. Many modern scholars assume that the ancient Israelite regarded uncleanness as a
real "force" to be reckoned with. Impurity, they maintain, was something substantial and objective, quasi-
demonic if not wholly so.4 Other scholars assume that impurity was only a symbolic teaching device,
devised by God or by the priests to communicate moral ideas and theological truths. Neither of these
positions is tenable in terms of a Christian creationist philosophy.

Uncleanness is rather a manifestation of creation design, matured through history. When man sinned, it
brought into being a relational breach --alienation --between him and God. Because of the way God had
designed the world, that breach was manifested in a rupture between himself and his wife, his children, the
animal and plant world, and the soil from which he was made. Because of who God is, that breach was
institutionalized in a series of judgments having to do with geographical location (no more access to the
sanctuary), pain in childbearing, sweat of the brow, thorns and thistles, and so forth. This was the origin of
uncleanness. Uncleanness was an "institutionalization" of the judgments of God specifically pronounced
against Original Sin, an institutionalization that corresponds to the categories of the world pattern as
designed and created by God. Uncleanness was not a force that inhered in things (a thesis that is
philosophically "realist"), nor was it an arbitrary symbolic teaching device (a philosophically "nominalist"
viewpoint). Rather, uncleanness was an inevitable covenantal or relational condition arising from the sin of
man.5 Exactly how and to what extent various things came to symbolize the judgments of Original Sin
depended on their original creation design and purpose as symbols of aspects of human life.

Thus, uncleanness was not some impersonal force. Nor was it simply a teaching device designed to
communicate abstract truths and ideas. Rather, uncleanness was a display of God's judgments for Original
Sin. within the animal kingdom, for instance, some animals, because of their original created design, were
set aside to portray God's judgments. Others, again because of their original created design, were not. 6

Thus, the distinctions between clean and unclean were not arbitrary, but were grounded in creation design. I
believe that this thesis becomes fairly obvious when we realize that Leviticus 11-15, which is the core
passage describing the various kinds of uncleanness, is organized, in part at least, as a point by point

4
4 An introductory discussion of the ins and outs of this can be read in Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Studies
in Judaism in Late Antiquity I (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), chap. 1.
In a personal communication to me, 30 Oct. 1987, David P. Wright, whose Ph.D. dissertation on the disposal of Levitical impurities
has been of real help to me in the present effort, wrote, "It does not seem that P accepts a didactic interpretation of impurities (this type
of interpretation, as you probably know, is found for the food laws in the Letter of Aristeas, Philo, and other early Jewish writings).
Though evidence is sparse, the Levitical laws seem to perceive impurity as something quite substantial and objective. It is not a
symbolic system representing theological and moral truths, but a set of requirements whose purpose is to keep what is holy separate
from impurities that were as real to them as, say, physical dirt, toxins, and diseases are to us (I admit this is a poor analogy). That the
early Israelites conceived of impurity this way is not only indicated by the context of the laws in general (see [Jacob] Milgrom,
"Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray,'" Revue Biblique 83 [1976]:390-99 for a good argument) but by the nations
around Israel who similarly had a concept of physical impurity, not didactic impurity. After all this is said, I must ultimately confess
that it is not totally implausible that Israel (among some of its schools and at different times) may have had some morally didactic
understanding of the purity laws. But this meaning is unrecoverable." Milgrom's article is included in his book, Studies in Cultic
Theology and Terminology. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1983).
5
For a somewhat more philosophical presentation of this argument, and of the Biblical approach to history, see James B. Jordan,
"Reconsidering the Mosaic Law: Some Reflections -- 1988" (available from Biblical Horizons).
6
The recognition of this created design is implied by Adam's "naming" of the animals in Genesis 2, which involved recognizing their
categories.

125
commentary on the judgments of Genesis 3.

126
Chapter 3 - God: the Father of Uncleanness

Before proceeding further, we need to examine the presuppositions that inform a Biblical understanding of
uncleanness. To do so, let us contrast a Biblical and creationist view with a manichaean one.

Manichaeanism assumes that there are two ultimate forces in existence, one good and the other evil. There
is a good deal of gut-level popular manichaeanism in Christian thinking, and this interferes with our ability
to grasp the Biblical notion of uncleanness. For instance, it is popularly assumed (and not uncommonly
proclaimed) that hardship and tribulation come from the devil, while blessings come from God. God wants
us rich, we are told, while Satan wants us poor.

The Bible teaches, however, that judgment comes from God, and that judgment is good. It is good because
it comes from a good God. It is good because it punishes wickedness. It is good because it cleans up God's
world.

The good God may use wicked persons to mete out His good judgments. God allowed wicked Satan and
wicked Chaldeans to bring tribulation on Job, but the tribulations were ultimately for the good of Job and
the good of the Kingdom of God. Just so, since uncleanness was a punishment for original sin, the agents
that caused uncleanness did not themselves have to be wicked.

Water, for instance, as a cleansing agent, ministered God's blessing to defiled persons. It was a minister of
blessing. So-called "leprosy," as a defiling agent, ministered God's curse upon persons. It was God's
minister for judgment.

Uncleanness was God's stick, threatening men with symbolic death. Holiness is God's carrot, proffering
men symbolic life. In the Law, the system of "ceremonial laws" encouraged men to flee God's holy wrath
and embrace His holy mercy.

We need to survey the forms of uncleanness at this point, though as this essay proceeds we shall look at
them in greater detail.

Peter J. Leithart has pointed out that the Bible forbade Israelites to eat torn flesh (Ex. 22:31), but that the
sacrifices and tithes brought to God are sometimes referred to as torn flesh (Mal. 3:10; "food" = "torn
flesh"). This presents the idea that God is the Ultimate Lion, who tears the flesh of wicked men, either
granting them resurrection as new men or damning them. 7

Tearing prey is used as an image of oppression (Ezk. 22:23-27; Ps. 7:2), but it is also used as an image of
the labor of the civil magistrate. In Genesis 49:9, Judah is compared to a lion that goes up from his prey.
Judah was the royal tribe from which David came. Genesis 49:27 compares Benjamin to a wolf that
devours his prey, and it was from Benjamin that King Saul came. The tribe of Gad will provide rulers and
leaders, says Moses, and he will "lie down as a lion, and tear the arm" (Dt. 33:20-21). The tribe of Dan
(Dan means "judge") is also like a lion (Dt. 34:22).

Dan is also a serpent (Gen. 49:16-18) that provides salvation by defeating the enemy. (Samson fulfills this
prophecy.) Ephraim, a tribe of many rulers, is like the (unclean) wild ox (Dt. 33:17), as is Manasseh.
Finally, Saul and Jonathan, rulers of Israel, are compared to the (unclean) eagle in 2 Samuel 1:23.

These unclean beasts are sometimes symbols for civil magistrates, those who bear the sword and tear men,
who are avengers of God's holy wrath (Rom. 13). The sword of the magistrate, wielded by "unclean"
beasts, is the stick. The carrot is the priesthood. It was only clean beasts that could be offered on God's
altar, and only clean beasts were used to symbolize the priesthood: ox, sheep, goat, pigeon, and dove.

Sometimes it is wicked peoples who are symbolized by lions and eagles, by "unclean" animals that tear
flesh. Nevertheless, it is not because they are wicked that they cause uncleanness; rather it is because they

7
Peter J. Leithart, "Prey in My House," Biblical Horizons No.8 (November, 1989).

127
are God's appointed judges that they cause uncleanness. In the New Testament, "unclean spirits" torment
men. Such demons are themselves sinful, but what makes them "unclean" is that they minister God's
judgments to men.

Thus, clean and unclean are not moral but judicial categories. "Unclean" does not mean "bad"; it means
judgment-prosecuting. The judgment is death, and the various forms of uncleanness all speak of death in
one way or another. The torn flesh speaks of the "curse of the covenant,” which is to be torn by wild beasts
and devoured by carnivorous beasts and birds -- which is why Israelites were not to eat torn flesh.

Jewish theologians use the expression "father of uncleanness" to designate the agent that causes
uncleanness in a human being, and "daughter of uncleanness" to designate the recipient of uncleanness or
defilement. As we shall see in paper No.12, the Greek of the New Testament provides two different words
the two concepts "unclean source" and "defiled recipient."

From what we have seen, it is God who is the Final Father of uncleanness. God is the Lord of death. It is
He who punishes men, and who kills them. God defiles the wicked, putting "covenantal death" upon them.
But God does not do this directly during history. Instead He mediates "covenantal death" through curse-
prosecuting agents, which reduce to two: the curse-prosecuting soil and the curse-prosecuting serpent.

In capital punishment, the community that killed the sinner was not defiled, but the resultant corpse was
unclean. Therefore, executions had to be performed outside the gates, so that the fenced zone of the city
was not rendered defiled by the corpse (Num. 19; Lev. 24:14).

As regards unclean animals, the precise statement of Scripture is not that these are unclean in themselves
but that they are "unclean for you" (Lev. 11:8, etc.) They were God's righteous judgment-prosecutors. They
polluted Israelites, but were not themselves polluted.

We are told that life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11). Blood was not unclean, but blood caused pollution when it
flowed from the innermost parts of a person (Lev. 15). When good blood touched the defiled inner person,
and then flowed out, it brought that defilement with it. Just so, defiled water carried defilement to other
things (Lev. 11:34). Defiled semen carried defilement to other persons (Lev. 15).

Children are not dead but alive, but when them issued forth from the defiled inward parts of the woman,
they brought defilement, and both they and the mother had to be cleansed (Lev. 12; John 3).

White skin is glorious (Rev. 1), but when white skin touched the defiled flesh of a person, it brought his
inner defilement to the surface (Lev. 13): All forms of "leprosy" were "under the skin and in the flesh."

In sum, God carefully kept separate in the Old Covenant His works of wrath and mercy. Even though the
blood David shed was shed righteously "before God," because he was a “man of blood," he was not
permitted to build the Temple (1Chron. 22:8). God instructed Israel to flee His wrath and to flee to His
mercy. Avoiding the agents of uncleanness meant avoiding His wrath.

Fathers of uncleanness cause defilement in other things, while the recipients of uncleanness are usually
called "daughters of uncleanness." Because uncleanness is a judgment for Original sin, it is only sinners
who attract uncleanness. The sinless Son of God was able to be touched by a woman with an unclean issue,
and was able to touch corpses, without contracting uncleanness (Luke 8:40-56). Jesus could not become a
"daughter of uncleanness."

Some daughters have daughters themselves. The most elaborate chains of this are seen in Leviticus 15. A
man with an issue of blood from his privates is rendered unclean. In this case the father of uncleanness is
the issue, and the daughter is the man himself. The man is a "mother" of uncleanness to anything he sits
upon (Lev. 15:4), and the "daughter" chair becomes a "mother" of uncleanness to anyone who sits on it
after him (Lev. 15:6). There the chain stops.

Behind this chain lie two hidden links. The first link is that God is the father of uncleanness who appointed

128
to soil to judge man. The second link is that man is made of soil, so that the soil prosecutes uncleanness to
his flesh.

From this we see again that some sources of uncleanness are sinful, and others are not. Bear in mind that
one of the punishments for sin is more sin. The sin or death nature of man is a punishment for Original sin,
and Romans 1:24 states that God punishes men by giving them over to more impurity. Notice especially the
language of Ezekiel 20: 25-26: "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which
they could not live; and I defiled them [made them unclean] because of their gifts, in their causing all their
firstborn to pass over, so that I might desolate them, in order that they might know that I am the Lord. "
When they rejected His law, God send them delusive anti-laws. The ritual of firstborn dedication
(Ex. 13:12), done without faith, offended God, and He became a Father of uncleanness to them.

Traditionally the “fathers of uncleanness” are those things that Leviticus and Numbers single out as causing
ceremonial defilement: forbidden meat, corpses, carcasses, blood of childbearing, "leprosy," and issues of
blood and semen. None of these things is sinful or evil, and it is noteworthy that almost never are these
"fathers of uncleanness" spoken of as unclean themselves.

The Hebrew word tame' is used almost always for "daughters" of uncleanness, and very seldom for the
"fathers" or sources of uncleanness. For instance, nowhere in Leviticus 11 do we read of unclean animals.
Rather, repeatedly the phrase used is "unclean for you." It is only in Leviticus 5:7 that we actually have the
phrases "unclean beast" and "unclean cattle." This makes us wonder if perhaps the precise meaning of
Leviticus 5:7 is "uncleanness-causing beast" and "uncleanness-causing cattle." (cp. also Lev. 7:21.)

The same thing is true of "leprosy." Throughout Leviticus 13 and 14, is it the man or the garment or the
house that is spoken of as unclean, not the "leprosy" itself. Only in 13:15 do we read, "the raw flesh: it is
unclean; it is 'leprosy."' Again, the uniqueness of this verse makes us wonder if in fact it should not be
translated, "It is uncleanness-causing."

We find the same phenomenon in Leviticus 15. Nowhere in this chapter are the issues of blood and semen
themselves called unclean. In every case it is the person or object receiving the influence that is called
unclean. The only possible exception is verse 2, "When any man has an issue from his flesh, his issue is
unclean." This can be translated, however, "by his issue, he is unclean."

We don't need to press the language too closely, of course. The point is this discussion is that the "fathers of
uncleanness" are not generally spoken of as themselves unclean. By way of shorthand we speak of "clean
and unclean animals," but if we are precise we should speak of "clean animals" and "uncleanness-causing
animals." It is my opinion that the expression "unclean animal" in the few places is occurs is simply
shorthand for "uncleanness-causing animal." Even if my conclusion is incorrect, however, it is clear that the
causes of uncleanness do not themselves have to be either sinful or unclean.

In conclusion, uncleanness has to do with judgment. Sources of uncleanness manifest God's righteous
judgment against the sinfulness of humanity. The sinfulness of humanity acts as a magnet to attract such
judgment. When a "father of uncleanness" comes into contact with a sinful human being, the sinner
becomes unclean. He comes under judgment, and cannot approach the sanctuary until he has been cleansed.

129
Chapter 4 - Nature and Uncleanness

A few remarks on "nature" will also help clarify the meaning of clean and unclean. The 17th and early 18th
century view of nature was that nature is harmonious and beneficial. Nature is not a violent, frightening
place, said the 18th century rationalists. Rather, nature is predictable and pleasant. This is seen in the
music, art, philosophy, and Christian apologetics of this era. In such a context, it would be difficult to
interpret the laws of uncleanness.

After the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, rationalism shifted to a new view of nature. Nature was seen as "red
in tooth and claw." Nature became a threat to man, something to war against and overcome. Such a view
nicely accords with the latent manichaeanism in Christian thinking. In terms of such an outlook, it becomes
easy to view the agents of uncleanness as "bad things that harm people." White skin was to be feared
because it is a sign of a bad disease (Lev. 13). Unclean animals were not to be eaten because they are
unhealthy (Lev. 11). Bleeding leads to death (Lev. 15).

Against both of these views of nature we have to posit the Biblical and creationist view. Nature displays
God, both as generous and as angry. Agents of uncleanness ministered God’s wrath and vengeance. We
"fight" God’s agents of wrath, such as thorns and mosquitoes, in the sense that we wrestle with God (as in
the Psalms), but we must not lose sight that it is God with whom we have to do.

130
Chapter 5 - Uncleanness and Glory

Only that which is holy can become glorious, and only that which is clean can become holy. The priests of
Israel were washed clean (Lev. 8:6), and then put on holy white linen (Ex. 28:39-40). The High Priest wore
garments of glory over his linen, garments of rainbow colors (Ex. 28:2; Lev. 8:7). Thus, the progression
was: clean and naked, to holy and white, to glorious and colored.

There is an opposite progression. The unclean (defiled) person lived in a state of death, and was not to
approach the holy. His clothes were often to be torn (Lev. 13:45). Instead of glory proceeding out of him, it
was degradation and defilement that proceeded from him.

Adam was created naked and clean. He was to go to the Tree of Life, where he would mature in holiness
and life. From there, eventually, he would go to the Tree of Knowledge, where he would acquire glory and
judicial enthronement.8 Holiness has to do, as we shall see later on, with inner integrity and life. These are a
precondition for glory, which has to do with the efflorescence of a person, the outflow and power of his
life.

Adam "ate" the serpent, by hearing his words and by eating God's fruit under the power of Satan's doctrine.
He ate of the Tree of Knowledge, seeking glory while bypassing holiness. He sought power and influence,
bypassing integrity.

Accordingly in the system as set forth in Leviticus, God's new Adams were not to eat of any "serpents."
Because of Adam's sin, however, the child that flows out from a person (an aspect of glory) is defiled.
Because of Adam's sin, human skin cannot shine (as did Moses'), but tends toward a dead counterfeit
whiteness ("leprosy"). Similarly, the "glory clouds" around human life -- his garments and house -- also
become "leprous." Finally, the issues of blood and seed that come from his innermost person, which should
be glorious, are in fact deadly. We are to contrast this with the New Covenant, in which out of our inward
parts flow living water (John 7:38).

Cleanness deepens to inner holiness and flows out in an eschatology of glory. Uncleanness deepens to inner
death and rot, and flows out in an eschatology of death and defilement.

Because cleanness is a precondition for holiness and eventually for glory, "uncleanness" was the opposite
of all three. Uncleanness was the opposite of cleanness, and so the unclean person had to avoid clean places
and person. Uncleanness was the opposite of holiness, and so the unclean person had to avoid holy places
(such as the Tabernacle). Uncleanness was the opposite of glory, and so the unclean person had to stay
away from the glory of God.

Garments of while holiness are made of linen, while garments of colored glory are made of dyed wool.
Because Adam and Eve were not holy, vegetable clothing was not appropriate for them. Because they had
seized glory, animal clothing was. They acquired "glory" without holiness, and glory without holiness is
rot, seen in pride, vainglory, domineering, tyranny, and the like.

In the New Covenant we are restored. We see this in the liturgy of the Church:

a. We are made clean by baptism, and our cleanness is restored in the first part of the liturgy by the
confession and absolution. This has to do with regeneration. It puts us back into the Garden, naked and
clean.

b. We are made holy by hearing the Word not of the serpent but of the Son, and our holiness is renewed in
the second part of the liturgy by hearing and singing the Word and by consecration. This has to do with
power for living. It is our participation in the Tree of Life. We receive linen garments.

8
See James B. Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis," in Gary North, ed., Tactics of Christian
Resistance. Christianity & Civilization 3 (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1983).

131
c. We are made glorious by eating not forbidden fruit but the Lord's Supper. Here we eat flesh and blood
not of animals but of Christ. Our glory is renewed and we sit enthroned at God's table. We can then be sent
out to carry the Kingdom influences, not unclean influences. This is our participation in the Tree of
Knowledge. We receive woolen garments, the very "skin" of Jesus Christ.

This is a fundamental pattern or paradigm in the Bible, and only in the context of this paradigm can we
understand the laws of uncleanness as they are presented in Leviticus.

132
Chapter 6 - An Outline of Leviticus

In order to make clearer what I shall be arguing regarding the laws of uncleanness, I need at the outset to
layout my presuppositions. I believe that the books of the Bible are carefully crafted literary works, co-
authored by God and men.9 In terms of this, I believe that these books frequently show patterns of
organization designed to provide correlations with earlier themes. 10

We should not be surprised if, for instance, the building of the Tabernacle is described according to the
pattern of Genesis 1, because the Tabernacle was a microcosm of the universe created in Genesis 1.
Repeatedly in Exodus 25-40 we find sequences of seven speeches or paragraphs, and these correlate each
time in a general way with the sequence of days in Genesis 1.11

Beyond this, I have no problem with seeing more than one outlining or structuring principle at work in
these books. I believe, for instance, that we can see the first five books of the Bible following the general
outline of "five points of the covenant," which correlate with the first five and the second five of the ten
commandments.12 I believe also that we can see the first seven books of the Bible -- the order is the same in
both the Hebrew and English Bibles --as following in a general way the seven days of creation.13 There is
no more "contradiction" involved in this kind of multiple structuring than there is in a polyphonic musical
composition, in which the flute takes one line, the oboe another, and the violin a third. Tracing the various
"polyphonic lines" in the structures of the books of the Bible is part of what it means to "meditate on the
law day and night" (Ps. 1) and I believe can be very useful in helping us understand "depth connections"
between various themes.

For instance, I have argued elsewhere that Leviticus can be seen as having five basic sections. I based this
on the patterns of God's speeches in the book. We can also, however, see Leviticus in seven sections,
corresponding to the seven days of creation and also to the heptamerous patterning in the description of the
Tabernacle in Exodus 25-40. Let me lay this out as an example:

Day 1. Creation of heaven and earth. The heavenly sanctuary is made on this day. I correlate this
with Leviticus 1-7, where the sacrifices are set out. In Exodus 25-40, the "first day slot" is
occupied by the Tabernacle proper and by Aaron's garments.

Day 2. The creation of the firmament heaven. The firmament heaven corresponds to Israel as
God's heavenly people. I correlate this with Leviticus 8-16, which gives the rules as to who is and
who is not unclean and thus is "heavenly" at any particular time. The firmament separated the
waters above from the waters below, and cleansing was by sprinkling with water (obviously, from
above).

Day 3. The creation of land. In Leviticus 17-22 we move from sanctuary law to land law. The
threat here is not to be removed from the sanctuary by uncleanness, but to be spat out of the land
because of abomination.

Day 4. The sabbath. Here we find Leviticus 23, the festival calendar, which begins with the
sabbath day and includes other sabbaths. To this point, the outline is the same as what I provided
in Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In other words, the sabbath goes with the
fourth commandment. In Leviticus 23, however, there is an equal focus on the festivals, which

9
Jordan, Through New Eyes, pp. 13-17.
10
See James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).
11
James B. Jordan, "The Tabernacle: A New Creation" (available from Biblical Horizons).
12
See Jordan, Covenant Sequence, chap. 1, and literature referred to there.
13
To wit:
Genesis: creation of heaven (Godly people) and earth (outsider), and establishment of lights (Hebrews).
Exodus: separation of waters (Red Sea) and establishment of firmament people to act as separation between God and world.
Leviticus: organization of land (camp) and land laws, with laws for Jubilee (plants) in Ch. 25.
Numbers: portrays Israel in astral imagery and as God's heavenly host. Through New Eyes, p. 58.
Deuteronomy: the first commandment in the Bible is God's command to the fish and birds on the fifth day, and Deuteronomy is the
book of laws par excellence.

133
 were regulated by the astral bodies created partially for that purpose on the fourth day. (Literally,
"Let them be for signs and for festivals, and for days and for years," Gen. 1:14.) At this point,
however, we can move from a five-fold to a seven- fold outline. In Exodus 25-40, the fourth day is
also associated with the lampstand (representing heavenly lights) and its oil. We extend beyond
Leviticus 23 to 24:1-4 and we find a law regarding the lampstand and its oil.

Joshua: the book of man fulfilling God's will.

Judges: the book of man falling on the sabbath day.

Day 5. Fish and Fowl. In Exodus this slot is occupied by laws for the compounding of incense.
Just so, Leviticus 24:5-9 discusses the showbread, but adds for the first time that incense was to be
put on it.14

Day 6. Creation of man. The fall in Genesis was on the seventh day, when God came to meet with
man in the garden. Thus, the sixth book of the Heptateuch (Joshua) focuses on man in a positive
way, while the seventh book (Judges) focuses on the fall. In sequences that end with the sabbath,
however, the sixth slot will be occupied with the atonement. Here, it is blasphemy and the death
penalty (cp. Genesis 2-3) that is in view in Leviticus 24:10-23.

Day 7. Sabbath. Leviticus 25-27 have to do with sabbath years, sabbath judgments, and sabbath
vows.

The purpose of this very general and thetic overview is to show the prima facie credibility of looking for
fundamental literary patterns and structures in the Bible. We should not be surprised to see the heptamerous
pattern of creation recapitulated in other parts of the Bible, nor should we be surprised to see the
pentamerous pattern of the covenant used numerous places as a literary structuring device. And we should
not be surprised to find these conflated, since they both deal with the same thing: the structural sequence of
creation and covenant making.

Another structuring device used in various places in the Bible is the creation of man in Genesis 2 and the
falls of man in Genesis 3, 4, and 6. Along these same lines, elsewhere I have shown how Genesis 2 and 3
are extensively recapitulated in the narrative of the call and anointing of King Saul, and his rebellion
against God, in 1 Samuel 9-15.15 There are actually three progressive "falls" in Genesis 3-6, and they are as
follows:

1. Loss of sanctuary through eating forbidden fruit; Genesis 3.

2. Loss of land through fratricide; Genesis 4.

3. Loss of world through intermarriage (sexual forbidden fruit): Genesis 6. 16

I believe there is good evidence for seeing this sequence followed in the situation after God redeemed Israel
from Egypt, in of course a more general way; to wit:

14
The fifth day slot is the most problematic. The heptamerous sequence correlates fairly well, often obviously, with the other days.
The general "underlying concern" of the fifth day seems to focus on God's host, portrayed as a swarm or cloud around His throne, to
which He gives laws, and which answers Him in prayer. Thus, the swarms of the fifth day, to which God gives the first law recorded
in Scripture, become associated with humanity as God's host, symbolized in a cloud of incense offering prayers to God, etc.
15
James B. Jordan, "King Saul: A Study in Humanity and the Fall" (available from Biblical Horizons). Saul fell three times. I now see
a possible correlation with the three falls of Genesis 3-6. In 1 Samuel 13, Saul's sin was refusal to render proper worship. In 1 Samuel
14, the emphasis is on Saul's threat to kill Jonathan (theme of fratricide). In 1 Samuel 15, Saul engages in a forbidden alliance (theme
of intermarriage) with Agag, by sparing him.
16
I am fully persuaded that the fall of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is the fall of the Sethites. This interpretation alone does justice to
the context, which by saying only Noah was found righteous demands to know what happened to all the Godly Sethites. The statement
that they "saw the daughters of men (Cainites) were fair, and took" harkens right back to Genesis 3, and the theme of forbidden fruit.
Here again, forbidden fruit is both food and sex. These "sons of God" are called God's "angels" or messengers in Jude 6. See my
essay, "Who Were the Angels of Jude 6?" Biblical Horizons No.1 (January, 1989).

134
 1. Sanctuary context (Ex. 19- Lev. 16): The golden calf incident, and the sin of Nadab and Abihu.
Compare this with the period of the Judges, which features apostasy to strange gods and
culminates when the two sons of the High Priest are slain (1 Sam. 4). Sins against the first
commandment are highlighted here. Can we see this in a very general way as rebellion against the
Father?

2. Land (camp) context (Lev. 17- Num. 14): Strife among brothers inside the camp (Lev. 24) and
the refusal to enter the land (Num. 14). Compare this with the period of the Kings, which focuses
on the fratricidal relationship between Northern and Southern Israel. Sins against the second
commandment are highlighted in this period (worshipping God under the species of icons). Can
we see this in a very general way as rebellion against the Son, our Elder Brother?

3. World (wilderness) context (Num. 15-26):17 sin of the wood gatherer "in the wilderness" (Num.
15) and the sin of "inter- marriage" (Num. 25). Compare this with the Restoration (Post-exilic)
period, which has a whole-world setting, and which focuses on the sin of intermarriage (Ezr. 9-10;
Neh. 13; Mal. 2). Sins against the third commandment are highlighted in this period (not bearing
God's name -- witnessing to the nations -- properly).18 Can we see this in a very general way as
rebellion against the Spirit?19

With this background, let me suggest an overview of Leviticus that will help explain the rationale for the
laws of uncleanness, and their literary order.

I shall argue below that Leviticus 8-10 recapitulates the creation of man, the joining of man to his helpers,
the duty of man to guard his bride and the garden, and the fall of man. I believe this is not difficult to see.
What, then, of Leviticus 1-7? My present belief is this:

A. Exodus 25-40 recapitulates Genesis I, the creation of the world.

B. Leviticus 1-7 recapitulates the sixth day of creation in an expansion. On that day, God first
made the animals, and then He made man. Just so, Leviticus 1:1 - 6:7 focuses on the animal sacrifices, and
Leviticus 6:8 - 7:36 focuses on the portions given to the priests.

C. Leviticus 8-10 recapitulates the events of Genesis 2 and 3, up to God's judgments.

D. Leviticus 11-16 recapitulates the judgments of God pronounced in Genesis 3. It has to do with
uncleanness before God in oneself.

E. Leviticus 17-22 recapitulates Genesis 4, in that it sets forth conditions for remaining in the land.
It has to do with abominations before God in relationships.20

To me this is fairly clear.

What follows is more speculative:

F. Leviticus 23 can correlate with Genesis 5, since the years lived by the patriarchs correspond to
astral cycles.21

17
The new census in Numbers 26 signals the end of the wilderness wanderings.
18
This tendency is most pronounced in the party of the Pharisees, who were very loyal to the first two commandments and to God’s
law in general, but who had erected all kinds of hostile and unbiblical barriers against Gentiles. Idolatry was never a problem after the
Exile; rather, the problem was legalism and failure to evangelize.
19
The Church Fathers, with good reason, saw the Spirit is the Divine Archetype of the feminine, or at least as the Friend of the
Bridegroom, preparing the Bride for the wedding to the Groom. This would correlate with the theme of intermarriage. See Thomas
Hopko, “On the Male Character of the Christian Priesthood," in Hopko, ed., Women and the Priesthood (Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1983).
20
Leviticus 18 and 20 have to do with incest, and this seems more related to intermarriage than to fratricide; but this is more apparent
than real. The reason incest is forbidden is given in
21
Jordan, Through New Eyes, p. 58.

135
 G. Leviticus 24-25, especially the themes of violence and oppression, might relate to the Nephilim
of Genesis 6. Note also that the violent man executed in Leviticus 24 was the child of an inter-
marriage.

H. Leviticus 26 gives the threat of judgment, correlating with the Flood.

I. Leviticus 27 discusses payment of vows, and we might link this with Noah's post-Flood
sacrifices.

J. Interestingly, that puts the census of Numbers 1 in tandem with the Table of Nations in Genesis
10 and the Shemite genealogy of Genesis 11.

K. This means that the march toward conquest that follows in Numbers can be associated with the
call of Abram to enter the land.

Does all of this seem speculative? Well, it most certainly is speculative! We have three options in
interpreting the Bible. The first is to read it and refuse to meditate on it, refuse to make connections, refuse
to consider analogies, and refuse to make applications. The second is to read it and then speculate on what
it might mean in terms of extra-Biblical information. That is, try and make correlations with other ancient
near eastern cultures, etc.22 The third is to read it and then speculate strictly within the parameters of the
Bible itself, considering connections, analogies, applications, and so forth. In my opinion there is no doubt
which is the proper methodology. No doubt my speculations can be improved upon. I believe I have said
enough, however, to (a) substantiate my basic methodology, and (b) show the likelihood that I am on the
right track in this section of Leviticus.

-----------------------------
Exodus 18:6, which literally reads, "Concerning any man: to any near kinsman of his flesh you shall not
approach to expose nakedness." In other words, these laws deal with sex between near relations, persons of
one's own "flesh." Thus, it is the "brotherly" aspect, not the "outsider" (intermarriage) aspect that is in view.

I should add that my fundamental interpretations of Leviticus 11 do not stand or fall in terms of the
outlining that follows. All the same, part of the purpose of this series of studies is to set before the reader as
large a smorgasbord as possible, so that future discussions of Leviticus 11 can be as rich as possible. To
that end, I have determined to leave nothing out that may be of help.

22
Rousas J. Rushdoony, for example, maintains in his taped lectures on Leviticus (1986) that the reason God said marital intercourse
caused uncleanness was to direct the people away from fertility cult religions in the ancient near east. This is an example of wholly
extra-Biblical speculation. There is no Biblical foundation for this assertion. Instead of speculating within the text, Rushdoony
speculates outside of it, at this point.

136
Chapter 7 - A New Adam

If the Tabernacle is a new Garden-Sanctuary for God, then the High Priest is a new Adam.23 The
consecration of Aaron as High Priest in Leviticus 8 parallels in several ways the creation of Adam in
Genesis 2. This re-creation episode is highly complex and symbolic, and thus no simple repetition of the
creation of Adam. All the same, there are enough parallels to enable us with confidence to assert that the
creation of a new Adam is the heart of Leviticus 8.

The noteworthy events of Genesis 2 are these:

1. The formation of Adam (v. 7a)

2. The Spirit's quickening of Adam (v. 7b)
3. The creation of the Garden-sanctuary (v. 8)
4. Establishment of Adam as guard (v. 15)
5. Creation of helper fit for Adam (v. 18)
6. Bringing of animals to Adam (v. 19)
7. A command to obey on pain of death (v. 17)

In Leviticus 8 we find the same events, though not all in the same order. Also, by this stage of redemptive
history, men who carry the office of headship are invested with robes of office, and are not naked as was
Adam (cf. Gen. 9:5-6, 21-23).24 The sacrificial system has been revealed. oil has come in as a symbol of the
Spirit. And so forth. Understanding these things, however, we can read Leviticus 8 as a re-creation
passage.25

First, Aaron and his sons are washed (Lev. 8:6). The dirt of the Old Creation is removed from them, and
they are prepared for entrance into the New. Next, Aaron is invested with his garments of holiness (linen)
and then the colored garments of glory and beauty (vV. 7-9). This corresponds to No. 1 above, the
formation of Adam.

The next event is Moses' anointing the Tabernacle with oil (vv. 10-11). The Tabernacle had already been
built, but now it is anointed with the oil of the Spirit, and made fully "alive" as God's new earthly Garden-
sanctuary. This corresponds to No.3 above.

Then comes the anointing of Aaron (v. 12), as the Spirit "breathes" life into him (No.2 above). After this,
Aaron's sons are brought near and clothed (v. 13), these being the helpers fitted to assist him (No.5
above).26 Following this, animals are brought to Aaron (vv. 14ff.), though this time not to name but to be
sacrificed (No.6 above).

Then Aaron is told to guard the Tabernacle, positioning himself at its doorway (forecourt), for seven days
(No.4 above). He is to do this on pain of death (No.7 above): "At the doorway of the tent of meeting,
moreover, you shall remain day and night for seven days, and do guard duty for the Lord, that you may not
die, for so I have been commanded," said Moses (v. 35).27

23
Exodus 25-40 presents the Tabernacle as a cosmos, recapitulating Genesis 1. In Leviticus, the Tabernacle is presented as a
sanctuary, recapitulating Genesis 2. See Jordan, "The Tabernacle: A New Creation."
24
See Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion.”
25
The present discussion condenses material found in Chapter 2 of Jordan, Covenant Sequence.
26
Maritally, Adam's helper is Eve. In labor, his helpers are his sons. In terms of the theology of the book of Numbers, the helpers
fitted for the priests are the Levites. In terms of the theology of the books of Samuel, the helper fitted for the warrior-king is his
commander in chief (1 Sam. 26 -- the question here is whether David or Abner has better assisted Saul in fighting off a "Satanic
attack").
27
“Do guard duty" is the literal meaning of the command here. For a full, though very technical, discussion, see Jacob Milgrom,
Studies in Levitical Terminology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), pp. 5ff.

137
The other details of Leviticus 8 need not concern us at this point, because what is of interest here is only the
parallel to Genesis 2.28 Leviticus 9 shows Aaron entering into his duties and leading the congregation in
sacrificial worship. Then, at the beginning of Leviticus 10, we read of the presumptuous sin of Nadab and
Abihu. The fire that came from the Lord and destroyed them answers to the "that you may not die" of
Leviticus 8:35, for the two men had failed to guard the holiness of God, by offering fire of their own
making.29 Accordingly, they were destroyed by the flaming sword of the cherubim (Gen. 3:24; Ex. 25:18-
22).

What I have written thus far is enough to show a general correlation between the contents of Leviticus 8-10
and Genesis 2-3. I now want to be a bit more speculative (and I hope also more helpful) by drawing some
closer parallels. To do this we have to go back to the heptamerous pattern of Genesis 1, and see it
recapitulated in Genesis 2-3, and in Leviticus 8ff.

Day 1. Creation of heaven and earth. Compare Genesis 2:5-6. As the earth was formless and void
(two problems), so there was neither rain nor man (two problems). As the Spirit hovered over the
earth, so the mist was over the land. Compare further the assembling of the congregation and the
washing of Aaron with water, Leviticus 8:1-6.

Day 2. Establishment of the firmament over the earth, a symbol of heaven. Compare Genesis 2:7,
the creation of man, God's heavenly agent in this world. Compare further Leviticus 8:7-9, the
robing of Aaron as God's firmament-dressed garden-ruler.30

Day 3. First the land was set aside from the waters, and then plants were put on it. Compare
Genesis 2:8-14, the planting of the garden, and the rivers flowing from it to form watery boundary.
Compare further Leviticus 8:10-11, the anointing of the Tabernacle and altar as new garden.

Day 4. The astral bodies are created as symbols of government. Compare Genesis 2:15, man set up
as overseer and guard. Compare the anointing of Aaron and the sacrifices for him, which
sealed him as overseer and guard of the new garden, Leviticus 8:12-30.

Day 5. The first commandment is given by God to fish and birds. Compare Genesis 2:16-17, the
commandment given to the man. Compare Leviticus 8:31-36, where Aaron is given the same
commandment, to do guard duty.

Day 6. Animals are created, and then man is created. Compare the two sections: Genesis 2:18-24,
animals brought to man to teach him need of helper; Genesis 2:25- 3:7, animal (serpent) brought
to man to teach him the need to act as guard. Compare Leviticus 9, where the congregation is
brought to Aaron and sacrificially sealed as his "bride."

Day 7. God's day of sabbath judgment. The day man fell, when God came to meet him. Compare
Genesis 3:8-13, God's initial inspection of Adam and Eve. Compare Leviticus 10, the sin of Nadab
and Abihu, and their judgment by the flaming sword of the cherubim; and Moses' inspection of
Aaron. (Compare Genesis 2:13, "What is this that you have done?" with Leviticus 10:17, "Why
did you not eat...?")

28
For the most part, the remaining details of Leviticus 8 concern Purification Offerings designed to cleanse the altar of defilements
caused by Aaron and his sons, so that they can have access to it, and also the offering of a Peace Sacrifice that is analogous to
Passover. The Passover lamb is a species of Peace Offering, and like at the first Passover, blood of the "Ordination Peace Offering" is
placed on Aaron's ear, thumb, and toe as a sign that he is "under the blood" and so that God's plague will pass him by when he draws
near.
29
James B. Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty: A Theological Investigation (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986), p. 52.
God's fire ultimately is the seraphic company of His messengers (Dan. 7:9). The guardian cherubim, represented by the fire on the
altar, did not recognize the alien fire of the presumptuous Nadab and Abihu. The true fire of God's true fiery servants destroyed the
false fire of the sinners.
30
On the correspondence between Aaron's dress and the Tabernacle and the firmament heavens, see Meredith G. Kline, Images of the
Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), chap. 2.

138
 Diagram 10.1

Day 1 Genesis 2:5-6 Leviticus 8:1-6

Day 2 Genesis 2:7 Leviticus 8:7-9
Day 3 Genesis 2:8-14 Leviticus 8:10-11
Day 4 Genesis 2:15 Leviticus 8:12-30
Day 5 Genesis 2:16-17 Leviticus 8:31-36
Day 6 Genesis 2:18--3:7 Leviticus 9
Day 7 Genesis 3:8-13 Leviticus 10

We have seen creation and fall. In Genesis, what follows is the passing of judgment and the offer of the
hope of restoration through sacrifice.

139
Chapter 8 - The Amplification of Judgments

In Genesis 3, judgment is pronounced first against the serpent, then on the process of childbirth, and third
on the work of man. Leviticus 11 has to do with animals, Leviticus 12 with childbearing, and Leviticus 13
with "leprosy" in men. There are further parallels, as we shall see, but this establishes the likelihood that
there are some literary parallels, and we can turn our attention to specific details.

The Serpent

In discussing uncleanness, Leviticus commences with a long chapter on animals, and this is as it should be.
The primary defilement is moral and spiritual, and it was the demonized beast who brought this spiritual
impurity to the Garden. In passing judgment upon Satan, God called upon the serpent to display the curse
openly: "Cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field: on your belly shall you
go..." (Gen. 3:14).

As we saw in paper No.8, the curse upon the serpent here was probably a judgment only on this particular
animal, or better on Satan who was using him. This event, however, can be seen to establish and archetype
for the demonstration of judgment in the animal realm. Symbolically, the unclean animals were both curse-
recipients and also curse-dealers. Thus, the characteristics of the serpent, and of the unclean animals, are
signs of life under judgment, and of life that deals death.

We note, first, that in comparison with other land animals, the serpent travels in the dust. Accordingly, at
the climax of Leviticus 11, where the meaning of the passage is summarized, it is those creatures that
swarm in the dust that are singled out for especial mention. Notice how the language piles up:

Now every swarming creature that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten. Whatever
moves on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every
swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them. Do not render yourselves
detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves
unclean with them so that you become unclean. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate
yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with
any of the swarming things that crawl on the earth. For I am the Lord, who brought you up from
the land of Egypt, to be your God; thus you shall be holy for I am holy. (Leviticus 11:41-45)

Do we get the point? The fundamental symbolic opposition is between the holiness of God on the one hand,
and serpentine crawling in the curse-prosecuting soil on the other.

At this point we must remember that the soil is God's friend. Under the Old Covenant, the soil was God's
agent to call down judgment on sinful man. It was God's curse that the soil administered. Thus, there was
no fundamental opposition between God and the agents of uncleanness. The agents of uncleanness (soil,
issues of blood, unclean animals, etc.) worked God's will in bringing judgment to man. It is because God
desired to spare man this judgment that He instituted ways for man to become separated from uncleanness,
from His judgment, from His curse. Thus, the opposition of God's holiness to uncleanness is not a
fundamental opposition, but is a gracious one.

This points to a fact that will emerge more and more clearly in this essay, which is that uncleanness was not
the same thing as sin. God is fundamentally opposed to sin, to sinners, and to Satan and his fallen host. God
is not fundamentally opposed to His own judgment, however, and uncleanness was an aspect of God's
judgment, not an aspect of sin. It is because men are sinners that the Israelite attracted uncleanness to
himself, but the uncleanness that resulted spoke of judgment.

Since the primeval serpent was cursed with reference to land animals, any animal that traveled with its
flesh in contact with the cursed ground was to that extent serpent-like, and thus unclean. To be clean, a land
animal had to have "shoes," hooves.

140
Secondly, in order to get into the Garden at all, the serpent had to transgress the Garden's boundary. Once
the serpent manifested satanic characteristics, it was Adam's job as guard to keep him out, a task Adam
failed. Thus, the Garden's geographical boundary became a symbol of the moral boundary between Satan
and the Kingdom. Accordingly, boundary transgressors, especially swarmers, were defined as unclean.
Thus, Leviticus 11 devotes a central section to the uncleanness caused by boundary transgressing swarmers
that get into the house and die, leaving their unclean carcasses on tools and cooking utensils (Lev. 11:29-
38). Like the serpent, these swarmers broke into the domestic garden and brought death.

Third, it was not the serpent as such who was guilty, but Satan who worked through him. This accounts for
the clean/unclean distinction as worked out for birds and fishes. I shall argue that unclean birds figured
unclean spirits, and were those winged creatures associated with darkness or the wilderness. Clean fish
were defined as those that travel in the dangerous "Gentile sea" armored in God's righteousness.

Fourth, the curse ultimately is death, and so the dead carcasses of animals, as of men, caused uncleanness. 31
This also is a major theme of Leviticus 11.

Fifth, I pointed out above that sometimes unclean animals were symbols for civil magistrates, in that some
unclean animals tear flesh; that is, they bring judgment upon the flesh. While this may be in the overall
background of Leviticus 11, it is not the precise locus of symbolism in that passage. Rather, in Leviticus 11
unclean animals are defined and described as those that do not divide the hoof or do not chew cud. As we
shall see, other passages of Leviticus associate unclean animals not with righteous curse-prosecuting
magistrates but with unrighteous curse-prosecuting Gentiles. The unconverted Gentile is an outsider to
God's court, and if an Israelite joined with such a person, he became an outsider also. Just so, if an Israelite
ate the flesh of an unclean animal, he was exiled from the sanctuary.

Sixth, the unclean animals were to be regarded as detestable, not to be eaten. In this symbolic context,
eating has to do with idolatry. In that the women and the man harkened to the voice of the serpent, rather
than to the voice of God, they committed idolatry. Not only so, they ate a communion meal with Satan at
the Tree of Knowledge rather than with God at the Tree of Life. Thus, they partook of the "table of
demons" (1Cor. 10:21). In general, then, Genesis 3 explains the nature of idolatry and the curse upon it.
Idolatry is the ultimate sin, and the unclean animals of Leviticus 11 were figures for idolatry. To eat such
animals symbolized fellowship with idols -- not the liturgical idolatry of worshipping images (second
commandment), but the covenantal idolatry of becoming united to idolatrous persons (first commandment).
To eat such animals, thus, made a person unclean. God put Adam and Eve under judgment, defiling them,
when they disobeyed His word and ate the good food of His tree wrongly. Just so, if the Israelite ate of
these animals, it would bring God's judgment against him, defiling him.

Finally, if a person became defiled by an unclean animal, he was forbidden to enter the sanctuary and offer
sacrifice (Lev. 22:3; Num. 19:13), or to eat of any Peace Offering taken out of the sanctuary (Lev. 7:20-21;
Num. 9:10). This was true for all forms of uncleanness. Moreover, as we shall see, willful eating of unclean
food resulted in expulsion from the community.

In conclusion, remember that the uncleanness-producing animals symbolize God's judgments against man.
They are God's agents. The animals that act like sinful men are the ones that bring judgment upon men. In
other words, sin brings judgment. As "fathers of uncleanness," the unclean animals represent and symbolize
God's activity; the specific manner in which they do this is by dramatically symbolizing human
wickedness. These animals -- agents of God -- pass judgment upon sinners that eat or touch them, rendering
such persons unclean.

31
Animals slaughtered for food are an exception, obviously. Men killed in war, however, are not an exception, and after battle the
Israelites had to cleanse themselves (Num. 31:19). The Old Covenant methods of capital punishment, stoning and hanging, prevented
physical contact with the corpse.

141
Childbearing

In Genesis 3, after dealing with the serpent, God spoke to the woman: "I will greatly multiply your distress,
especially in childbearing;32 in distress you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your
husband, and he shall rule over you" (v. 16). In additional to emotional distress and physical pain,
sometimes leading to death (cf. Rachel, Gen. 35:16-19), there is "ceremonial" distress accompanying
childbirth. This is what Leviticus 12 deals with. It might seem that it is the birth of a child "dead in
trespasses and sin" that rendered the woman unclean, 33 but in fact the text says that her uncleanness was
due to the issues of blood that accompany the birth (Lev. 12:2, 4, 5, 7). This was the "distress. “ 34 The
process of giving birth was defiled.

Leviticus 12 legislates that the woman be unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl. The reason for
this is that the boy child was circumcised, and this apparently had the effect of sacrificially reducing his
mother's uncleanness (v. 3). This reminder of "male headship" is an additional correlation with Genesis
3:16.

The unclean woman was excluded from sanctuary (exiled from the Garden of Eden) for as long as she was
unclean (Lev. 12:4).

Here again, the "father of uncleanness" is a symbol of God's life, for "life is in the blood." The inner
depravity of the mother and the sinful nature of the child attract the uncleanness-producing effect of the
blood. The blood -- the life of God -- passes judgment upon the sinner, rendering him unclean.

The Plague of Decay ("Leprosy")

The next judgment in Genesis 3 is upon the ground from which man is taken: "Cursed is the ground
because of you" (v. 17). Since man is made of earth, the curse on the ground put man "under" the curse.
Man would labor by the sweat of his brow, and eventually return to dust, the dust of death.

"Leprosy" had to do with sweat, dust, and death. The correlation with sweat is seen in 2 Chronicles 26:16-
19. Here is recorded the presumptuous sin of King Uzziah, how he encroached on the prerogatives of the
priesthood and insisted on burning incense to the Lord. The priests rebuked him, and Uzziah became
enraged. "And while he was enraged with the priests, the leprosy broke out on his forehead before the
priests in the house of the Lord, beside the al tar of incense. And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests
looked at him, and behold, he was leprous on his forehead..." (vv. 19-20).

Sweat was a sign of the curse, especially the sweat of the brow. The priests wore linen, so as not to sweat in
God's presence and make Him angry (Ezk. 43:18; Jude 23; Rev. 19:8). The High Priest wore a golden plate,
inscribed "Holy to the Lord," on his forehead so that God would not see his sweat (Ex. 28:36f.). To cover
the sweat of the brow, Jesus' sweat was like drops of atoning blood (Luke 22:44). 35

From this it seems that "leprosy" was in some ways an intensified form of sweat. It was an intensification
of the ordinary judgment upon man. The term translated "leprosy" (Hebrew tsara’ath) in our Bibles actually
means "stroke," and Noordtzij maintains that "the term is derived from a root that contains the idea of being
struck.”36 "Leprosy," then, was a form of plague, in context an "Egyptian" plague, again an intensification

32
For this understanding, see Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel
Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, [1944] 1961), pp. 161ff.
33
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses. Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles w. Bingham, 4
vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1852-55] 1979) 1:498ff.; A. A. Bonar, An Exposition of Leviticus (London: Banner of Truth Trust,
[1861] 1966), pp. 235ff.
34
"The life of the flesh is the blood" (Lev. 17:11). The blood is not unclean, but it causes the woman to become unclean when it
comes in contact with what issues from her innermost parts. This will be made clearer in the section on "Agents of Uncleanness"
below.
35
An interesting study of this is Arthur Custance, "The Meaning of Sweat as Part of the Curse," Doorway Papers No.50. Privately
published. This has been reprinted by Zondervan Pub. Co. of Grand Rapids as part of a hardbound set of Custance's Doorway Papers.
36
A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. Raymond Togtman. Bible Student's Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 134. Compare

142
of the ordinary judgment against man. For this reason, the cleansing of the "leper" included the same
Passover-like anointing with blood as was required of the High Priest at his investiture (Lev. 14:14).

That "leprosy" can be correlated with "Egyptian Plague" appears from a study of the incidence of the
Hebrew root naga’,37 where it means "strike, smite, plague," and its noun form nega’ which means plague.
In Genesis 12:17, the Lord "plagued" Pharaoh. In Exodus 11:1, the death of the firstborn is singled out as
the only instance of "plague. " Another word is used for all the other plagues. In Exodus 12:22, the
Hebrews were to "strike" the doorposts of their houses with the Passover blood, and the word here is the
same as "plague." Finally, In Leviticus 13-14, the word "plague" is used sixty times to refer to "leprosy." 38
Thus, "leprosy" seems to be correlated with the "plague" on the firstborn and with the blood of Passover.

The descriptions of "leprosies" in Leviticus 13 make it clear that what is in view is a set of conditions
having the same general surface appearance. More than one disease was probably included. Certainly what
we think of as "leprosy" today, Hanson's disease, is not the subject of this chapter. 39

For reasons that I can only briefly set forth here, I have come to the (provisional) conclusion that the best
translation of tsara’ath is "decay.” Thus, the Plague of "Leprosy" is the Plague of Decay. The Bible
associates white skin and white hair with glory and glorification (Dan. 7:9; Mark 9:3; Rev. 1:14). Decay is
a counterfeit glory (cp. Miriam white as snow, Num. 12:10). It is a glory that is turned to shame. Instead of
righteousness radiating out of a person and making him shiny white, we have sinfulness radiating out of a
person and making him white. (All the true forms of Decay in Leviticus 13 emerge from "under the skin.")
Suppose Adam had been faithful, and God had said, "Blessed is the soil for your sake"? Then the soil of
which man is composed would radiate that blessedness through his skin and he would be glorious, as
Moses' skin shone after he conversed with God (Ex. 34:29). Instead, what radiates from man's soil-
composed flesh is a counterfeit glory, a degradation.

We have to note that is it not the white skin and hair as such that causes uncleanness. It is only in those
cases where the whiteness touches the "flesh" under the skin that uncleanness results. In other words,
whiteness (glory) is in itself a good thing, but it is when it comes in contact with the sinful inner flesh of a
man that it ministers uncleanness (death) to him. When this white, flakiness was only on the skin, the man
was protected. His skin was his "shoe." When, however, the plague penetrated the skin and got in contact
with the flesh beneath, then the man was defiled. The plague had gotten past the protection, and made the
man unclean. (Similarly, it seems to me that the reason the completely white man was clean was because
the flesh no longer showed through. He was re-shod in "glory." When raw flesh reappeared, the man
became unclean again; Lev. 13:13-17.)

The High Priest was made glorious by the ritual of Leviticus 8. The ritual for cleansing the person healed of
Decay (Leviticus 14) is virtually the same. Thus, Decay removed from the Israelite lay- priest his priestly
(glorious) status. Only clean/glorious persons might come into God's presence, so the Decaying person was
excluded.40

the Hebrew words tsarar, "bind, tie up, restrict; show hostility toward, vex," tsar, "straits, distress; adversary, foe," tsarah, "distress,
anguish, trouble," and tsaraph, "try, test, purge." These associations can be questioned, since the apparent root of tsara’ath is not the
same as tsarar and tsarah. According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs's Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1972), the Hebrew tsr’ is possibly related to terms in other Semitic languages meaning "throw down, prostrate" or
"humble oneself"; p. 863. Thus, some kind of association seems to be present.
37
In the piel conjugation
38
The words "leprosy" (tsara 'ath) and "be leprous" (tsara’) occur thirty-two times in these two chapters. Thus, words associated with
being struck by a plague occur ninety-two times.
39
See the discussion in Wenham, Leviticus, pp. 194ff. Wenham draws upon S. G. Browne, Leprosy in the Bible (London: Christian
Medical Fellowship, 1970), and E. V. Hulse, "The Nature of Biblical 'Leprosy' and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern
Translations of the Bible," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 107 (1975):87-105. See also John Wilkinson, "Leprosy and Leviticus: The
Problem of Description and Identification," Scottish Journal of Theology 30:153- 69; and Wilkinson, "Leprosy and Leviticus: A
Problem of Semantics and Translation, "ibid. 31:153-66.
40
I understand Leviticus 13:17, which says that if Decay has spread allover a man he is clean, as follows: When a person is completely
"dead," he is automatically "resurrected," since he is a covenant member. Notice that there was no ritual for cleansing such a person.
He was simply clean. The ritual for cleansing only applies to the man who has lost all signs of Decay. Such a man had been healed,
and now he had to be cleansed for readmission to the sanctuary. The totally "dead" person was automatically readmitted.

143
As sweat can come allover the body, and defile garments, so the Plague of Decay could come allover the
body. This is the subject of the first four descriptions in Leviticus 13 (vv. 2-28). The climax of the
discussion is reached with the Decay of the brow and head (vv. 29-37). Counterfeit "leprosies" for body
and head are then discussed in order (vv. 38-44). In each case, the skin dried up and became flaky and
white, like snow, and the hair turned white. This was a sign of counterfeit glory. In terms of what actually
happened, the skin became dry and flaky, like dust -- the curse-prosecuting dust of death (Num. 12:10-12).
Thus, the Plague of Decay was a kind of dusty sweat, a fitting image of the judgment upon man.

Not only does Numbers 12:10-12 associate Decay with death, but the story of Uzziah does as well. The
punishment for encroaching upon the holy things was death (Num. 3:38). Yet Uzziah was not actually slain
by God, but was given the "stroke" of "leprosy." Clearly, then, Decay is a form of death.

The "leper" was thus dead in the midst of life. "As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be
torn, and the hair of his head shall be disheveled, and he shall cover his mustache and cry 'Unclean,
unclean"' (Lev. 13:45). Each of these was a sign of mourning (Lev. 10:6; 21:10; Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 1:11;
Ezk. 24:17, 22).

The "leper" was not only barred from the sanctuary, as Adam was cast from Eden, he was also barred from
the holy camp as well. "He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp" (Lev. 13:46).41

White shiny skin and white hair are symbols of God's glory. They become "fathers of uncleanness" when
they come in contact with the "flesh. " White skin -- the glory of God -- passes judgment on the sinner,
rendering him unclean.

"Leprous" Garments

Following the judgment upon the man, "the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and
clothed them" (Gen. 3:21). Agreeable to this literary sequence, Leviticus 13:47-59 deals with Decay in
garments. Just as sweat can soil garments, so could "leprosy." Such garments were no better than fig leaves,
and had to be destroyed.

Glorious clothing is seen in the rainbow-hued "garments of glory and beauty" worn by the High Priest.
Garments infected with Decay counterfeited this glory by being green or red. Decay could infect not only
garments of cloth, but skins, cloth of wool or linen not yet made into garments, and also unwoven warp and
woof threads. This extends the idea of "garments'” to anything that was potentially a covering for man,
including the tents in which Israel was currently dwelling (made of skin, to keep out the rain). 42 By sending
the plague of Decay against a man's garments or tent, God removed his covering, forcing him to pursue
new garments.

The " Leprous " House

After clothing Adam and Eve, God drove them from their home, the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:22-24).
Accordingly, Leviticus 14:33-53 has to do with Decay in houses. If a house inside a city wall became
"leprous," the family had to depart from it.43 If the "leprosy" did not go away, the house had to be torn
down. (When Jesus said that not one stone would remain upon another in the Temple, he was pronouncing
the Temple a "leprous" house.)44

41
Once Israel entered the promised land, however, there is no evidence that lepers had to separate from their plots of land. This
reflects a difference between the holiness of the city and that of the land. See my discussion in James B. Jordan, "The Death Penalty in
the Mosaic Law: Five Exploratory Essays" (available from Biblical Horizons), chap. 4.
42
On the association of garments, which cover nakedness, with tents, which do the same, see Genesis 9:21-23. Noah became naked,
but he was still covered by his tent. See my remarks on this in Jordan, Primeval Saints: Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis (available
from Biblical Horizons), chap. 3.
43
Houses in the land, as opposed to the city, were not under this rule. See Jordan, "Death Penalty," chap. 4.
44
J. Duncan M. Derrett, "No Stone Upon Another: Leprosy and the Temple," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (1987):3-
20. See also Zechariah 5:4. Notice that Jesus inspected the Temple (for Decay) at the outset of His ministry, and then again at the end.
This is in keeping with the stipulations of Leviticus 14. His death "patched up the wall" of the Temple. Jesus was counted as "leprous"
on behalf of the Temple (people; Is. 53:3-4). When the Plague of Decay returned, the house was to be torn down, which the Lord did

144
Unclean Issues

"And the man knew his wife Eve" (Gen. 4: 1). This act was "ceremonially" defiled, according to Leviticus
15. Any "issue" of a sexual or bloody nature from the private parts, 45 whether routine or exceptional, short
term or long term, was defined as unclean. 46 Man's sense of shame is focused on his privates (which is why
we call them that), and in the Garden of Eden he sought to cover them with fig leaves (Gen. 3:7).

Wenham points to the meaning of these laws when he writes, "The unity and interdependence of the sexes
finds its most profound expression in the act of sexual intercourse, and very fittingly this is discussed in v.
18, the midpoint of the literary structure" of Leviticus 15. 47 The sin of man disrupted the covenantal bond
between Adam and Eve. Part of God's judgment, thus, was put upon the act of marriage, and upon the
organs related thereto. Accordingly, under the Old Covenant from the time of Moses forward, the act of
marriage always resulted in temporary "ceremonial" uncleanness (Ex. 19:15; 1 Sam. 21: 4ff.; 2 Sam. 11:
11).

All the previous forms of uncleanness have had to do with death, since judgment ultimately entails death. It
seems that this is implied here also. Since life is in blood (Lev. 17:11), it would seem that an outflow of
blood might signify death, but that would be true of any loss of blood. What seems to be particular about
the issues of Leviticus 15 is that they all come from the privates, and thus from the innermost parts of the
person. Since it is here that man's rotten, dead heart is exposed, it was the privates that Adam and Eve
sought to cover first. It is because the flow comes from man's dead insides that it is defiled, and powerfully
defiling toward other things and people. In other words, it is when the life of blood and seed comes in
contact with the inner defilement of a man that it renders him unclean.

Moreover, as noted above, it is not just any issue from the privates that causes defilement, because
urination and defecation did not. Rather, it had to be an issue connected with life: sexuality and
childbearing. It is the contact between "holy" blood or seed and the sinful inner parts of the person that
produces the judgment of uncleanness against that person. Urine and feces are not "holy" or associated with
life, so that they do not minister Divine judgment against the sinfulness of man.

The most important of all issues from the inner person takes place in the act of marriage, and it is at the
literary mid-point of Leviticus 15 that this act is designated as defiled. Again, this is because something
associated with life (seed) has contacted the inner depravity of the couple, thereby judging them.

Since all emissions produced judgment, and thus caused uncleanness, no man might approach the sanctuary
after a nocturnal emission, no woman might approach the sanctuary during menstruation, and no couple
might approach the sanctuary during the day they had had sexual relations. When the wilderness
community formed up as an army camp, persons with long-term discharges were sent outside its
boundaries altogether (Num. 5:2-3; Dt. 23:9-11).

Once again, the "father of uncleanness" is a symbol of God's life, for "life is in the blood." The inner
depravity of the sinner attracts the uncleanness-producing effect of the blood. The blood -- the life of God -

in A.D. 70.
45
The word "flesh" here, as often elsewhere, refers to the privates; cf. Wenharn, Leviticus, p. 217.
46
The passage does not say so, but urination is clearly excluded. Otherwise, everyone would be unclean every day. Thus, the defiling
emissions must be those connected with life in a particular way, emissions related to sexuality and childbearing.
Feces is considered "unclean" in a sense (Dt. 23:13-14), but the act of defecation did not render a person unclean. The word translated
"unclean" in the AV of Deuteronomy 23:14 actually means "naked, shameful." Thus, feces is not specifically designated as "unclean,"
though it is obviously very similar, and this removes it from the system of concerns in Leviticus 15.
Similarly, to urinate on something was to defile it in a general sense, but the act did not render the person doing it or the object
receiving it unclean in the ceremonial sense. Hence the expression, "all the men who urinate against the wall" is a term of contempt:
Nobody pisses against the wall of his own home or city, especially not against the walls of Jerusalem. Only dogs do this. An
examination of the context in which this expression is used shows that it always implies that the men spoken of are dogs (1 Sam.
25:22; 1Ki. 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2Ki. 9:8).
47
Wenham, Leviticus, p. 217.

145
- passes judgment upon the sinner, rendering him unclean.

Concluding Observations

In every case save those of eating forbidden food and touching carcasses, a person becomes unclean when
his corrupt insides are exposed. Only a person who is holy, has inner integrity, can have true glory, which is
outward. The counterfeit glory of man is exposed for what it is when the flesh peeks through the skin. The
skin is like the shoe that protects the feet from the soil. In the case of Decay, it is the when the flesh shows
through that white skin is shown to be false glory, and the person is unclean. In the case of issues, it is
issues from the flesh flowing to the outside of the person that render him unclean. The same is true in the
case of childbirth.

The flesh (inner person) is corrupt because man does not have the Tree of Life (holiness, integrity). When
man manifests the glory of the Tree of Knowledge (children as a glory cloud, issues as power and
influence), that manifestation is corrupted by his lack of holiness. When this becomes visible, and God
"sees" it, then man may not draw near to God, for his own good, lest God destroy him.

The exceptional case seems to be eating forbidden food. This signifies the original corrupting act. The
unclean animals have to do with glory, with rule and dominion, with "tearing" judgeship. They may not be
eaten until man's inner holiness is restored, and that does not happen until the New Covenant. When the
Israelite ate such animals, he was repeating Adam's sin of eating the Tree of Knowledge without waiting
for God's permission, without having Tree of Life holiness first. The clean animals are emblems of the Tree
of Life, while the unclean animals are emblems of the Tree of Knowledge. Israel was given Adam's choice
in Leviticus 11.

Instead of proceeding from the inside out, like childbearing, Decay, and issues, the conditions in Leviticus
11 proceed from the outside in. Both eating and touching bring judgment from the outside to the inside of
man. The difference, however, is more apparent than real. The reason the Decayed person cannot stand
white skin is because his inner flesh is corrupted. The reason the mother cannot withstand childbirth is
because her flesh and the child's are corrupted. The reason at discharges defile is because the inner man is
unworthy. Just so, the reason eating unclean animals causes defilement is because the inner person is
unable to "digest" them. His inner being is corrupt, and the animal judges him.

Carrion and corpses cause defilement because they have returned to dust. They are no longer "shod" with
living skin. Just so, the person whose "skin" has ruptured and betrayed his inner depravity, becomes a cause
of uncleanness in others as well if they touch him.

As regards inanimate objects, it is only with reference to human beings that the things defined as unclean
are to be regarded as unclean. That is, they are "unclean for you," Israel (cf. e.g. Lev. 11:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 20,
23, 27, etc.). For instance, it is only a human garment that can become "leprous." It is only clothing and
articles related to clothing and housing that must be destroyed if they get the Plague of Decay. Similarly,
there is no rule for Decay in hen houses, only for human houses (and only inside walled or fenced cities).

Moreover, uncleanness only means that a person is ineligible to come into the Tabernacle courtyard. The
relation between uncleanness and the Tabernacle highlights the fact that these laws applied only to Israel,
and came into being only when the Tabernacle was set up.

The Tabernacle represented Israelite society. Every aspect of it was a symbol for human beings, for God's
true house is human. Thus the altars, lamps, bread, laver, veils, curtains, utensils, clothing, animals, and all
other features of the Tabernacle represented Israelites in their various dimensions of life. 48 All of these
things had to be kept "ceremonially" clean by sacrifice, for they represented God's people, who had to be
kept clean.

Just as God's House had animals, bread, garments, walls, and so forth, so did the domestic house of each

48

146
Israelite person. Just as the features of God's House represented His people, so the features of the domestic
house represented the personnel of the household. This is what accounts for the application of the
clean/unclean distinction to household items and implements. The defiling influence of a dead rat on a clay
pot symbolized the defiling influence of a wicked person on a member of the household.

Thus, it is only as they symbolize human beings that animals, tools, garments, houses, beds, chairs, etc. can
be considered recipients of uncleanness.

In conclusion, the laws of uncleanness in Leviticus 11-15 portray the judgments of God against Original
Sin, against the sin nature of man. They are categorized according to the original judgments meted out in
the Garden of Eden, judgments that resulted in man's expulsion from the Garden. Just so, uncleanness made
a man ineligible to approach the Tabernacle-Garden. These judgments applied only to human beings, and
they had reference only to the Tabernacle (and later, the Temple). Thus, it is primarily people who became
unclean, and the most powerful defiling agent of all was the human corpse (Num. 19). Animals were clean
or unclean in terms of how they represent humanity. The same was true of inanimate objects.

I am not arguing here that these items each represented different classes of Israelite society. They may
have, and I think the distinction between gold and bronze did correlate to the distinction between rulers and
citizens (see Jordan, "Thoughts on Jachin and Boaz," available from Biblical Horizons). What I am arguing
here is that these items portrayed aspects of every citizen's life, which they also did.

147
Chapter 9 - Death and Uncleanness

Our survey has shown that uncleanness is indeed related to death very prominently in Leviticus 11-15, and
this is a reflex of its relationship to judgment. God associated the curse with the serpent and on the ground.
Uncleanness results from God's curse, especially since the word for "leprosy" seems to be related to
"smiting." Adam and Eve were not cursed directly, but were put under the curse- prosecuting soil.49 Thus,
uncleanness is a form of symbolic "covenantal death."

As I have stated throughout this series of essays, the curse- prosecuting duty of the soil, which curse is
death, has a paradigmatic position in the laws of uncleanness. Man is made of soil, and so the innermost
parts of a man are curse-prosecuting. The dead corpse is returning the soil, and so it prosecutes death.

We have touched on the association of all this with foot washing. Jesus' statement in John 13:10 clearly sets
this out: "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but
not all." Judas, who would prosecute the curse of death to Jesus Himself, was not clean.

In terms of this, uncleanness was not the result of specific, individual sins. Rather, uncleanness was a result
of the judgment for Original Sin. It was corporate in character. If Decay smote a man, it did not inevitably
mean he had committed some particular sin. 50

Adam, acting as humanity's representative, committed Original sin in the Garden. The punishment for
Original sin was death. In theology, that "death" is known as the sin nature. Man's sin nature is not the same
thing as Adam's act of Original Sin, but is part of the judgment all men receive for Adam's action. Our
actual sins proceed from our sin nature. Terminology varies here, but for our purpose we shall use Original
sin to refer to Adam's act, and "sin nature" or "death nature" to refer to the resultant radical depravity that is
inherent in all men.51

Given the fact that the stated judgment for Original sin was death, and the actual judgment was a depraved
nature, perhaps we should call man's sin nature a "death nature." Proverbs 8:36 states that fallen man loves
death. In his summary of human depravity, Paul states that the throat of a man is the opening of a grave,
implying that his heart is the corpse (Rom. 3:13). If we see that man's sin nature is a death nature, we can
understand more fully the connection between sin and uncleanness. Sin arises from man's sin nature.
Uncleanness, being a form of "death," was a judgment on man's death nature.

The sources of symbolic uncleanness can be reduced to two: unclean animals (curse-prosecuting serpent),
and carcasses and things proceeding from the dead insides of human beings (curse-prosecuting soil). A man
rendered his insides dead when he ate the flesh of a carcass or of an unclean animal. Childbirth caused a
powerful and extended uncleanness for the woman, lasting many days and requiring sacrifice for cleansing,
because it brought death from her inward parts. The rules for identification of "leprosy" in persons and
houses make it very clear that a superficial white spot was not Decay; rather, the stroke had to be deeper
then the skin of his body (Lev. 13:3), or deeper than the surface of the wall of the house (Lev. 14:37). It
was issues from the inward parts of men and women, through their privates, that caused the powerful
defilements of Leviticus 15.52

49
"No curse, however, is pronounced upon either the woman or the man. There are indeed, words of reproof, and these are well
deserved, but how gentle they are in comparison with what God spoke to the Tempter! And is it well to note that only after God had
made a declaration of salvation, does He rebuke the woman and the man." E. J. Young, Genesis 3: A Devotional and Expository Study
(London: Banner of Truth, 1966), pp. 122-3.
50
Job's disease looks a lot like Biblical "leprosy." Compare Job 2:7-8 with Leviticus 13:18ff., and the general "death rhetoric" in Job.
"Leprosy" did sometimes indicate personal culpability, of course, as in the cases of Uzziah and Miriam (Num. 12:10; 2Chron. 26:19;
Zech. 5:4).
51
Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941) is as good a place as any to read up on this subject. See
pages 219-261. The particulars of how the sin nature is transmitted or imputed to all men have been debated throughout Church
history, but the distinction between Adam's original act of sin and the resultant sin nature is not a contested point. For a more involved
discussion, see George P. Hutchinson, The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1972).
52
The Biblical term used in Leviticus for "death nature" is "flesh." See discussion below.

148
Accordingly, uncleanness was not a judgment for sin, but rather a sign or symbol of judgment for Original
sin. Uncleanness was a reminder of judgment because it was a result of judgment. Uncleanness was a
manifestation of “death-judgment," of man's inner "death nature,” in the broad sense. For instance, the
judgment on the woman was pain and distress in childbearing. One aspect of this, one result, is bleeding.
The bleeding is not itself the judgment, but is a result of the judgment, and thus a visible sign and reminder
of the judgment. Similarly, lions and pigs were not cursed by God. They were unclean because of their
symbolic association with the curse-demonstrating serpent in certain very limited and particular ways.
One result of the curse on the soil and serpent was that any animal (made of soil) that resembled the serpent
in the particular curse-aspects was regarded as unclean.

Because uncleanness was a sign or reminder of God's judgment for Original Sin, it could spread from one
person to another. This is because the "death nature" is transmitted from father to son, as Paul comments,
"death [judgment] spread to all men" (Rom. 5:12).

Uncleanness was a visible sign of the judgment for Original Sin. When that judgment was removed
definitively from the world, at the cross, it followed that uncleanness was also removed. All things are now
clean. This makes visible the fact that there has been a transition from wrath to grace in history.

The judgment for original sin is alienation and death, in a holistic sense. For that reason, uncleanness was a
sign of death, but only in the particular ways set out in Genesis 3 and amplified in the Mosaic law.
Expanding on this, we note that to be holy is to be sanctified, set apart, into the presence of God and to act
like the image of God. Thus, God commanded His people in Leviticus to be holy as He is holy (Lev. 11:44;
19:2; 20:7,24), and to avoid uncleanness on that account. Of course, many forms of uncleanness, such as
menstruation and childbearing, could not be avoided. Thus, if the uncleanness itself could not be avoided,
men were to avoid bringing that uncleanness face to face with God's powerful holiness, and this meant
staying away from holy ground until the uncleanness departed.

Alienation from God is death. God told Adam and Eve that when they ate the forbidden fruit, they most
certainly would die (Gen. 2:17). Given the force of this prophecy, it is strange that some expositors think
God did not enforce His justice when Adam and Eve sinned. It is assumed that they did not in fact die when
they ate the fruit, but only died centuries later when they stopped breathing.

There is a certain truth to this, but it does not give the whole picture. Rather, we have to take a holistic view
of death. In the Bible, life is not mere breathing, but entails all the blessings that God has to offer: quality
life, if you will. Similarly, death is not the mere stoppage of breath, but entails the loss of all life that God
has to offer. God is life, the Living God, and He has the Spirit Who is the Lord and Giver of life according
to the Nicene Creed (1 John 5:20; John 1:4; 14:6; Rev. 11:11). When Adam and Eve fled from God, they
were fleeing the sphere of life, into the sphere of death. When they were cast out of Eden, the very day they
sinned, they were cast out of the sphere of holiness-life, and into the sphere of death. They were "dead in
trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1). They lived in the "region and shadow of death" (Matt. 4:16). They
experienced death while they lived, in the forms of sorrow (2Cor. 7:10), suffering (Heb. 2:9), and fear
(Heb. 2:15). As they got older, their strength and life began to ebb away (Eccl. 12), until finally their breath
ceased and God's Spirit returned to Him (Eccl. 12:7). Outside of God's powerful presence, the lives were
empty and characterized by vanity (Eccl. 12:8). Such is the Biblical and holistic view of death.

In terms of this, clearly all the judgments of Genesis 3 have to do with death, one way or another. Wenharn
is right, then, to say that the opposition of death and life is fundamental to the notion of uncleanness --but
only with this qualification: that "death" be understood strictly in terms of the judgments pronounced in
Genesis 3. It is true that a man can bleed to death, so that any bleeding is potentially a reminder of death. In
the Old Covenant, however, only bleeding from the privates was unclean, and this was because only such
bleeding was related to the judgments of Genesis 3. Similarly, we might speculate that the unclean animals
were those that are carnivorous and live violent lives. Such animals would clearly speak of death. This,
however, is not the locus of the analogy in the Bible. The unclean animals did speak of death, but only in
the specific particular ways set out in Leviticus 11, as correlated with the judgment on the serpent in
Genesis 3.

149
Moreover, just as the judgment of death resulted in Adam and Eve's being cast from the Garden sanctuary,
so contact with uncleanness resulted in the Israelite's being separated from the sanctuary and sometimes
from the community. Uncleanness was the sign or symbol of judgment for Original Sin. When a human
being became unclean, he was cast out, and this was another symbol of the judgment for Original sin.

In summary, uncleanness in the Old Covenant was an external sign of man's "death nature," a sign of the
judgment due Original Sin, which judgment was "death" in several different manifestations. The physical
death of a human being is the ultimate form of earthly judgment, and so human death was the most
powerful form of uncleanness (Num. 19). Lesser judgments, lesser "deaths," also caused uncleanness,
however. The categories for these judgments, and thus for uncleanness, came from Genesis 3. Since death
is "separation from God," all the symbolic forms of death required that the unclean person be separated
from God's sanctuary.53

The red heifer of Numbers 19 is an interesting case. The heifer took upon itself the future uncleannesses
caused by corpse contamination. Thus the heifer and its ashes became powerfully unclean, and are
fountains of uncleanness. Yet, the sacrifice did not become effective until it was sprinkled upon an unclean
person. Just so, Jesus was "made sin" for us, yet His sacrifice does not become effective until we are
sprinkled with it (by faith, and symbolically by baptism). The only difference is that Jesus completed the
task, and thus ceased to be unclean, while the heifer's task was never done, and so the ashes remained
unclean.

Remember, uncleanness was not sin, but symbolized the institutionalized judicial punishment for sin. The
sacrifices were in themselves sinless, but they became unclean and died for the sins and uncleannesses of
the people. Just so, the sinless Son of God became unclean, and was consumed by God's fire, in our stead.
Christ did not become a sinner, but by taking our sins upon Himself He did become unclean. The judgment
for Original sin was institutionally placed upon Him. As the final Purification Offering and red heifer, He
took upon Himself our uncleanness, the judgment we deserved.

53
"It has been well pointed out, that all classes of Levitical defilement can ultimately be traced back to death, with its two great
outward symptoms, the corruption which appears in the skin on the surface of the body, and to which leprosy may be regarded as akin,
and the fluxes from the dead body, which had their counterpart in the morbid fluxes of the living body." Alfred Edersheim, The
Temple: Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [19th c.] 1958), p. 348.

150
Chapter 10 - Uncleanness and the "Flesh"

A few further comments on "flesh" are in order here. Genesis 2:21-24 make it clear that man, made of soil,
is flesh. In a general way, this is true of the total person. In Leviticus, however, flesh seems to occupy a
middle position between the heart and the skin.

In the sacrificial system, the "fat" or inward parts were always given to God. The skin was never given to
God. Thus, the outer skin did not substitute for the sinner in the sacrificial system, and the innermost parts
always did. The flesh of the animal is also always sacrificed and offered to God, though sometimes it is
given back to the sinner, thereby restoring his flesh (this is the focus of the Peace Offering).

In Leviticus 11, it is the "flesh" of the unclean animal that is not to be eaten (vv. 8, 11).

In Leviticus 12, is the foreskin of the "flesh" of the male child that is to be circumcised (v. 3), thereby
partially restoring his mother's "flesh."

In Leviticus 13, it is only when "leprosy" is emerging from the "flesh" under the skin that a person is
considered to be unclean because of Decay.

In Leviticus 14, the healed Decaying person is to wash his "flesh" (v. 9).

In Leviticus 15, the issues proceed from the "flesh."

In Leviticus 17, the blood is life "in the flesh" (vv. 11, 14).

In Leviticus 18, incest is defined essentially as sexual relations with one's own "flesh" (v. 6).

The flesh, then, covers the area of human life from deep within himself, though not his innermost self, to
just below the skin. The flesh of sacrifices took the judgment deserved by the flesh of man, and also
represented the consecration of his flesh to God. By calling incest "fleshly" the Bible marks it as wrong
because it is an attempt at autonomy.54

I suggest that the "flesh" mediates between the inner heart of the person and his outer skin (glory, life,
garments).55 Defiled or unclean flesh pointed to the rotten heart of the sinner. It pointed back to the death
nature at his heart, and manifested itself outwardly through Decay on his skin, or issues from his privates. If
a man ate unclean flesh, it showed the depraved desire of his heart, in addition to symbolically corrupting
his flesh and making him unacceptable for God to "eat."

This relates to the paradigm set forth in chapter 5 above. Adam started out with clean flesh. By seizing at
outward glory without first building up inner integrity, he corrupted his flesh. His lack of inner integrity
(holiness) works with his corrupted flesh to turn his glory into shame. When the shoe of his skin is opened,
his corrupt flesh is exposed. The sacrificial system pointed against this by saying that the innermost parts of
the person were claimed by God. These needed to be holy. Only so could the flesh be restored, and then
true glory manifest.

54
In fact, autonomy was the point of Egyptian incest, as the Pharaoh's married their daughters. cp. Leviticus 18:3. A remarkable film
that deals with just this point, in a theologically-aware fashion, is Chinatown.
55
Clothing is an extension of skin and the glory of the skin, as we have seen from the laws of Decay. Notice that Jesus was naked on
the cross as He was sacrificed. No clothing (animal skin; cloth) was offered.

151
Chapter 11 - Alienation and Uncleanness

The unclean person was "ceremonially" alienated from God. This was for his own good. God had expelled
Adam and Eve from Eden partly as a judgment, but also for their own good, lest they put forth their hands
and eat of the Tree of Life and be sealed into an eternal life of alienation (Gen. 3:22). To prevent man from
being sealed into death, God had to distance him from the sacrament of eternal life.

Moreover, the closer the sinner comes to God's special presence, the closer he comes to God's intolerant
holiness, and thus to judgment and death. Accordingly, God acted to erect barriers between Himself and
His wayward people, for their own protection. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he had the
tables of the law open in his hands. The interface between God's law and the idolatry of the people resulted
in terrible judgments against them (Ex. 32). To prevent this from happening again, God moved out of the
camp, so that He would not have to destroy them (Ex. 33:3). When God wrote a new copy of the Ten
Commandments, Moses brought them down shielded in a box and hid them in the Ark, for the people's
protection (Dt. 9:7-21; 10:1-5). Only when Moses persuaded God to return to the midst of the people did
He do so, but this time with several veils between Himself and the people --again for their own protection.

Along these lines, J. E. Hartley has written that "there is no harm ...in becoming unclean. Uncleanness
neither harms nor destroys. Destruction comes from the holy when uncleanness is brought into its presence.
Holiness is dynamically cleansing all the time. Hence uncleanness in its presence is judged, resulting in
purification or destruction. The danger lies in mixing holiness and uncleanness. 56 In other words, when God
draws near to men, or they draw near to Him, He judges sin, and this is symbolized by the fact that unclean
persons would be judged if they transgressed onto holy territory. The unclean person could remain in clean
territory, and was cleansed by "clean" water, but he could not enter holy territory (the Tabernacle court, and
to a lesser degree, the camp), and he could have no contact with holy things (e.g., Peace Offerings,
Passover, etc.).57

It is perhaps because uncleanness had to do with man's alienation from God that a few places in the Old
Testament speak of a moral uncleanness, and a moral cleansing of the heart. The most famous passage is,
of course, Psalm 51, but other passages, especially in the prophets, speak this way as well (cf. e.g., Prov.
22:11; Is. 6:5; Jer. 13:27; 33:8). Sin is alienation from God, and the unclean heart must be cleansed before
it can approach the holy God.

Because uncleanness had to do with alienation from God, the Purification Offerings, which had to do with
cleansing, were alienated from the camp. The bull of the Purification Offering was burned outside the camp
in the ash pit (Lev. 4:11-12). The scapegoat was sent outside the camp (Lev. 16:21), and the other
Purification Offerings of the Day of Atonement were also burned outside (Lev. 16:27). The red heifer, a
form of Purification Offering, was burned outside the camp (Num. 19:3). "For the bodies of those animals
whose blood is brought into the Holy Place by the High Priest as a Purification Offering [for uncleanness],
are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify [cleanse] the people
through His blood, suffered outside the gate" (Heb. 13:10-11).58

56
Hartley, "Clean and Unclean,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, fully revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-)
1:720. Notice Hartley's use of abstract and impersonal language. Language like this tends to obscure the reality of the situation, which
is that personal relationships and personal confrontations are in view.
57
In terms of exhaustive personalism, this was because in the "holy things" God was presenting Himself to the people as their
Possession.
58
The phrase "sacrifice for sin" is a technical term in Hebrews for the Purification Offering of Leviticus. See Philip E. Hughes, A
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 397, n. 60.

152
Chapter 12 - Uncleanness and Idolatry

Man's fundamental sin was idolatry --covenantal idolatry in his total rejection of God, and liturgical
idolatry in eating at the table of demons spread by Satan at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
That Tree was itself a good tree; it was the will of man that corrupted the eating of its fruit by seizing it
prematurely and unlawfully.59 By eating of Satan's food, man became “one flesh" with him; that is, united
to him by covenant. Additionally, 2 Corinthians 11:1-3 speaks of Original sin as fornication with Satan,
becoming "one flesh" through spiritual adultery. Thus, as we have noted in a previous study, 60 both eating
and sexuality are "one flesh" phenomena, and are associated together in some places in Scripture. The only
other phenomena in Leviticus that cause uncleanness, beyond those we have assessed already, are sexual
sin (Lev. 18:20, 23; cp. Gen. 34:5, 13, 27; Num. 5:13-29) and demonism (Lev. 19:31). Here we want to see
the association of these phenomena with idolatry and uncleanness.

Since uncleanness signified the judgment for Original Sin, idolatry naturally brought on uncleanness (Jer.
2:23; Ezk. 22:3, 4). Such idolatry led to immorality, and this whole complex of sin brought on uncleanness
(Ps. 106:38-39; Ezk. 20:43; Mic. 2:10). When such behavior became unrestrained and pervasive, the entire
land was said to become unclean and therefore unacceptable to God, Who departed from it (Jer. 2:7; Ezk.
36:18).61

It was particularly sexual sins that caused the land to become unclean (Lev. 18:24-30).62 Bestiality is
particularly important, since Adam and Eve committed "spiritual bestiality" with the serpent in the Garden
(2Cor. 11:1-3). The prohibition on bestiality carried with it the broader meaning that Israel was not to form
alliances with the idolatrous nations round about her. Such alliances were denounced as bestiality by
Ezekiel (Ezk. 23:7, 17, 20, 30).

Given the "one flesh" (covenant union) association of eating and sexuality, it is no surprise that eating the
flesh of unclean animals was symbolically equivalent to bestiality. Both imaged the creation of satanic
alliances with idolatrous nations (Lev. 20:24-25), and both were forbidden for that reason. With the coming
of the New Covenant, the nations are declared clean, and the flesh of formerly unclean animals may be
eaten. Bestiality, however, remains a sin. It was part of the agenda of the Jerusalem Council to make clear
that the coming of the New Covenant, and the re-symbolization of the world, had different implications in
the areas of food and sexuality (Acts 15:29).

59
See Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion."
60
James B. Jordan, "The Meaning of Eating in the Bible." Studies in Food & Faith No.7.
61
The word for land here is ‘erets, the ordered cosmos. It is not the curse on the soil that is in view, but the disorder of the cosmos
brought about through idolatry and moral sin. See also Joshua 22:19 and Ezra 9:11. The lands outside Israel are spoken of as having
unclean soil (‘adamah) in Amos 7:17 (cp. Josh. 22:19), and this may be a reference to the curse on the soil. Perhaps the notion is that
the curse on the soil was relatively rolled back in the holy land, so that only foot washing was necessary, while the curse pervaded the
soil and environment of the nations.
62
Unburied corpses also defiled the land, because corpse contamination was so powerful a contaminant. See Deuteronomy 21:23 and
21:1-9. In Leviticus 10:4-5, Moses ordered that the corpses of Nadab and Abihu be buried outside the camp, and the Jews inferred
from this that burial was to take place outside the boundaries of settlements. The kings, however, were generally buried in Jerusalem,
but Ezekiel 34:7-9 condemns this practice. On this whole matter, see David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in
the Bible and in Hittite and Meso2otamian Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 101 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987), chap. 5.

153
Chapter 13 - Uncleanness and Sin

Since the various forms of uncleanness are in part manifestations or exteriorizations of the inner depravity -
- death nature --of man, the idea of an "unclean heart" could clearly develop as a way of speaking of inward
depravity. An example of this kind of language, and one that gives integration to the entire system of
uncleanness, is Psalm 51.

Psalm 51 is David's lament after coming to conviction of sin because of his adultery with Bathsheba and
the murder of her husband. Given the prominence of uncleanness as a theme in this psalm, it is interesting
to notice that the subject is also highlighted in 2 Samuel 11:4, "And David sent messengers and took her,
and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she
returned to her house. " The reference seems to be to the uncleanness that resulted from sexual relations
(Lev. 15:18). Of course, such uncleanness was not in marriage a sign of an actual sin, but rather a reminder
of Original sin. In the case of David and Bathsheba, however, the uncleanness was linked with moral
adultery.63

Under the Mosaic Covenant all sexual congress was unclean, and all children born of unclean unions were
born "dead," and had to be brought to life through circumcision, if a male (Lev. 12). 64 In the case of David,
the child died before being circumcised (2 Sam. 12:18). Thus, here again, "ceremonial death" became real
death.

Moreover, David (a) failed to act as king by not going out to fight at the "time kings go forth to war." He
(b) committed adultery with Bathsheba. He (c) engaged in sexual congress at a time when the Ark was in
the field and he was under the abstemious obligations of holy war, as Uriah reminded him (2 Sam. 11:11; 1
Sam. 21:4).65 He (d) murdered Uriah. Perhaps the fact that (c) was specifically against God and the Holy
War Camp may add a dimension to David's statement in Psalm 51, "against Thee and Thee only have I
sinned," and may add another perspective on David's use of the language of uncleanness throughout this
psalm.

With this background we notice the prominence of the subject of uncleanness in Psalm 51. In verse 2 he
says, "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my impurity." The word rendered here
as "impurity" is normally translated "sin," of course. It is, however, the same word used in the "Sin
Offering," which is better translated "Purification Offering." The Purification Offering dealt both with
moral sins and with various forms of uncleanness, and it was the sacrifice for cleansing. We don't want to
miss the association here in Psalm 51:2. David says that in his case impurity is the same as iniquity, and
that no surface washing will cleanse him; rather, he must be thoroughly washed.

Verse 3 continues in the same vein, "For I myself know my transgression, and my impurity is ever before
me." Here the impurity is associated with transgression of God's moral law. We remind our selves that the
Levitical forms of impurity were not signs of specific sins, but rather signs of Original Sin. David,
however, is pointing to the fact that all the Levitical impurities were exterior manifestations of problems on
the inside of the body, and he sees this as related to the inward depravity of his nature.

In verse 5, David refers to the impurity of childbirth (Lev. 12) when he says, "Behold, I was brought forth
in iniquity." He goes on to refer to the impurity of sexual congress (Lev. 15) when he says, "And in
impurity did my mother conceive me."

Pointing to the inner "death nature," David says in verse 6, "Behold, Thou dost desire truth in the inward

63
Could it be significant that the text says only that Bathsheba cleansed herself, and not that they both did? Perhaps David hoped to
sear his guilty conscience by omitting the rite, which would have called to his mind his guilt.
64
The status of women in this regard was ambiguous. Because she was not circumcised, the girl baby caused her mother to be unclean
for twice as long (Lev. 12). While no specific ritual was prescribed to bring the girl child from "death" to "life," it seems that she is
counted as being alive anyway.
65
Uriah ' s rebuke also points to the fact that as temporary warrior-Nazirites, the Israelite host was also abstaining from wine. See my
remarks on this in Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985), p. 93, on Judges 5:2.

154
parts, and in the hidden part Thou wilt make me know wisdom." As we saw in a previous study, 66 the
"inward parts" of the sacrifice were the parts claimed by God for Himself (Lev. 3; 7:22-25). The inward
parts were the seat of man's sinfulness, which is why "radical" (rooted) is a good adjective to go with
depravity. Mere exterior cleansing would not do if the man is to be regenerated. The law required that these
inward parts of the sacrifice be washed in the laver of cleansing before being offered to God (Ex. 29:17;
Lev. 1:9, 13). The inner man is depraved, and must be cleansed before being offered to God.

David continues his survey of the forms of uncleanness by refer ring to "leprosy" in verse 7, "Purify me
with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." It was in the rite of cleansing
for Decay that the hyssop was used. Additionally, one of the marks of "leprosy" was snow-white skin (Lev.
13; Num. 12:10). If, however, Decay spread over the entire body, so that the man was snow-white from top
to toe, he was clean (Lev. 13:13).67 Thus, being cleansed from "leprosy" was equivalent to being made
completely white. The man completely "dead" from Decay was clean. David asks for God to put his sin to
death, that he might arise.

In verse 8 David continues, "Hide Thy face from my impurities, and blot out all my iniquities." The
reference to blotting out here and in verse 1 seems to take us to the inspection for jealousy in Numbers
5:23, where the curses are blotted out into the water of jealousy. In the Jealousy Inspection, the woman
took the curse-prosecuting water into her innermost parts, and if she were guilty, the water would prosecute
the curse to her and make her guilt manifest. Given David's concern with inward uncleanness, especially as
it pertained to adultery, it is natural that this passage should come before his mind.

We can conclude our quick look at Psalm 51 by noting the language of verse 10, "Create in me a clean
heart... David sees the question of cleansing as related primarily to the inward parts, to the heart. The
Levitical laws of uncleanness were designed to reinforce to Israel that the fundamental impurity was in the
heart, manifesting itself in the flesh, and becoming visible in the outer man. It is the heart that must be
made clean, and there was no sacrifice in the Levitical system that could do that. Judgment for willful high-
handed sin, proceeding from the heart, could only be averted by true repentance (Lev. 6:1-7).68 Only when
the heart was cleansed would God be pleased to accept burnt sacrifices (Ps. 51:19).

66
Jordan, "Meaning of Eating.”
67
If anything proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that medical considerations have nothing to do with these laws, this does. When the
man is totally consumed with "leprosy,” he is defined as clean!
68
See my discussion of this in Jordan, "Death Penalty in Mosaic Law," chap. 2.

155
Chapter 14 - Conclusion: Uncleanness and Mediation

As Novatian noted in the early days of the Church, no created thing can be bad or unclean in itself. Thus,
uncleanness can be nothing other than a symbol of a human moral estate.69 The "ceremonial uncleannesses"
of the Old Testament were symbols of man's alienation from God, and thus jointly of sin and death. Not
every aspect of sin or of alienation was termed "unclean," but only a few isolated phenomena. The selection
of these phenomena for the category of uncleanness was not arbitrary, but intimately bound up with the
order of creation as designed by God. The appropriateness of these particular items as symbols arose from
the fact that in each case they were actual manifestations of the judgments God had placed upon humanity
for Original Sin, in Genesis 3. Animals were designated clean or unclean according to how they imaged
human life in certain specific ways, ways appropriate to the three spheres in which they exist.

In Chapter 5 above we discussed uncleanness and glory. As we conclude this paper, I want to return to that
consideration in the light of all that we have seen.

When Adam seized the Tree of Knowledge, he seized premature glorification. The Tree of Knowledge, as I
have shown elsewhere, had to do with investment with judicial authority --it made Adam a judge.70 This
premature and unholy glorification was actually a degradation. Instead of issuing in a transformation from
glory to glory, Adam began to transform from degradation to degradation. In the fullest sense, defilement is
negative glory, degradation, and the sources or "fathers" of uncleanness are degrading or defiling agents.

"Leprosy" is a counterfeit or defiling anti-glory radiating from man's sinful flesh to his outer person.

"Issues" are a counterfeit of the Spirit, who is supposed to flow from the inner man (John 7:38-39); thus
"defiling issues" are an anti-glory, an anti-influence, an anti-life.

"Defiled childbirth" shows that the seed is defiled. Men should have children for their glory; so that just as
God is surrounded by a glory-host, so the righteous man is surrounded by his children (both physical and
spiritual; Ps. 128:3). Instead of passing judgment on the enemy (Ps. 127:5), defiled children are born as
enemies, and must be restored.

Finally, animals, tools, beds, and thrones are to be aspects of man's glory; but instead they oppose his glory
and are an anti-glory for him. They react to his evil, and minister ceremonial death to him.

Eating of the Tree of Judgment also put Adam under judgment, a judgment he could not withstand because
he lacked inner integrity, holiness. Thus, those things that were supposed to be his glory became his judges:
glorious white skin, outflow of energy, children, the animal realm, tools, beds, thrones, etc.

Man must be cleansed of the negative effects -- defilement -- of this premature partaking of the Tree of
Knowledge before he can eat of the Tree of Life. Only after being cleansed, and then eating of the Tree of
Holiness (Life), will he be ready once again to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and become a true judge and
possess a true glory: a glorious shiny skin, glorious outflows of energy, glorious children, glorious animal
helpers, tools, etc.

As we have seen, holiness is absolutely incompatible with defilement. God's holiness -- a consuming fire --
utterly destroys unclean persons. Thus, how can any man be restored? The solution is that a substitute must
become symbolically defiled and take the judgment man deserves. Only so can a man become cleansed and
put back on the track to holiness and true glory. All forms of cleansing involved sacrifice, either specific
sacrifices, or the daily evening sacrifice ("unclean until evening" = "unclean until the evening sacrifice," as
we shall see in paper No.13.) It was on the cross that our Substitute absorbed God's consuming fire,
receiving defilement from the Ultimate Father of uncleanness: God the Father.

69
See James B. Jordan, "The Approach of the Church Fathers to the Dietary law of Moses." Studies in Food & Faith No.4.
70
Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion.”

156
The fact that God did not directly curse or judge Adam and Eve, and does not come into history and
directly curse and judge men today, is a sign of hope. God chose to mediate His judgment through
mediators: animals and the soil. The fact that the curse is mediated through third-party agents raises the
possibility that a third-party agent will take the curse upon itself and spare man. Perhaps a mediator will
arise who will block passage of the curse to humanity by absorbing it himself.

It is the flesh, made of soil, that mediates judgment to humanity. When the flesh comes close to God, the
flesh cries out against man and makes him unclean, exiling him from God. Jesus bore our sins in His flesh,
also made of soil, of this present creation. Jesus absorbed the curse, cleansing the soil and consequently the
flesh of humanity. This transaction took place definitively and judicially 2000 years ago, but the
outworking of it is still going on. The world still mediates judgments to humanity, but as a sign that the
situation has changed definitively, there are no more ceremonial and symbolic mediations of judgment.
Someday there will no longer be any mediated judgments except one: On that Day, all judgment will come
from the Mediator, God Himself.

The penalty for uncleanness is banishment from God's presence. Because the Mediator has blocked the
passage of judgment by taking it Himself, men are no longer banished from God's presence. All are invited
in. Those who refuse to accept the gift of the Mediator, and who refuse to recognize that they are benefiting
from it in this New Covenant age in the form of "New Covenant common grace," will face the Mediator's
judgment in the Day to come. Those who do accept that Mediator's gift are not only spared judgment, but
are repositioned into the new flesh of the new humanity, a flesh that is not symbolically associated with the
soil but with the Spirit (1 Cor. 15), a flesh that no longer mediates self-judgment but instead mediates life
and glory (John 7:38).

Jesus is the new Adamah-Soil of the New Covenant. The elect are made out of Him, being parts of His
body. As the soil took the curse of banishment from God and mediated it to humanity indiscriminately
in the Old Covenant, so the New Soil took the curse of banishment on the cross. He will mediate that curse
to humanity with discrimination on the Day of Reckoning.

The old soil no longer mediates banishment to men, because the entirety of humanity has been removed
from the sphere of the old soil to that of the New Soil, Jesus Christ. For this reason, the symbolic
banishments of the Old Covenant no longer apply. What remains is the New Covenant threat of ultimate
banishment at the hands of the Ultimate Soil.

157
SECTION 11 - THE MEANING OF THE MOSAIC DIETARY LAWS

In paper No. 5 in this series we demonstrated that there are a considerable number of erroneous
interpretations of the Mosaic dietary laws. Papers 6-10 have laid a foundation for a more Biblical
interpretation, which it is now the purpose of this essay to discuss. Paper No.13 provides an extensive
commentary on Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Our concerns in the present study are more general, and
are designed to explain the Mosaic dietary laws in their Biblico-theological context.

Passover and the Dietary laws

What constituted the Hebrew people a nation was Passover. Before this time they had been a people, an
extended family ruled by family heads (patriarchs, later "princes," Num. 1:16). 1 At Passover, however, they
were "born in one day" as a nation (cp. Is. 66:8), having civil rulers and civil law courts. Passover delivered
them from the Egyptian plagues, and made them a nation of priests (Dt. 7:6). Specifically, Passover
delivered Israel's firstborn, and made them God's special priests. More generally, Passover spared the
households of Israel, and made all Israel into a nation of priests.

The blood of the first Passover lamb was smeared on the lintel and two doorposts of the Hebrew dwellings
using a hyssop branch (Ex. 12:7,22). This put the household under the protecting blood of Passover, and
spared them from the plague. Thus spared, they became God's priests.

When the firstborn sons failed as priests, God substituted the Levites for them (Num. 8:14-19). The heads
of the Levites were the family of Aaron, who were set aside as Israel's special priests. The purpose of these
Levites was "to make atonement on behalf of the sons of Israel, and there may be no plague among the sons
of Israel by their coming near to the sanctuary" (Num. 8:19). Thus, as the Passover lamb prevented plague,
so the Aaronic priests would prevent plague.

The ritual of consecrating an Aaronic priest harkens back to Passover. The Aaronic priest is put under
"Passover blood" and thereby made a special priest. In Leviticus 8:22-30, we read that blood from the "ram
of consecration" was put on the lobe of their right ears, on their right thumbs, and on their right big toes.
This is equivalent to putting blood on the horns of the altar, and equivalent to putting blood on the lintel
and doorposts of the house. The blood was also sprinkled on Aaron and his sons (v. 30), just as it was
sprinkled on the altar in the sacrifices. This is because the altar was a symbol for the people (cf. 1 Ki.
18:30-32). Ordinarily blood was not put on persons, but on objects representing the persons. The sprinkling
was almost certainly done with a branch of hyssop, as we shall see. Thus, Aaron and his sons underwent a
second Passover and became priests.

What happened if an ordinary Israelite came down with the Plague of Decay ("leprosy"), which we have
seen bears some correlations to the plagues on Egypt? He would become disqualified to act as a "second-
class priest. " He would not be permitted to come into the forecourt of the sanctuary and offer sacrifice. He
would not be permitted to stand as a second-class priest again until he underwent the Passover-like ritual
described in Leviticus 14. After he was healed of his "leprosy," he was still unclean until cleansed by the
priest. The priest took cedar (a reddish wood), scarlet wool, and hyssop. He dipped this combination into
the blood of a bird and sprinkled the healed leper. Eight days later the man brought a male lamb for a
Compensation Offering.2 Blood from this lamb was put on his right ear lobe, right thumb I and right big
toe. A comparison of the rest of this ritual with the ritual for ordaining a priest in Leviticus 8 will show that
they are virtually identical. Thus, the (Egyptian) Plague of Decay disqualified a man from being a priest,
but a new "Passover" restored him.

1
On the sociological differences, see James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical view of the World (Brentwood, TN:
Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 188ff.
2
The Trespass or Compensation Offering had to do with encroachments on God's holiness. Such holiness would burn and blast a man
who was not fit for it, and so the man needed to be ceremonially de-sanctified. Exactly how the "leper" encroached upon God's
holiness is a matter of curiosity. See James B. Jordan, "The Law of Forbidden Mixtures," (available from Biblical Horizons), pp. 9-11.

158
In summary, the special priests of Israel, the firstborn, were created and sustained by Passover-like rituals,
and the general priests of Israel, the household members, were also created and sustained as a nation of
priests by Passover-like rituals.

The inauguration of the first Mosaic covenant in Exodus 24 was a Passover-like event. According to that
chapter, verses 4-8, Moses sprinkled sacrificial blood on the altar and on twelve pillars that represented the
twelve tribes. The author of Hebrews gives us much more information. He explicitly correlates this event
with the rituals of Leviticus 8 and 14. "For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the
people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people" (Heb. 9:19). It is clear, then, that Exodus 24
was a recapitulation of Passover, with hyssop sprinkling the people and making them a nation of priests.

Moreover, Hebrews 9:21 says "and in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of
the ministry with the blood.” The Old Testament does not tell us this. 3 There is nothing about hyssop and
scarlet wool. The New Testament clarifies it for us, though, in case we have missed the point. Though
Hebrews does not say so, it seems clear enough that when Aaron and his sons were consecrated, hyssop
and scarlet were also used.

So then, the ritual of daubing the horns of the altar and the extremities of the person is an extension of
Passover, and so is the ritual of sprinkling persons and objects using hyssop.

With this in mind, we have to look at one other passage, Numbers 19. This is the law of the red heifer. If a
person came in contact with a dead body, he became seriously unclean, seriously symbolically dead. To be
cleansed, he had to be sprinkled with water containing the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh
days. Thus, the ashes were kind of a permanent portable sacrifice for cleansing. What is of interest here is
that these ashes were extensions again of Passover. As the heifer burned, "the priest shall take cedar wood
and hyssop and scarlet wool and cast it into the midst of the burning heifer" (Num. 19:6). Thus, the ashes
for cleansing were Passover ashes. The seriously unclean person lost his status as a priest, and had to be
restored through Passover.

Thus, the only two forms of uncleanness that were serious enough to require a renewal of Passover were
the Plague of Decay and contact with a human corpse. This is enough, nevertheless, to indicate the
relationship between Passover and uncleanness. Passover made the Hebrews into a nation of priests.
Uncleanness disqualified them from service as priests. Serious uncleanness required them to go through a
renewal of Passover in order to be readmitted into the nation as priests. In the light of this, surely we should
see the other sacrificial rituals, and rituals of cleansing, as less-specific recapitulations of Passover as well.

What this shows is that apart from Passover, the laws of uncleanness are pretty meaningless. We have seen
that the laws of uncleanness related only to sanctuary access. Even during the centuries when the sanctuary
was inoperative (between Samuel and Solomon, when the Ark was separated from the Tabernacle, and
during the Exile, when the Temple was in ruins), the laws of uncleanness were still relevant to attendance
at festivals (cf. e.g., 1 Sam. 20:26).4 Now we can see even more clearly, however, that the laws of

3
Nowhere in the Old Testament rituals are the Tabernacle and vessels stated to have been sprinkled or anointed with blood. They were
consecrated with oil in Exodus 40:9. For the rest, it was only the two altars, the mercy seat, and the ground in front of the inner veil
that were ever sprinkled or daubed with blood (Lev. 4; 16).
In Leviticus 8:30, "Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood which was on the altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron, on
his garments" etc. The text nowhere says that anything similar was done to the Tabernacle (that is, the curtains, boards, pillars, and
veils) or the vessels. Perhaps we are to understand that these were also sprinkled with blood, because of the analogy between Aaron's
garments and the Tabernacle.
On the other hand, perhaps the "sprinkling of the Tabernacle and vessels" was accomplished symbolically by the sprinkling and
daubing of the two altars and the mercy seat, which were the centers and focal points of each of the three environments of the
sanctuary (courtyard, Holy Place, and Most Holy Place).
However we view it, it is clear that every item in the Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle structure itself, is considered to have been
bloodied, and this proves that every last one of these things symbolized human beings, because only human beings are sinners and
only human beings need atonement.
4
For an extensive discussion of the period between the Philistine captivity and return of the Ark, and the re-enthronement of the Ark
in Solomon's Temple a century later, see Through New Eyes, pp. 222-228.

159
uncleanness had no relevance during the Patriarchal era, before Passover and Tabernacle, and have no
direct relevance in the New Covenant.

Passover, since it constituted the nation, embraced within itself the whole of the covenant and all of the
sacrifices. It is the antithesis, one way or another, of all the forms of uncleanness. It delivered from the
(Egyptian) Plague of Decay (Lev. 13-14). It delivered from death (Num. 19). It delivered the children,
especially the firstborn (Lev. 12). It enabled the people to proceed out of Egypt and made possible renewed
fertility ("be fruitful and multiply," Lev. 15). Most familiar to us, though, is the fact that Passover was a
meal, and thus the opposite of the detestable meals of Leviticus 11.

Passover was the Table of the Lord that made Israel priests. The detestable meals of Leviticus 11 were the
table of demons, the antithesis of the Passover meal. In the New Covenant, baptism is the initial hyssop-
sprinkling that makes us priests, and the Lord's Supper is our continuing Passover renewal that cleanses us.
In the New Covenant, the "table of demons" is eating meals as part of an idolatrous worship service. Also,
drinking blood as a source of life is still forbidden, being the opposite of trusting in Christ's blood
(Acts 15:29).

In conclusion, the laws of uncleanness and cleansing in the Mosaic covenant are inextricably bound up with
Passover. There can be no separating them. Apart from Passover, they make no sense and have no purpose.
To expand on this briefly, let us remember that Passover could not take away sin, because "the blood of
bulls and goats cannot take away sins" (Heb. 10:4). Thus, Passover was only a symbolic deliverance, and it
was a provisional and temporary deliverance. The benefits of Passover could be lost, and had to be restored
through cleansing. Just as Passover was a symbolic deliverance, so uncleanness was a symbolic loss of
privilege and cleansing a symbolic restoration. With the coming of the New Covenant, the typology is
fulfilled. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a true and permanent deliverance. Through moral sin we lose
the privileges of the New Covenant, and through repentance we are restored. The laws of uncleanness and
cleansing, of exile and access, only make sense in terms of Passover. To keep these laws today would
require us to keep the annual Passover and all the mini-Passovers (cleansing rituals) as well, which would
force us to institute animal sacrifices and blasphemously deny the completed work of Christ.

The Context of Leviticus 11

In a very general way, Leviticus 11 is related to the Third Commandment, which forbids bearing God's
name in an empty way. This is the theme of Leviticus as a whole, being the third book of the Pentateuch.
Within Leviticus, the laws of uncleanness are the second section, correlating with the Second
Commandment. The Second Commandment prohibits iconolatry, and concerns the way of access to God.
Within the laws of uncleanness, the dietary laws are the first section, correlating with the First
Commandment. The First Commandment prohibits idolatry, and concerns the holiness of our persons as we
worship God and Him alone. Let us look at this in a bit more detail now.

I have argued elsewhere that the book of Leviticus as a whole is concerned with the Third Commandment,
which can be rendered literally: "Thou shalt not bear the name of the Lord thy God emptily, for the Lord
will not hold him guiltless who bears His name emptily." 5 As New Covenant believers, the name we bear is
"Christian" (Acts 11:26). The name borne by God's people prior to Sinai was "Hebrew."

At Sinai, they became known as the "children or nation of Israel. " They were to bear this name faithfully,
not in vanity. "Israel" means "God's Wrestler, " and they were to respect God's name.

More than this, God's name was enthroned in their midst. God Himself in the fullness of His presence
remained in heaven, but His Angel, in which was His name, traveled with the people. It was God's name
that was enthroned in the Tabernacle (1 Kings 8:27-30; Ex. 23:20-21). Thus, though the Bible clearly states
that the Lord was in the midst of His people, and enthroned in the Tabernacle, we are to understand that the

5
James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), chaps. 2,
3.

160
fullness of God's presence is reserved for the eschaton, and it was "only" His "name" that was with the
people at that time. The "name" of God is the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, also known
as the" Angel" of the Lord, the pre- incarnate Jesus Christ.

Thus, Israel was to be holy, because she lived in the presence of the Holy One. Such holiness is
foundational to the concern of the Third Commandment, and to the book of Leviticus. The laws of
Leviticus are a reflex of the presence of the Holy God in the midst of Israel. The sacrifices, the laws of
uncleanness, the moral laws of chapters 18-20, the festivals, and the payments of vows -- all have to do
with God's presence and Israel's response thereto.

Beyond this, however, chapters 8-16 of Leviticus form the second section of the book, and correlate with
the Second Commandment, as I have argued elsewhere.6 The Second Commandment has to do with
liturgical idolatry. It has to do with mediation, with access to God. Uncleanness signifies alienation from
God, and cleansing signifies restoration from alienation. Thus, uncleanness is very much a "Second
Commandment" concern. Leviticus 8-10 set up the priests as mediators, and Leviticus 11-16 discuss the
laws of uncleanness.

Within these laws of uncleanness, Leviticus 11 comes first and has to do with the First Commandment. 7
The First Commandment deals with covenantal idolatry. It concerns loyalty to God in all of life. The
dietary laws assume that the unclean animals are related to the heathen Gentiles, and to eat them is to align
one's total self -- one's innermost being -- with such bestial nations, with the judgment they are under, and
with the judgment they bring.

Commenting on this, Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 6:

14. Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness
and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

15. Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

16. Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God;
just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people.

17. "Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate, says the Lord. And do not touch what
is unclean; and I will welcome you."

Notice Paul's thought. Christians are to be separate from unbelievers in their conduct (vv. 14-15).
Christians are God's temple, and God's temple must be separate from idols (v. 16). Separation means
coming out of the midst of idolatry and avoiding unclean things (v. 17).

Paul sets up five contrasts after his initial charge not to be yoked unequally with unbelievers:

1. righteousness versus lawlessness

2. light versus darkness
3. Christ versus Belial
4. believer versus unbeliever
5. temple versus idol

None of these things exists in the abstract, however. There is no such thing as lawlessness. Lawlessness
only exists concretely in persons. Thus, the Christian person is to be separate from lawless persons,
darkened persons, sons of Belial, unbelievers, and idolaters. Of course, if a person is one of these, he is all
of these.

6
Ibid., chap. 2.
7
Ibid.

161
This can carry us back to Leviticus 11. Eating unclean animals represented joining idolaters. Eating
represents covenant union. Thus, Israel was to avoid covenant union with lawless persons/darkened
persons/sons of Belial/unbelievers/idolaters, and this was signified by her avoidance of the flesh of unclean
animals.

Abominab1e and Detestable

In this section we must explore the differences between the terms "abominable" and "detestable" as they are
found in the Bible. One of our problems is that English Bibles use the terms almost interchangeably, while
in fact there are precise distinctions of nuance in the Hebrew terms. 8 For instance, the well-known phrase
from Daniel, "abomination of desolation," should actually be translated "detestable thing of desolation,” or
“detestable desolator.” Of course, these two terms do have a large overlap of meaning, but as we dig into
Leviticus we find that there are significant differences, and for our purposes precision is very important.

Basically, to anticipate our findings, “abominable” has to do with the land, while detestable has to do with
the sanctuary. Abominations defile the land, while detestable things defile the sanctuary.

Leviticus 11 lists and describes the characteristics of clean and unclean animals. Then it goes further and
says that the Israelites are no longer permitted to each the flesh of unclean animals, but are to regard such
flesh as "detestable. " Moreover, they are rendered unclean if they touch the flesh of any dead carcass. As
we have seen, "unclean" generally means "dead," and so all dead carcasses cause uncleanness. Israelites
become unclean if they touch dead carcasses, and Israelites become detestable to God if they eat them.

It would be nice if English Bibles consistently translated to’eba as "abomination" and sheqets as
"detestable."9 Sadly, however, such is not the case. Yet the distinction is important. As Waltke has
written, "In usage, to’eba denotes those persons, things, or practices that offend another's sensibilities." 10
Waltke adds that "in most cases to’eba has reference to that which is repugnant" to the Lord.11 By way of
contrast, shegets is "a more technical term denoting that which violates the practices of Yahweh's cult.” 12

Similarly, Young blood states that "whereas to'eba includes that which is aesthetically and morally
repulsive, its synonym sheqets denotes that which is cultically unclean, especially idolatry."13 Not all
unclean things are detestable, however. Unclean animals are not detestable in themselves. It is only their
carcasses and their flesh, considered as food, that are detestable.

The relationship between abomination and detestable is this: An abomination, when brought to the
sanctuary, becomes a detestable thing. Abominable carries the idea of abhorrence. Detestable carries with it
the idea of expulsion, throwing away, spitting out. Thus, detesting meat is the opposite of eating it, and
being expelled from the sanctuary is the opposite of being incorporated into it.

The relationship between what is abominable and what is detestable is seen in Deuteronomy 7:25-26. Here
is a literal translation:

25. Images of their gods you shall burn in the fire. You shall not covet the silver and gold on them,
or take it for yourself, or you will be ensnared by it. For it is an abomination to the Lord your God.

8
In English, the terms are indeed synonyms, though "detestable" has its roots in the idea of calling on the gods to curse someone.
Thus, historically abominable had more to do with personal revulsion, while detestable had more to do with religious curse. In Hebrew
there are two different words for these two general ideas.
9
I shall use sheqets for all variants of the radical sh-q-ts.
10
Bruce K. Waltke, "Abomination," in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, fully revised. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-
] 1:13.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ronald F. Young blood, "to’eba," in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the
Old Testament [TWOT], 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) #2530, 2:976f.

162
 26. And you shall not bring an abomination into your house or you will be banned like it.
Detesting you shall detest it, and abominating you shall abominate it, for it is banned.

The word "ban" is herem, which is the opposite of sacrifice. The sacrifice is devoted to God's fire as food
for Him. The herem is devoted to God's fire away from Him. In my opinion, "the" fire of verse 25 refers to
the altar fire, lit by God Himself, which alone should be used in holy war. 14 The idol is to be detested and
not coveted. It is to be thrown away, not taken in. We notice that taking the idol into the house results in the
person's being banned like the idol. Because the idol is abominable it is to be detested, cast away. The man
who receives it will himself be cast away.

As mentioned, the word to’eba has to do with personal abhorrence, not cultic rejection. It occurs in Genesis
43:32 and 46:34 and Exodus 8: 26 to indicate that the Egyptians found shepherding an abhorrent
occupation. It is used in Leviticus 18 and 20 to refer to homosexual acts and idolatry, considered as non-
cultic, whole-lifestyle activities that result in expulsion from the land (Ex. 18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13). It
is used throughout Deuteronomy for sexual sins and sins of idolatry. Waltke summarizes the things God
abominates, including "images (Dt. 27:15) and the gold and silver belonging to them (7:25); the wages of
prostitution (23:18); a false balance (Prov. 11:1); those with a perverse mind (11:20); lying lips (12:22);
the sacrifice of the wicked (15:8); an arrogant man (16:5); the prayer of a lawbreaker (28:9)1 incense
offered without regard to ethical conduct (Is. 1:13); etc." 15

In sum, what God abominates are violations of the First Commandment. God abominates covenantal
idolatry, unfaithfulness. Such actions take place in common life, and result in expectoration from God’s
holy land.

By way of contrast, sheqets is used of acts of idolatry considered as cultic activities that result in expulsion
from the sanctuary. What God detests are violations of the Second Commandment. God detests liturgical
idolatry. Such actions take place in the context of the sanctuary, and result in God‘s expectoration from the
sanctuary.16

The sanctuary is an inner circle within the land. Similarly, detestable things are an inner circle within
abominable things. God abhors both. Detestable things are more pointedly abhorrent because they come
directly in conflict with the sanctuary -- they are waved in God's face -- while abominations are more
generally abhorrent because they more generally conflict with God's moral law.

Sheqets occurs first in Leviticus 7:21. This law stipulates the total incompatibility between God's sacrifices
and uncleanness. Becoming unclean was no great problem in itself. In most cases, you simply waited until
sundown and were cleansed. Even in the severest cases of uncleanness, you were only prohibited from
coming into the sanctuary until you were clean; there were normally no social restrictions on you. 17 If,
however, you presumed to eat of a sacrifice while in a state of uncleanness, the punishment was
excommunication. "And when anyone touches anything unclean, whether human uncleanness, or an
unclean animal,18 or any unclean detestable things, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings
which belong to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people.”19 Human uncleanness here means

14
See James B. Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986), pp. 52ff. If you were going to
burn up an idol, and you had a choice between your own fire and God's fire, which would you choose as most appropriate? The
obvious answer to this question is part of the rationale for my interpretation.
15
Waltke, p. 13.
16
An apt illustration from Israel's later history comes from the period after the separation of Ephraim from Judah. The sin of Jeroboam
I was to worship the Lord using pagan rituals, a violation of the Second Commandment: liturgical idolatry (1 Ki. 12:28-32). God
cursed Jeroboam at his false sanctuary (1 Ki. 12:33--13:6). Later, Ahab introduced the worship of the false god Baal, a violation of the
First Commandment: covenantal idolatry (1 Ki. 17:31-33). God cursed Ahab in the land (1 Ki. 17:1; 21:23-24; 22:37-38).
17
The exception was when the wilderness camp organized for war. See James B. Jordan, "The Death Penalty in the Mosaic law: Five
Exploratory Studies" (available from Biblical Horizons, chap. 4. Even here, however, being put outside the camp only meant being put
outside the official boundary-line that separated the Israelites from the surrounding mixed multitude. Thus, the expelled person was
not cast out to forage for himself, but was simply put over the line separating Israel from the Gentile camp followers.
18
The word is behemah, cattle, but in context probably refers to any land animals, domestic or wild.
19
Scholars debate what "cutting off" means. The older view was that it meant excommunication, while the most common view today
is that it implies that God will kill the person. Even if the latter is correct, a person who was declared "cut off" would clearly be
excommunicated from the worship assembly. (Similarly, New Testament excommunication means turning the person over to Satan for

163
Decay or an issue (Lev. 13-15). Touching an unclean animal means touching its carcass. 20

We notice that in Leviticus "detestable" is not used of idols. It is used only with reference to the animal and
dietary laws. In the rest of the Bible, however, "detestable" is almost always used in contexts of ritual
idolatry. Ritual idolatry is in view in the two usages in Deuteronomy (7:26; 29:171 and in 1 Kings 11:5, 7;
2 Kings 23:13, 24; and 2 Chronicles 15:8.21

The word occurs only once in the Psalter, in a verse dealing with prayer: "For He has neither despised nor
detested the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hid His face from him; but when he cried to Him for
help, He heard" (Ps. 22:24). The afflicted man feels morally unclean and separated from God, but he states
that God does not detest him. We notice again the "Second Commandment" context of prayer, mediation,
and access to God.

Isaiah 66: 3 uses "detestable things" to describe the rituals of faithless worship and verse 17 speaks
particularly of unclean meals: "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens
[sanctuaries], following one in the center [ sanctuary], who eat swine's flesh, detestable things, and mice,
shall come to an end altogether."22

The cultic setting for the usage of "detestable" is also seen in the instance of this term in Jeremiah:

If you will put away your detestable things from My presence (4:1).

They have set their detestable things in the house which is called by My name, to defile it (7:30;
32:24).

As for your adulteries and your lustful neighings, the lewdness of your prostitution on the hills in
the field, I have seen your detestable actions. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! How long will you remain
unclean? (13:27).23

They have filled My inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable idols and with their
abominations (16: 18).

Ezekiel also uses the term in an exclusively cultic or cult- related fashion (Ezk. 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21;
20:7,8, 30; 37:23). According to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the corruption of true worship in the Temple was
detestable to God. It was for this reason that God marched out of the Temple, leaving it desolate and empty
(Ezk. 8-11), and then destroying it.

the destruction of his flesh, and implies that God will put such a person to death if he does not repent; 1 Cor. 5:5). See Jordan, "Death
Penalty," chap. 5.
Jacob Milgrom has argued that the only way to remove the penalty for such high-handed sin is to repent and bring a Compensation
Offering. This is the thesis of his study, Cult and Conscience: The "Asham" and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1976), esp. chap. 3. Though Milgrom does not make application to cases other than those found in Leviticus 6: 1-7, I believe his
point applies to any case where "cutting off" is in view.
20
Leviticus 7:21 distinguishes between unclean animal carcasses and unclean detestable carcasses. This same distinction is maintained
throughout Leviticus 11. The following are regarded as detestable to eat, and their carcasses detestable to touch: unclean fish (Lev.
11:10-12), unclean birds (Lev. 11:12), winged insects
(Lev. 11:20,23), and swarming, crawling creatures (Lev. 11:41-43). The same rule applies to unclean land animals, cattle and beasts,
but the term "detestable" is not used with reference to them.
This distinction is partially overcome in Leviticus 20:25, which reads "you shall not make your persons detestable by animal or by
bird or by anything that crawls on the ground. " Thus, though the language is detestation is not used directly of the carcasses and meat
of unclean land animals, yet eating such does render the man detestable to God, the same as eating detestable meat.
It is not apparent what accounts for this hair's breadth of difference. Possibly it is because land animals live closer to man and were
made on the same day as man. Perhaps for this reason the degree of abhorrence is lessened. For a fuller discussion, see paper No.13,
"An Exposition of Leviticus 11."
21
2 Kings 23: 14 speaks of Ashtoreth and Chemosh as detestable and of Milcom as abominable, indicating the overlapping zones of
meaning of the words.
22
Notice again that the flesh of the pig, a land animal, seems to be distinguished from what is called detestable.
23
On the relationship between adultery and idolatry, see paper No. 3, "The Meaning of Eating in the Bible. " Almost certainly the
"hills" here are high places, shrines of the idols, and thus the sanctuary association is present.

164
Daniel picks up this thought. It is really impossible for the heathen to make God's Temple detestable. They
have no real right of access there, and so even if they invade it, they cannot really “touch” anything there. It
is when God’s people turn to idolatry, or do His appointed rituals in an idolatrous fashion, with impure
hearts, that the Temple is rendered detestable. Daniel predicts future times when again apostate religious
leaders will bring in detestable things that cause desolation (the mistranslated "abomination of desolation"),
resulting in the destruction of the Temple (Dan. 9:17; 11:31; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). 24

Three more passages and our survey is completed. Hosea 9: 10 speaks of Israel's adultery at Baal-peor as
rendering them detestable. We recall the association of idolatry with adultery. Nahum 3:6 says that God
will throw detestable things over harlot Nineveh, thus making her abhorrent in the eyes of the nations. Here
the idea of expectoration is paramount. Zechariah 9: 7 speaks of detestable food, "I will remove their blood
from the mouth, and their detestable things from between their teeth."

In summary, the use of detestable rather than abominable in Leviticus, especially chapter 11, clearly serves
to highlight the cultic and idolatrous associations. The man who wishes to draw near to God in worship
should not be detestable to God. Thus, he must avoid the things that make him detestable. It is liturgical
idolatry that makes a man detestable to God, and eating at the table of demons is signified by eating the
detestable flesh of unclean animals. The man who incorporates such symbolically-demonic flesh into
himself renders himself detestable to God, and if he presumes to draw near, he will be cut off.

With this background in mind, it will be useful to provide precise translations of two important passages
that show that if a man makes himself liturgically detestable or covenantally abominable to God, God will
vomit him out rather than eat (incorporate) him into His kingdom.

Leviticus 18:24-29

24. Do not render yourselves unclean by any of these things; for by all these the nations that I am
casting out before you have rendered themselves unclean.

25. For the land has become unclean, therefore I have visited its iniquity upon it, so the land has
vomited out its inhabitants.

26. But as for you, you are to guard My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these
abominations, neither the native nor the alien who sojourns among you.

27. For the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the
land has become unclean.

28. So that the land may not vomit you out should you make it unclean, as it has vomited out the
nation that has been before you.

29. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from
among their people.

30. Thus you are to do the guard duty I have assigned you, that you do not practice any of the
abominable customs that have been practiced before you, so as not to render yourselves unclean
with them. I am the Lord your God.

The sins spoken of here are acts of sexual immorality and idolatry, considered not as cultic acts in God’
special sanctuary presence, but as acts of covenantal idolatry committed in His land. 25 If they do these

24
I have argued elsewhere that this refers first to the desecrations under the apostate High Priests just prior to the invasion of
Antiochus Epiphanes, and then to the desecrations under the apostate High Priest of Israel between 30 and 70 A.D. See James B.
Jordan, "The Abomination of Desolation: An Alternative Hypothesis, " in Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction
(Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1988), pp. 237-243.
25
Acts of sexual immorality, if committed in the sanctuary, as in cultic prostitution, would be detestable as well as abominable. Just as
God left His Temple desolate when detestable acts were committed there in Ezekiel 8-11, so earlier He had abandoned the Tabernacle

165
things, they will be vomited out of the land. To spare the nation such general punishment, they are to vomit
out any individual who does such things, by cutting him off from the people. They are to act as guards,
guarding the holiness of the land even as the armed Levite guards secured the holiness of the sanctuary. 26
Thus, the boundaries of society are to be guarded by the citizenry. They are to guard society against
persons who commit acts of abomination. They are to vomit such persons out. If they do not, the entire land
will become unclean and God will purge it by vomiting out the entire nation.

Analogous to this, the boundaries of the sanctuary are to be guarded by the Levites and priests (in the New
Covenant, by the clergy/elders). They are to guard the sanctuary against persons who commit detestable
acts. They are to vomit such persons out. If they do not, the entire sanctuary will become detestable, and
God will forsake it, leaving it desolate.

Leviticus 20:22-26

22. And you shall guard all My decrees and all My laws and do them, so that the land will not
vomit you out, where I am bringing you thither to live in it.

23. And you shall not walk in the decrees of the nation that I am driving out from before ~our
face, for all of these things they did and I abhorred them. 27

24. And I said to you concerning them, You will possess their ground and I will give it to you to
inherit it, a land flowing of- milk and honey. I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from
the nations.

25. And so you distinguish between the clean cattle and the unclean, and between the unclean
winged thing and the clean; and you shall not render detestable your souls by the cattle or by the
winged thing or by anything that crawls on the ground, which I set apart from you as unclean.

26. And you are to be My holy ones, for holy am I, the Lord, and I set you apart from the nations
to be Mine.

Here it is stated that separating between clean and unclean animals, and regarding the flesh of unclean
animals as causing them to become detestable, is a symbol of Israel's covenantal separation from the
nations. The land will vomit them out if they commit general moral abominations. General moral
abominations are symbolized by specific detestable acts, primarily having to do with eating the flesh of
unclean animals. That which is detestable is a concentrated symbol of that which is abominable.

Leviticus 18:24-30 spoke both of the Israelite and the sojourner. Both could commit abominable acts. Both
could become abominable. Both would be spat out of the land if they did so. In contrast Leviticus 20:22-26
speaks only to the Israelite. The Israelite alone has sanctuary access, so he alone can commit detestable
acts. The dietary laws did not apply to the sojourners in the land (Dt. 14:21). The sojourners were not set
apart from the nations to be priests to God, but the Israelites were. Thus, when the Canaanites and later on
the sojourners committed acts of idolatry, these were abominable, but when Israelites committed these
same acts, they were both abominable and detestable.

Leviticus 18 and 20 also differ in that Leviticus 18 speaks of the land's vomiting out the Canaanites and
Israelites, while Leviticus 20 speaks of the Lord's driving out Israel. In chapter 20 the Israelites are
threatened with expulsion for failure to guard, failure to carry out the God-mandated penal ties set forth in
this passage. The non-priestly Canaanites (Lev. 18) were not judged for failure to guard, but "only" for the

for the same reason. See 1 Samuel 2:22 and 4:11. The Ark refused to re-enter the Tabernacle, and it was only when the Temple was
build that God again moved into a House. Similarly, God destroyed Solomon's Temple after leaving it, and did not return until after
the Exile, when a new Temple was built. In the New Covenant, God renounced the Temple in Jerusalem and took up residence in the
people-house of the Church.
26
On the Levite guards see Jordan, "Death Penalty," chap. 3.
27
"Abhor" here is quts, a word that indicates a deep emotional reaction against something, involving rejection and even destruction.
See TWOT #2002, 1:794.

166
abominations themselves. This relates to the difference in position of Israel and the Gentiles2 and to the
fact that only Israel could commit "detestable" acts.28

Diagram 11.1

Abominable Detestable

Environmental focus Land Sanctuary

Personnel focus All men Israelites
Crimes Moral Moral & Symbolic

As we draw this part of our discussion to a close, think back to our comments in earlier studies concerning
Adam and Cain. The sin of Cain, we saw, was an intensification of the sin of Adam. Adam was cast from
the sanctuary-garden of Eden, while Cain was cast from the land of Eden. Adam's sin was a detestable act,
eating forbidden food. Cain's sin was an abominable act, murdering his brother. Before the creation of a
new garden-sanctuary (the Tabernacle and its precincts), detestable acts were not possible. Abominable
acts, in the land, were possible, however. Thus, for their abominable acts in the land, the Canaanites were
driven from it (Lev. 18:27). Also, because the Egyptians viewed shepherding as an abominable occupation,
the Israelites were not permitted to dwell in their land but were given the separate land of Goshen (Gen.
46:34). Thus, the land- sanctuary distinction, and the attendant abominable-detestable distinction, is woven
into the warp and woof of the entire Old Adamic Covenant from creation to the cross. 29

In the New Covenant, however, the sanctuary is in heaven. There are no more earthly garden-sanctuaries.
As a result, the New Testament writings focus almost exclusively on moral sins, abominations. The only
opportunity to commit a detestable act occurs when the church is caught up into heaven, liturgically, 30
during Lord's Day worship. Geographical considerations no longer apply, only liturgical ones, and the only
rite specified is the Lord's Supper. Abuse of the Lord's Supper is the one detestable act applicable in the
New Covenant, just as eating the one forbidden fruit was the only detestable act in the first Garden. Just as
the detestable act of eating forbidden fruit brought death to Adam, and all the detestable acts of the Mosaic
covenant brought "ceremonial death" (uncleanness) to the Israelites, so the detestable act of abusing the
Lord's Supper brings death in the New Covenant (1 Cor. 11:30). Once again, then, we see that the proper
application of the dietary laws of Leviticus is to the sacrament.

"Be Ho1y as I am Holy"

Leviticus 11:44 and 45 state that the reason for the dietary laws was that Israel was to be holy as God is
holy. Holiness has to do with transcendence. In God's case, transcendence means His utter separation from
His creation. While man is made in God's image, yet in another sense God is always utterly unlike man, as
the Creator is different from the creature. Thus, an affirmation of God's holiness is always an affirmation of
His awesome transcendence, including His ethical separation from sin.

In man's case, holiness means integrity. Each man or woman is to have integrity in himself or herself. Each
is unique. We know, paradoxical as it may sound, that it is as we come to be more and more dependent on
God, that simultaneously we come to have more and more uniqueness and integrity in ourselves. 31 The

28
It also pushes in the direction of seeing the prohibitions of Leviticus 18 as applicable to all men, but the sanctions of Leviticus 20 as
applicable only to Israel. If such is the case, then it would primarily be in the Church that Leviticus 20 would apply today. Let me
express my thanks to Peter Leithart for this observation, as well as for the observations in the entire paragraph to which this note is
appended.
29
The fall of the Sethites, which resulted in the Flood and the destruction of the entire world, cannot be repeated. God guaranteed that
he would prevent man's sin from ever reaching that point of extremity again (Gen. 8:21; 11:1-9). Thus, Leviticus gives no "third"
category of sin that results in the destruction of the world. It is only sanctuary and land that are in view.
30
That is, the church is not taken locally into heaven. We do not see Jesus and there is nothing to bow down toward. The church is,
however, by the Spirit made present in heaven in a special way during corporate worship. We are Spiritually but not locally present
with Christ, and He with us. Local presence awaits the consummation. It is for this reason, to stress the "real local absence" of Christ,
that consistent Protestants do not bow down toward anything during worship.
31
See Calvin's remarks on this in the opening pages of his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

167
more we cleave to God, the more transcendent we become over our circumstances.

This idea of integrity, then, is the link between the holiness of God and that of man. God's holiness and
integrity was expressed in the Old Covenant by the boundaries of the Tabernacle and Temple. These
preserved God's transcendence, both metaphysical and ethical. As we have seen, the human body is
analogous to the Tabernacle and Temple. Thus, the holiness of the individual person is related to what he
takes into his body, under the Old Covenant.

Holiness is the opposite of both the abominable and of the detestable. In terms of what God ~ in His land,
God never acts abominably. In terms of what God i§ in His Person, God never receives anything detestable.
Similarly, the holy man is not to act abominably in his life, in the land, or else he will be cast out of the
land. Just so, the holy man is not to permit detestable things into his inner person, into the holy sanctuary of
his heart and body, lest he be cast out of God's sanctuary.

Thus, we have the following analogies:

Diagram 11.2

The Detestable: The Abominable:

Inward Affronts to God's Holiness Lifestyle Affronts to God's Holiness

Idolatry in the Social sins in the

heart of the man. life of man.

Forbidden food in the Forbidden sexual relations at the

innermost parts of the man. core of man's social life.

Sinful men encroaching Sinful men living

into the sanctuary of God. in the land of God.

Diagram 11.3

Affronts to God's Holiness

Detestable Abominable

idolatry social sin

forbidden food forbidden sex
sin in sanctuary sin in land
expulsion from sanctuary expulsion from land
liturgical sin moral sin

In the section preceding this one, we saw that detestable idolatry can be profitably correlated with the
Second Commandment, while abominable behavior can be correlated with the First. It is possible and
profitable to do this another way as well. The first five commandments bear analogies with the last five. 32
The First Commandment supports God's absolute holiness and integrity, while the Sixth supports the
holiness and integrity of man: manslaughter is forbidden. Just so, the Second Commandment supports
God's relational holiness, while the Seventh supports the relational holiness of man: adultery is forbidden.
With this in mind, we can see that detestable acts focus on the first five commandments, sins against God's
holiness, while abominable acts focus on the second five commandments, sins against the integrity and
holiness of other human beings.

32
See Jordan, Covenant Sequence, pp. 10-13.

168
Moreover, since as we noted above the range of concerns in Leviticus 11 embraces the first three
commandments, we can carry the distinction one step further. God's Name (Third Commandment) was
enthroned in His sanctuary, and thus violations of the sanctuary "stole" from His glory. Just so, the Eighth
Commandment forbids stealing from our fellow men, and would be an abomination.

Thus we can improve our list as follows:

Diagram 11.4

Affronts to God's Holiness

Detestable Abominable

1. idolatry in the heart 6. murder

2. liturgical idolatry 7. adultery

in the sanctuary in society
= eating forbidden food = engaging in forbidden sex
into one's self with others

3. violating the property 8. violating the property

or propriety (boundary) or propriety (boundary)
of God's sanctuary of man's possessions

If all of this seems somewhat complicated, that is only because in one sense it is. Eating forbidden food was
an affront to God's holiness and to man's holiness under the Old Covenant. The holiness of God and of man
is a rich and multi-valent concept. Thus, we cannot expect the dietary laws to have only one simple
meaning. Eating forbidden food relates to a number of interrelated things:

- Violation of one's personal integrity and holiness.

- Idolatry in the heart: covenantal idolatry.
- Idolatrous worship: liturgical idolatry.
- Murder: self-rejection of God's life given in His Passover food (the Tree of Life).
- Personal sexual sin.
- Covenantal adultery: seeking alliances with idolatrous nations.

In summary, that which is detestable has to do with man's inward being, his heart and flesh, while that
which is abominable has to do with man's life. Similarly, that which is detestable has to do with direct
affronts to God's presence, before His sanctuary, while that which abominable has to do with indirect
affronts to God's presence, in His land and in connection with His images. The detestable is an aggravated
form of the abominable, because i t goes to the inward parts of the man, and because it more directly
confronts the holiness of God in His sanctuary.

One final point remains to be noted. since God's personal holiness is manifested in His House, so also
man's personal holiness is to be manifested not only in his person but also in his house. Accordingly, the
second half of Leviticus 11 concerns defilements not of the person but of the home. Just as Decay can come
upon both a man and his house, so also the defilements caused by unclean animal carcasses can come upon
both a man and his house. Keeping the one clean is symbolically equivalent to keeping the other clean.

Unclean Versus Detestable

Most cases of uncleanness were fortuitous. A man did not decide to become leprous; rather he was afflicted
with it. A woman did not decide to bleed during her period; rather she was afflicted with it. Uncleanness
separated a person from the sanctuary, but there is nothing to suggest that it separated him from the
congregation in general. Nothing suggests that the "leper" lost his vote, for instance.

169
There were only two kinds of uncleanness that involved deliberate choice. These two kinds of uncleanness
made a person abominable and detestable to God, and could result in his being cut off from the people. A
man rendered himself detestable to God by deliberately choosing to eat forbidden food (Lev. 11:42-43),
and by deliberately having marital relations during menstruation (Lev. 20:18). These acts were explicitly
forbidden, so doing them was an act of deliberate sin. 33

Notice that in Leviticus 15, if you touched the privates of a person who has an unclean issue, you became
unclean. A physician might deliberately touch these, but this would not be a sin. Why? Because nowhere
does Leviticus 15 actually forbid such touching. Similarly, if a wife chose to sleep with her husband when
he had a spot of Decay on his arm, she would become unclean, but she would not have committed a
transgression, and would not be cut off.

If becoming detestable through sexual sin results in excommunication or worse (exile, expulsion from the
community), then it stands to reason that becoming detestable through eating forbidden flesh must also
carry a strong penalty. Surprisingly, however, there is no explicit statement regarding the sanctions for
eating forbidden flesh, and so to a more general consideration of that subject we must now turn.

Sanctions

We come now to the particular question of the punishment and/ or consequences for a person who rendered
himself detestable through eating the flesh of unclean animals. This question is not as easy to answer as we
might think. My initial hypothesis was this: If the nation becomes detestable through idolatry, and God
spits it out, then the individual becomes detestable through eating forbidden food, and must be spat out, cut
off from the people. As I investigated the matter, however, I found that the situation is more complex than
this.34

Leviticus 11:40 says, concerning clean animals that are found dead, "He too, who eats some of its carcass
shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. " Now perhaps the carcass of a clean animal is in a
different category from other kinds of forbidden food. This will not stand up, however. Notice the
following correlations:35

1. The Law explicitly forbids eating carcass meat (Ex. 22:31; Lev. 7:24; Dt. 14:21).

2. The Law explicitly forbids eating detestable meat (Lev. 11:11).

33
I originally thought that Leviticus 15:24 contemplates a case where a man sleeps with his wife at the beginning of her period, and
thus has not deliberately sinned. In this case, he became unclean for as long as she was, but was not cut off. When Dr. Vern S.
Poythress read this manuscript, he pointed out that there is a more likely explanation for the apparent contradiction between Leviticus
15:24 and 20:18. Leviticus 15:19-24 states that the woman is unclean for seven days after her period begins. If her husband sleeps
with her during that time, the text says that her separation ("niddah," the separation resulting from uncleanness) is upon him. By way
of contrast, Leviticus 20:18 describes a situation where the man comes into contact with the menstrual blood itself. Thus, we have to
keep in mind the difference between the actual menstruation, which might not last seven days, and the ceremonial separation for
menstruation, which did last seven days. Leviticus 20:18 deals with the former, while Leviticus 15:24 deals with the latter.
Menstruation causes uncleanness with the result that the woman is to be "separated" (niddah). This curious expression is used for the
separation after childbearing in Leviticus 12, and the only other usage is in Numbers 19:9, 13, 20, 21, for the "waters of separation."
These waters had the ashes of the red heifer (female!) in them. They were for restoring a person unclean for seven days after touching
a corpse. These associations are very interesting. Compare also Zechariah 13:1, where the waters are for "a sin offering and for
separation."
34
According to Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 1040-1105), Jewish tradition specified flogging as the penalty for eating forbidden
food. There is no Biblical evidence or foundation for this, that I can find. "...A person transgresses many negative commands when he
eats such abominable things: and every single negative commandment involves for its transgression the punishment of lashes. This is
the meaning of what they said in the Talmud (Macc. 16b): if one has eaten a Putisa (a shell fish or water reptile), he receives floggings
(39 lashes) four times (because four of the different prohibitions referring to sherets apply to such a water reptile); if he has eaten an
ant, he receives five such floggings; a hornet, six such floggings. " Pentateuch. with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth, and Rashi's
Commentarv: Leviticus, trans. and annotated by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silberman (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1931-32),
p. 49b.
35
A more detailed analysis of this problem, why land animal carcasses are "unclean" while fish, bird, and crawler carcasses are
"detestable, " is found in paper No.13.

170
 3. The law explicitly forbids eating "unclean" meat (Lev. 11:8)

4. Eating anything unclean or detestable makes you detestable (Lev. 20:25).

5. Thus, carcass meat is a " father of uncleanness."

6. It follows that eating carcass meat also makes you detestable.

This means that the sanctions for eating carcass meat are the sanctions for eating any other forbidden flesh.
The placement of the law of carcasses at the end of the discussion (vv. 39-40), right before the summary
conclusion (vv. 41-47), also indicates that these sanctions cover all that precedes. Additionally, it indicates
that other passages having to do with carcass sanctions apply to the rest of Leviticus 11 as well.36

There are two degrees of sanctions for eating carcasses and thus all forbidden flesh:

1. Eating it made you detestable, and you had to wash your clothes, bathe in water, and wait for
sundown (Lev. 11:40; 17:15).

2. Failure to engage in immediate cleansing, on the day of the sin, resulted in "bearing iniquity"
(Lev. 17:16).

What does "bearing iniquity" imply? According to Leviticus 5:1-3, if a man touched an unclean thing and it
slipped his mind to deal with it that day, he had to bring a Purification Offering. Touching, however, was
much less serious than eating, as we shall see in paper No.13. According to Leviticus 19:8, the Peace
Offering became extra-holy on the third day, and was not to be eaten. 37 Any man who presumed to eat it
"will bear his iniquity...and that person shall be cut off from his people. " The same correlation is found in
Leviticus 20:17-19, to wit:

1. Brother-sister incest means the sinners bear iniquity and are to be cut off.

2. Deliberate marital relations during menstruation means the sinners are to be cut off, and by
implication bear iniquity.

3. Incest with an uncle or aunt means the sinners bear iniquity, and by implication are to be cut off.

The general rule is found in Numbers 15:

27. Also if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a
Purification Offering.

28. And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who goes astray when he
sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven.

29. You shall have one law for him who acts unintentionally, for him who is native among the
sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them.

30. But the person who acts defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the
Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.

36
"Surprisingly, however, no passage in Lev. 11 speaks of what the effect of pollution and purification requirements for eating
prohibited animals would be, except for vv. 39-40 (cf. 17:14-15), which, since they deal with animals that are of an edible class but
improperly killed, are not a direct statement on the matter. If would seem, however, that at least for the final form of the text, the
prescriptions in vv. 39-40 would describe analogically the impurity and purification procedures for eating any of the prohibited
animals." David Pearson Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature.
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 101 (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1987), p. 204.
37
See Jordan, Covenant Sequence, chap. 3.

171
 31. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person
shall be completely cut off, his iniquity on him.

Based on these factors, there are several possibilities we can entertain.

First, we might argue that if a man deliberately ate forbidden flesh, he was to be cut off. If, however, he
was served it in ignorance, and only later realized the problem, then the provisions of Leviticus 11: 39-40
would apply. The problem is that such a scenario has no foundation in Leviticus 11:39-40. These verses
assume deliberate eating of forbidden flesh.

Second, we might argue that if a man were starving and ate forbidden flesh, then the mild provisions of
Leviticus 11:39-40 would apply. Reasonable as this seems, the problem again is that it imports to the text a
scenario that is alien to it.

Thus, third, the explanation has to be this: Deliberate, purposeful eating of forbidden flesh only brought
with it the penalty of having to wash, launder, and wait for sundown. If, however, a person ate forbidden
flesh and then concealed it by not bathing and not acting unclean, and the sun set on his uncleanness, then
his sin was compounded. He "bore iniquity." Since this was no accidental oversight, he was guilty of a
high-handed sin and had to be excommunicated.

I see this as a merciful provision. Take, for instance, the starving man. He was free to eat all the forbidden
flesh he wanted, provided he washed himself and his clothes and regarded himself as unclean until
sundown. He could keep doing this until he gets back to civilization.

If this is correct, and I believe it is, it sheds a significant light on the question of Original sin. The Eastern
churches, following Irenaeus, have argued that Adam's transgression in the garden was not really high-
handed because Adam was just a baby. The Western churches, following Augustine, have argued that
Adam's transgression was indeed high-handed, as we see from its horrendous consequences. Can we have it
both ways? Perhaps. By eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve rendered themselves unclean, and
ceremonially dead. This was a serious sin, but not as serious as what happened next. At sundown, when the
Lord interrogated him, Adam did not repent but shifted blame. 38 Thus Adam converted his first sin into
something high-handed, and he and his wife in union with him were cut off, excommunicated from the
garden.39

For reasons I have set out elsewhere, it seems that if a person were cut off as a result of high-handed sin, he
had to bring a Compensation Offering to the Lord under the provisions of Leviticus 6:1-7.40 This would be
required of the man excommunicated for eating forbidden flesh.

Conclusion

It is clear that the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 have nothing to do with physical health and hygiene. They
are rather symbolic in character. They have to do with idolatry and with making covenant alliances with
idolaters. If a man ate something unclean or detestable, he became detestable to God. If he ate something
unshod, he became unshod before God, and thus brought unwashed, soil-cursed feet into the sanctuary .If
he ate something dead, he became dead before God, and brought death into the sanctuary. If he ate a land
animals that did not chew the cud, he became such before God. All of these things signified becoming
"unequally yoked with unbelievers, " and were for that reason forbidden.

38
Eve did not shift blame, but stated truthfully that she had been deceived (1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14) .The fall of humanity is the Fall
of Adam, not the "Fall of Adam and Eve." Eve, like all the rest of humanity, suffered because of the decision made by her federal
head, Adam. Possibly we should see Eve's action as the prototype of the inadvertent sin, and Adam's of the high-handed.
39
In paper No.13, chap. 6, I extend this discussion to include the preliminary act of touching, and its defilement. I discuss there the
fact that "unclean until evening" means "until the evening sacri- fice," and thus that even "touching" requires sacrifice for forgive-
ness. See the fuller discussion of Adam and Eve at that point.
40
Jordan, "Death Penalty," chap. 2.

172
Incorporating forbidden food into one's personal body symbolized incorporating forbidden people into the
body politic. "Incorporate" connects to two different terms: corporeal (body) and corporation (body politic)
.The corporation, or body politic, is formed by covenant. It is this covenant bonding that is the heart of the
law's concern, not personal physical health. The physical body represents the body politic. Symbolically
defiling one's personal body signified covenantally defiling God’s body politic. It is most important to keep
straight the distinction.

The Mosaic law was never primarily concerned with meats and drink. These were symbols of moral affairs,
and God's primary interest was in covenant loyalty. Thus, the author of Hebrews warns us, "do not be
carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by
foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not benefited" (Heb. 13:9). Such laws were only
temporary, "since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the flesh
imposed until a time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10).

Certainly the Israelites were supposed to observe these laws diligently, but never as if they stood alone.
Observing these laws was to reinforce to them the moral and ethical standards of the Kingdom. The
Tabernacle and its ordinances were a microcosmic symbol of God's body- politic, and ritual laws were
symbols of social laws. God's primary concern was with the covenant aspect, not the ritual aspect, and in
the New Covenant, it is the covenant aspect that remains.

173
SECTION 12 - THE MOSAIC DIETARY LAWS AND THE NEW COVENANT

Table of Contents

Introduction. 2 Jesus. 3
Th~ Demonic Oral Law, 3 Mark 7:19, 4
Mark 7:19 and the Oral Law, 6 Broader Ramifications, 8
Peter. 10 The God-Fearing Proselytes in Acts, 10 Defiled Versus Unclean, 16
The corrupting Influence of the Oral Law, 18 The "Defilement by Association" Argument, 20 Were
Gentiles Unclean? 21
James. 24 Acts 15 and Leviticus 17-18, 25
Paul. 28 Colossians, 28 Ephesians, 30 Romans, 31
1 Timothy, 33
Hebrews. 34 The Repeal of the Dietary Laws, 34
The Hygienic Impotence of the Dietary Laws, 40 Conclusion. 41

174
Introduction

From what we have seen, it is clear that the food laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 no longer
function as rules to be obeyed in the New Covenant. They do continue, of course, to have their primary
revelatory function, and the remainder of these studies are devoted to a consideration of that aspect of their
meaning. As laws or rules, however, they no longer apply.

A number of considerations make this clear. First, the distinction between clean and unclean does not arise
from the unfallen creation situation, but is a symbolic structure arising from the fall of man. Animals did
not fall; man did. The division of the animal kingdom into categories is only a symbol for the division of
humanity. Animals were not clean or unclean in themselves, but only clean or unclean with respect to man.
The particular distinction "clean and unclean" is an institutionalization of the judgments for original sin,
and these judgments are officially and definitively removed by the work of Christ. The curse is judicially
and definitively removed from the soil. Though the full outworking of the new covenant is progressive in
history and culminative at the Second Coming, the definitive and judicial transition from wrath to grace in
history is seen in the fact that the "ceremonial" (judicial and symbolic) dimension of the curse on the soil is
removed. Thus, in the New Covenant there is no longer any such thing as ceremonial uncleanness.
Therefore, there is no longer any such thing as an unclean animal.

Second, the distinction between clean and unclean animals did not carry with it any necessary distinction
between edible and inedible. Noah and Abraham were free to eat the flesh of unclean animals. It was only
at Sinai that God announced the additional stipulation of regarding such flesh as detestable. Since the food
laws were not pre-Sinaitic, there is no prima facie reason to think that they would continue binding in the
New Covenant.

Third, Leviticus 20:22-26 makes it clear that the sole reason for the Mosaic dietary restrictions was
symbolic: to signify their religious separation from the heathen. With the New Covenant, the gospel goes
out to all the world, and such dietary restrictions make no sense in terms of evangelism. Moreover, 1
Corinthians 10:21 makes it clear that the New Covenant form of this stipulation is to avoid the table of
demons and to eat at the Lord's table. The Mosaic dietary restrictions were the counterpoise to Passover.
Both have been replaced in the New Covenant.

From these general considerations we can move to specific New Testament passages.

Jesus

And He said to them, "Are you so uncomprehending? Do you not see that whatever goes into the
man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach,
and out into the latrine?" (Thus He declared all foods clean) (Mark 7:18-19).

Mark 7:19 says that Jesus declared all foods clean. This statement was not made in isolation, but as a result
of a conflict with the Pharisees that is recorded in the earlier part of the chapter. The issue at stake, initially,
was the oral law, the traditions of the rabbis, and not the Mosaic revelation. Mark explains that "the
Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands with the fist, 1 observing the traditions of
the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they sprinkle themselves; and
there are many other things that they have received in order to observe, such as the baptizing of cups and
pitchers and copper pots" (Mark 7:3-4). Accordingly, the Pharisees asked Jesus, "Why do Your disciples
not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?" (v. 5)

The Demonic Oral Law

1
The meaning of this phrase is obscure, but it shows that there was a "technically correct" way in which the hands were supposed to
be washed according to the tradition. For suggestions as to what this may have involved, see commentaries on Mark.

175
Jesus responded by saying that the oral law tradition compromised the true meaning of the law. He
provided a particularly telling illustration, showing that the oral law allowed men to dishonor their parents -
-a capital offense --by permitting them to dedicate to God the resources that should have gone to providing
for their parents (7:6-12; cp. Ex. 21:17). "And you do many such things like that," Jesus concluded, casting
suspicion on the oral law tradition in its entirety (v. 13).

Then Jesus called the multitude around Him and said, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: There is
nothing outside the man that going into him can defile him; but the things that proceed out of the man are
what defile the man” (7:14-15). This cryptic statement apparently broadens the discussion, for Mark tells us
that it implies that the Mosaic food laws would no longer be in effect in the New Covenant.

The first meaning of the statement, however, is that the oral law is evil. That which had come out of men
was the oral law tradition. Matthew, in the parallel passage, points to this meaning: "Then the disciples
came and said to Him, 'Do You know that the Pharisees were caused to stumble when they heard this
statement? ' But He answered and said, 'Every plant that My heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted
up. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall
into a pit"' (Matt. 15:12-14). The false plant is the oral law. God had not given it, and so it would be rooted
up. The Pharisees, living by the oral law instead of by the Torah, were blind. The oral law was not a lamp
unto their feet and a light upon their path (Ps. 119:105).

Jesus' statement confused His disciples as well, and they asked Him about i t. He explained, " Do you not
understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the belly and is cast out into the latrine? But
the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart
come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things
that defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man" (Matt. 15:17-20). Out of
context, it is not hard to understand what Jesus meant: It is what we do, not what we come in contact with,
that makes us righteous or wicked. The physical creation is not fallen or defiled; only man is fallen and
defiled. In context, however, Jesus was saying something more specific as well. He had just pointed out
that the oral law tradition was a cloak for wickedness, illustrating with the son who dishonors his parents
using the oral law as a means. It was the oral law that had come out of the mouth of men, and that revealed
the evil thoughts of the hearts of its inventors. Now Jesus said that obedience to the oral law tradition
caused defilement.

The oral law tradition was not only often a cloak for sin, but since it conflicted with the true meaning of the
revealed law, it actually caused men to sin. We shall see this in Acts 10 and in Paul's epistles. At this point,
however, Jesus said that it was precisely obedience to the oral law that was rendering Israel defiled and
unclean.

Mark 7:19

Returning to Mark's gospel, we find that Mark adds a significant parenthetical remark. He says that Jesus
statement that what goes into a man cannot defile him had the effect of cleansing all meat (Mark 7:19). Or
does He? There are two textual traditions for this verse, and our English Bibles reflect these. The
Authorized Version and the New King James Version read this way: "because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats" (v. 19, AV). In this rendering, the
thought is that the act of digestion purifies the food.

If we go with this translation, which as we shall see is very unlikely, we can interpret it as follows. Since
feces are not considered clean but shameful (Dt. 23:9-14), the interpretation would have to be that the feces
is the disgusting residue. Jesus would be saying that digestion removes impurities. That which goes into a
man cannot defile him if he meditates on it, sorting the good from the bad, and expelling the bad. This is a
worthy thought, of course, but it does not seem to square with the verse. Jesus contrasts heart and stomach,
saying that food only goes through the physical part of a man. It seems that Jesus is deliberately speaking
only of the physical or mechanical aspect of eating, not of its symbolic significance. Thus, why add a
remark about the cleansing process of digestion?

176
Moreover, the entire philosophical perspective of the Bible is that the creation is unfallen and needs no
cleansing; it is only man who needs to be cleansed. This being the case, what could it mean for meats to be
purged by digestion? It is hard to evade the fact that on the face of it this reading contradicts the creationist
philosophy of Scripture. In fact, the reverse would seem to be the case: When food goes into a man i t is
good, but the human body processes it into filth, and what comes out of the man is revolting. It is the man
who defiles the food, not the other way around.2 Jesus goes on to say that it is what goes out of the man that
defiles the man (Mark 7:20). Thus, it makes no sense to say that digestion purifies meat. Rather, the
passage of good food through the inward parts of man defiles it, and what comes out of the man is defiled. 3

Happily we don't need to worry about this interpretive problem, because "the overwhelming weight of
manuscript evidence supports the reading [that Jesus cleansed all meats]." 4 This translation is supported by
the major witnesses in all three textual traditions. There is very slender backing for the text that lies behind
the King James Version at this point.5

With a proper reading of the text, then, we find that Mark is making a comment on Jesus' saying. Jesus said
that physical food taken into the body cannot defile a man, and Mark adds that the effect of this statement
was that Christ cleansed all meats; that is, He declared them to be clean with respect to man. Jesus was
saying that the Old Covenant food laws were symbolic, and that they would pass away. Clearly they did not
pass away at that moment, but rather at the cross and resurrection; but by anticipation Jesus announced the
principle at this point in His ministry.

Mark 7:19 and the Oral Law

How does this relate to the oral law? The nature of the oral law additions to the Torah embraced not only a
smokescreen for sin, but also a twisting of the meaning of the written law. The Pharisees had utterly
forgotten the symbolic meaning of the "ceremonial" law, and had turned it into a system of works. Jesus
came to restore the law (Matt. 5:17-20), and part of that restoration was a renewal of proper symbolism. A
clear illustration of this point is found in John 2:19- 21, where Jesus told the Jews that if they destroyed the
Temple, He would raise it up in three days. The Jews, now blind to Old Covenant symbolism, thought He
meant the physical building, whereas the evangelist, restoring true symbolism, tells us that Jesus meant the
temple of His body.

Had the Jews understood the law properly, they would have known that it typified and pointed to Christ.
They would have understood the temporary and symbolic nature of the food laws. They were unable to see
this, however, because the whole satanic purpose of the oral law tradition was to obscure the revelation of
Christ in the law.

This explains why Mark can draw the inference that in attacking the oral law tradition, Jesus was also
"cleansing all meats." Mark and the early Christians had been restored to a true Christo-centric symbolic
understanding of the law. Once Jesus had removed the blinders of the oral law, it was clear to them that the
2
This point was made by the Syrian Father Aphrahat in A.D. 344. See Jacob Neusner, "The Jewish-Christian Argument in Fourth-
Century Iran: Aphrahat on Circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Dietary Laws," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 7 (1970): 295.
3
In the Old Testament, feces are not unclean but shameful. That is, it does not defile a person to come in contact with it, so it is not a
source of uncleanness; but all the same it is to be kept from God's presence as something shameful, or literally “naked" (Dt. 23:13-14).
4
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 95.
5
Katharizon, which stands behind the King James, is found in a few Byzantine type manuscripts, including K. Katharizon is neuter,
and thus would not refer to Jesus but would have to refer to the passage into the latrine. Thus verse 19 would read, "Because it does
not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and out into the latrine, which cleanses all meats."
Katharizoon is supported by Byzantine text A and a sizeable part of the rest of the Byzantine text types, as well as by all Alexandrian
witnesses. It is also supported by the Syriac Peshitta and Syriac Harclean, both Coptic versions, and the Ethiopic. Finally, it is
supported by the writings of the Fathers Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom. Thus it has overwhelming support across the
board. It is masculine, and thus refers back to Jesus in verse 18. "Many modern scholars, following the interpretation suggested by
origen and Chrysostom, regard katharizoon as connected grammatically with legei [He says] in verse 18, and take it as the evangelist's
comment on the implications of Jesus' words concerning Jewish dietary laws." Thus verses 18 and 19 would read, "And He says to
them, 'Are...latrine,’ cleansing all meats."
Katharizei is found in Western text D. Katharizei is present active, and means "He or it cleanses." This reading could be
accommodated to either translation above.
There can be little doubt that katharizoon is the original and proper reading. It is attested by the best and most diverse witnesses, and it
alone makes any sense in context.

177
food laws were only temporary, and that all meats would be clean after the cross. The same was true for the
rest of the laws of cleansing.

Now, Leviticus 11 certainly does indeed teach that a person who ate the flesh of unclean animals became
defiled. Jesus seems to be contradicting the law at this point. Actually, however, Jesus points to the true
meaning of the law. The system of defilements and cleansing only had to do with access to the house of
God, in varying degrees. With the coming of the New Covenant in Christ, all men would have full access to
the innermost chambers of God's house. The laws of defilement and cleansing would no longer have any
meaning, considered as laws. Considered as revelatory symbols, however, they still had meaning, but only
as pictures of spiritual and moral truths.

By saying that it is what comes out of a man that defiles him, Jesus makes it clear that it is the intention to
sin that is the worst aspect of depravity. This does not conflict with Leviticus 11. Many of the forms of
uncleanness, as we have seen, were accidental. There were only two deliberate acts that could render a man
unclean: premeditated sexual relations with a menstruating woman, and deliberately eating abominable
food. In these two cases alone, premeditated intention was involved. In these two cases, the punishment
could be excommunication, since they were highhanded sins. What Jesus says squares with this. It is not
the actual food that defiles, but the sinful intention to disobey God. It is what flows from the heart,
not what enters the belly, that is the sin. Moreover, all the other forms of uncleanness (issues, childbirth,
"leprosy") had to do with the exterior manifestation of the inward death-nature of the person. Thus, it
should have been clear to the Jews that defilement comes from the dead heart of man, not from outside.

Because Jesus was sinless, and had no impurity in His heart, He could not be defiled. In fact, what flowed
out from Him had the effect of cleansing unclean or defiled things. Jesus went out of His way to show that
in His case, obedience to every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law meant that He could not be defiled. Luke 7-8
records several incidents along these lines. First, Jesus shows willingness to enter a Gentile home (Luke
7:6; Lev. 14:26, oral law application). Second, He touches the bier of a dead young man (Luke 7:14; Num.
19:14 with Lev. 15:5). Third, He allows Himself to be touched by a sinful woman (Luke 7:39; Lev. 15, oral
law application). Fourth, He expels demons into a herd of swine (Luke 8:33; Lev. 11). Fifth, He touches a
woman with the Levitical impurity of an issue of blood (Luke 8:43; Lev. 15:25). Finally, He grasps the
hand of a dead girl (Luke 8:54; Num. 19:11-13).6

New Covenant believers, in union with Him, are in the same juridical position. The Adamic fountain of
uncleanness can no longer spread to those in Christ.

Broader Ramifications

The sequel to Jesus' conversation with the Pharisees also seems to comment on the Mosaic food laws. A
Canaanite woman whose daughter was defiled by an unclean spirit came to Jesus and asked him to exorcise
her daughter. Jesus said, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not proper to take the children's bread
and throw it to the dogs. " She replied that even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table
from the children. Jesus praised her faith, and cleansed her daughter (Mark 7:24-30; Matt. 15:21-28).

There seem to be quiet allusions here both to Exodus 22:31, which says that Israelites are not to eat meat of
animals torn in the field, but are to cast it to the dogs; and to Deuteronomy 14:21, which says that such
meat can be sold to Gentiles. Dogs, unclean animals, are equated with Gentiles. The Canaanite woman
confessed to being a dog, a Gentile, one who could not draw as near as an Israelite, one who could not eat
at Passover, the family meal. "Yet," she said, "under the law, we Gentiles do get the scraps. Those of us
who choose to hang around, trusting in God Most High and supporting His priestly nation, are entitled to
the scraps."

This indicates once again that while Israelites were not to eat the flesh of unclean animals, such meat was
entirely appropriate for Gentiles. It was what God had provided for them, the scraps as it were. God gave
the (symbolically) best to His children, and the (symbolically) inferior to the Gentiles.

6
As pointed out by M. D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: S.P.C.K, 1964), p. 167.

178
In conclusion, Mark 7 and Matthew 15 are discourses revolving around the food law symbolism of the Old
Testament. Adam was cast from the garden, exiled from the sanctuary, because he ate forbidden food, true
enough. But parallel to this and far more important, Adam was defiled and cast out because he took Satan
into his heart. True uncleanness is demonic possession. Merely eating wrong food does not make a man
defiled. It is the intention and act of disobedience that brings Satan into the heart while the forbidden food
goes into the belly.

The Jews had perverted this teaching. They focused on the food instead of on the spirit. By implication they
had moved away from symbolism into mysticism, holding that the creation was somehow defiled and that it
could hurt man morally. Jesus told them that the food was neither here nor there. He told them that because
they had turned symbolism into moralism, they had opened a door to Satan in their hearts. Out of their
hearts were proceeding wickedness and perversion, summarized in their oral law tradition. Jesus called
them to another hermeneutics. He called them to look past the food and other cleansing rituals, and to see
the spiritual realities to which these were but pointers.

Jesus made it clear that His coming would fulfill these symbols, and that the world would be cleansed.
There would be no more unclean animals, because the Gentile world symbolized by them was going to be
cleansed. To make His point, Jesus cleansed the demonized heart of a Canaanite child -- a child who should
have been exterminated under the Law (Dt. 20:17). Jesus made it plain that such persons were accepted at
His table. They had been accepted at a distance in the Old Covenant, as the mother reminded Him. Now,
with the cleansing of the world and the elimination of symbolic barriers, they would be accepted fully.

The cleansing of meats is parallel to the cleansing of the world, the removal of demons. The freedom to eat
all meats is parallel to the inclusion of the now-cleansed Gentiles in the Kingdom of God. But those who
were blind, who had turned symbolism into moralism, would not see it.

It was hard for the disciples to see as well. It is often supposed that Peter stands behind Mark's gospel, and
thus that the remark about the cleansing of meats reflects his own post-pentecostal experience, which
reinforced this teaching.

Heikki Raisanen raises the question of why, if Jesus' statement was clear in its removal of the food laws,
there was any question about it later on. He suggests that the statement attributed to Jesus in Mark 7:15 is
inauthentic. This, of course, is not an acceptable solution.7 Raisanen simply fails to reckon with the
incredibly strong grip the oral law tradition had on Israel at this time. Jesus dealt with it throughout His
entire ministry, starting in Matthew 5. The grip of the oral law is paralleled by the grip of demonic
possession in Israel throughout the gospels.8 It led to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. It
spawned the Judaizers and plagued the apostles throughout their ministries. Thus, it is no surprise if it took
a while for the Church to recover a true symbolic and Christo-centric approach to the Torah, and to purge
out the remnants of oral law moralism. It took a long time for the impact of Jesus' statement to get through.

Peter

We turn now to the well-known story of Cornelius, in Acts 10 and 11. The context of this story in the book
of Acts is as follows. Jesus had told the disciples that they would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea,
Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8). In Acts 2, the disciples began their ministry in
Jerusalem and Judea. In Acts 8, we find Philip taking the gospel to Samaria, a region inhabited by half-
breed Jews (see 2 Kings 17:24-41). The next step-outward, in Acts 8:26-40, finds Philip being directed to

7
Heikki Raisanen, "Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7:15," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 16 (1982):79-
100.
8
This is particularly evident in Mark, where Jesus' first act when He appeared on the scene was to cast a demon, an unclean spirit, out
of a man in a synagogue (Mark 1:21-26)! Then Jesus "went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, proclaiming and casting out
demons" (Mark 1:39). The synagogue was the primary teaching place in Israel. It was the equivalent of a local church. It was the place
where the Scriptures were supposed to be taught, but where the oral law was being taught instead. Mark makes it clear that the
synagogues were radically demonized, as was Israel as a whole, and that the reason for it was the rejection of the Word of God.

179
take the gospel to an Ethiopian. Ethiopia probably stands for those Gentile people who had formed some
kind of alliance with Old Covenant Israel.

In Acts 10, we move farther out. We are introduced to Cornelius, an uncircumcised "God-fearing" Gentile
convert, "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many gifts of charity to
the people, and prayed to God continually" (Acts 10:2). God determined to send the gospel of the New
Covenant to this man. An angel appeared to Cornelius and told him to summon Peter, which he did.

The God-Fearing Proselytes in Acts

God-fearing Gentile proselytes appear several times in the book of Acts, evidently the result of evangelistic
activity on the part of Godly Jews during the period of the Restoration Covenant, the period after the Exile.
Rabbinic Judaism distinguishes between the "proselyte of the gate," who is saved under the Noahic
Covenant and is not circumcised, and the "proselyte of righteousness," who is circumcised and becomes
part of Israel.9 The New Testament does not make this distinction. As regards Cornelius, however, the text
clearly states that he was uncircumcised (Acts 11:3) and that he was a "God-fearer" (Acts 10:2, 22). Thus,
the expressions "God-fearer" and "proselyte" in Acts must refer to, or at least embrace the class of
uncircumcised Gentile converts.

In recent years, some liberal scholars have argued that the God-fearing Gentile proselyte is simply an
invention of Luke in Acts. Luke dreamed up this category of people in order to make a bridge between the
Old Covenant community and the new universal community of the Church, they say. This has been
effectively refuted in an article by J. Andrew Overman. 10 In the Mosaic law itself, provision was made for
Gentile converts to offer sacrifices, even though they were uncircumcised (Num. 15:14-15, 29). God-
fearers are referred to in Psalms 115:11, 118:4, and 135:20 as those who worship God along with Israelites
and the Aaronic priests. It is interesting to note that Malachi, while condemning Israel and the Aaronic
priests for their sins, blesses the God-fearing Gentiles (Mal. 3:16), and thus here again, as in so many ways,
Malachi anticipates the themes of the New Testament. In 1 Kings 18:3, Obadiah, Ahab's Prime Minister, is
called a God-fearer, and given the nature of Ahab's court this man was almost certainly a Gentile.11
Overman's essay demonstrates from Philo, Josephus, and Juvenal that there were a great many Gentile
converts around the synagogue, some of whom went all the way and were circumcised. Of course, this
latter group simply became Jews by religion, and were no longer in the God-fearing category.

When Israel came out of Egypt, a great "mixed multitude" accompanied them. Many of these people were
converted. Those denoted as "strangers" were uncircumcised believers. They did not dwell within the
borders of the official camp, but outside it with the mixed multitude. Once in the land, they lived in the
cities. These "outside believers" did not practice circumcision. The example of this is Moses, who did not
practice circumcision during the years he was a "stranger" (Ex. 2:22; 4:24-26).

The uncircumcised "stranger" (Hebrew ger) could draw near to God and worship by observing the laws of
cleanness. He was not ordinarily under these laws, since he did not live in the camp but outside it with the
"mixed multitude." Once Israel entered the land, Gentile converts lived in the cities, but not in the holy
land, because all the land was parceled out to Israelites after the conquest and reverted to them in the year
of Jubilee. Thus, the uncircumcised convert was under some provisions of the law, but not others.

Outside the land, the believing Gentile could build an altar and offer the sacrifice of any clean animal to
God Most High.12 Within the land, Gentiles who wanted to offer sacrifice would have to come to the

9
Articles on "Proselyte" in the various Bible encyclopaedias can be consulted for more information on the Jewish practice, and
debates over the nature of Gentile proselytes.
10
J. Andrew Overman, "The God-Fearers: Some Neglected Features," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (1988):17-26.
Overman summarizes the recent argument.
11
Note also that Obadiah, in speaking to Elijah, refers to the “Lord, your God,” the same language used by the Gentile widow of
Zarephath (1 Kings 17:12; 18:10).
12
Genesis 8:20. Or are we to assume that Jethro, a believing uncircumcised Gentile, ceased offering sacrifice once the Mosaic
covenant was set up? There is no reason to believe this. The law mandating sacrifice only at the Tabernacle was only in effect while
the Tabernacle stood, and was not applied during the days of Samuel, when it was not in operation. Outside Israel, believers would
offer at the same kind of altars Noah and Abram had built.

180
sanctuary. They would put themselves temporarily under the laws of uncleanness in order to gain access,
even though they were not circumcised and did not participate in Passover. While dwelling in the land, they
were to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 12:19) even if they did not observe Passover (cp. Ex.
12:48f.). "He was also included in the festival of the Great Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29) and was
expected to celebrate the Feast of Booths (Dt. 16:14).”13

We must distinguish between four classes of people in this respect:

1. The Israelite. He was fully under the laws of uncleanness and sacrifice laid down in the Torah.

2. The converted Gentile sojourner. This was the Gentile proselyte who lived in the land. He was
under most of the law, but could not attend Passover without becoming an Israelite himself. Also,
he was not forbidden to eat the flesh of unclean animals or flesh of animals that died by
themselves, but he was supposed to cleanse himself if he did (Dt. 14:21; Lev. 17:15). In other
words, if he chose to draw near and offer sacrifice, he would have to cleanse himself and abstain
from detestable food until he had finished his sacrifice. We are not expressly told, but I assume
that the "participating Gentile" also observed the laws of childbearing, Decay, and issues. These
were ordinarily optional for him, in contrast to the Four Gentile Laws of Leviticus 17-18 (see
discussion below).

3. The converted Gentile who did not live in the land. He was free of the entire system, for it
applied only within the boundaries of the camp or land. If he decided to visit Israel, make a
pilgrimage to the Temple, which was the world-center of his own religion, then once inside the
land he would put himself under the law. Notice that the ritual for cleansing from "leprosy" was
not applied to Naaman the Syrian after he was cured, 2 Kings 5.

4. The unconverted Gentile. He was also free of the entire system.

Stigers summarizes, "In a word the LORD loves the ger (Dt. 10: 18). Israel should not oppress him
because they themselves were oppressed and know his soul (Ex. 22:21; Dt. 10:19). They were to love him
as themselves (Lev. 19:34)."14 From this it is obvious that the stranger was not to be regarded as "unclean, "
and that the oral law additions of the Pharisees in this area were an abomination. By teaching Israelites to
avoid contact with Gentiles, converted or unconverted, the oral law was causing Israel to sin.

Such proselytes were present at Pentecost (Acts 2:10). One of the first seven deacons of the Church was, or
at least had originally been a proselyte (Acts 6:5). (Given the redemptive-historical thrust of Acts, I don't
think uncircumcised God-fearers were dealt with until Cornelius, so I imagine that Nicolaus had become a
Jew after first becoming a proselyte.) The Ethiopian eunuch must have been such a proselyte (Acts 8:27).

In a number of passages the difference between Jews and Gentile proselytes is made explicit:

And Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand, he said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God,
listen" (Acts 13:16).

"Brethren, sons of Abraham's family, and those among you who fear God, to us the word of this
salvation is sent out" (Acts 13:26).

Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing
proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas...(Acts 13:43).

And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a great multitude of the
God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women (Acts 17:4).15
13
Harold G. Stigers, "Ger," in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), #330a, p. 156.
14
Ibid.
15
This verse comes in context of a synagogue meeting (Acts 17:1-4). In the synagogue there were partitions between the places where

181
 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearers, and in the market place
every day with those who happened to be present (Acts 17:17).

Not only is the term "God-fearer" used for Gentile believer, but so is the expression "worshipper of God. "
In the following passages, it is clear that the "worshipper of God" is a Gentile:

And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a
worshipper of God, was listening, whose heart the Lord opened to respond to the things spoken by
Paul (Acts 16:14).16

"From now on I shall go to the Gentiles." And he departed from [the synagogue] and went to the
house of a certain man named Titius Justus, a worshipper of God, whose house was next to the
synagogue (Acts 18:6-7).

Thus, the presence of large numbers of uncircumcised Gentile converts around the fringes of Judaism in the
first century was an important factor in the milieu of the Gospel. The barriers between these two groups
would have to be broken down. The war between Paul and the Judaizers finds its root in this situation. In
fact, it should be pointed out that converts from Gentile paganism are relatively rare in the New Testament.
The Jew-Gentile problem in the New Testament arose from the fact that in the New Covenant the
distinction between proselyte and Israelite, between Noahic Gentile believer and Abrahamic believer, was
eliminated in Christ. The vast majority of Gentile believers in the New Testament Church had already been
faithful believers under the Old Covenant. This was also the case, of course, with the majority of Jewish
believers.

It was Peter, however, who was first commissioned to consider Jew and Gentile as the same in Christ.

9. And on the next day, as they were on their way, and approaching the city, Peter went up on the
housetop about the sixth hour to pray.

10. And he became hungry, and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he
fell into a trance.

The sixth hour is noon. While the noon meal was being prepared, Peter went to the housetop to pray. He
went there in part simply to be out of the way. In view of the Old Testament references to high places and
mountain tops as places of worship and revelation, however, we are entitled to suggest that it was no
accident that Peter wound up on the housetop rather than in an inner room, for God revealed a vision to
him.

11. And he beheld the heaven opened up, and a certain vessel like a great linen sheet corning
down, lowered by four corners to the ground,

12. And there were in it all four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the
heaven.17

The object descending from heaven is described in three ways. First, it has four corners. This associates it
with the altar, and with the four corners of the earth, which the altar signified (Ex. 20:24-25; Rev. 7:1;
9:13). Second, it is called a vessel, a container. This associates it with the Tabernacle or Temple, and with
the world, which the Temple partially signified (cf. paper No.9 in this series). It also associates it with

these three groups stood: Jewish men, male Gentile proselytes, and women. See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of The Acts of the
Apostles. Lenski's New Testament Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, [1934] 1961), p. 516.
16
Notice that Lydia was already a convert to the true religion, and a worshipper of the true God. She was not converted by Paul from
darkness to light, but from the lesser light of Old Covenant religion to the greater light of the New Covenant. In this verse, had Lydia
been a Jewess, the expression "worshipper of God" would be superfluous. It clearly marks her as a Gentile fellow-traveler.
17
In Acts 11:6, where Peter reports this incident, he lists "four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling
creatures and the birds of the sky." Some manuscripts of 10:12 also list all four categories.

182
Noah's Ark, also a symbol of the cosmos. As all animals were on the Ark, so all are here. As all of
humanity was on the Ark, so all of humanity is portrayed here. 18 Finally, it was like a great linen sheet
(othone), associating it with the curtains and shrouds of the Tabernacle, which were its garment. 19 For
reasons that will become clear later, this is not a vision of the Church but of the cleansed (linen) world.

Now, the altar, Tabernacle, and Temple were not only models of the world, but also of the human person
and body politic, as we have seen in paper No.9 in this series. These analogies are absolutely fundamental
to understanding the position of Leviticus 11 within the body of the Mosaic revelation. In the Old
Covenant, only clean sacrificial animals might be put on the altar or taken to the Temple. Only men who
had kept their own vessels pure from unclean meats were acceptable to God.

Defiled Versus Unclean

13. And voice came to him, "Arise, Peter, kill and eat."

14. But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” 20

Peter is told to slaughter the animals and eat them. Killing and eating is a picture, as we have seen in paper
No.7 in this series, of entrance into God's kingdom. It is for this reason that I have asserted that the vision is
not of the church but of the world. The animals have not yet been made living sacrifices and incorporated
into the body of the new kingdom of God. They are simply present in the world as potential church
members.

Peter protests that he has never eaten anything either common or unclean. I. Howard Marshall suggests that
"the contents of the sheet were animals that would be unclean and therefore unfit for eating in terms of the
Jewish law found in Leviticus 11; whether there were any clean animals, ~ those that chewed the cud and
were cloven-hoofed, is not stated, but the implication is that there were none." 21 The problem with this
view is that some of the animals were "common." The "common" animals were clean animals contaminated
by the presence of unclean animals, as we shall see. Moreover, the text says that "all" animals of these
kinds were included, so that clean as well as unclean were involved.

So, why not just kill one of the clean animals? F. F. Bruce comments: "It has been asked at times whether
Peter could not have killed and eaten one of the clean animals. But he was scandalized by the unholy
mixture of clean animals with unclean; this is particularly important when we recall the practical way in
which he had immediately to apply the lesson of the vision.,”22

Bruce's interpretation is substantiated by a study of the words involved. The word "unclean" (akathartos) is
used in the New Testament twenty-three times for unclean spirits, twice for ceremonially unclean persons
(Acts 10:28; 1 Cor. 7:15), once for the morally unclean person (Eph. 5:5), once for Levitically unclean
objects (2 Cor. 6:17, citing Is. 52:11), and three times for unclean animals (Acts 10:14; 11:8; Rev. 18:2). In
all these cases, the reference is to something that is counted as a source of uncleanness that can spread to
others. The Rabbis called such things “fathers of uncleanness."

The word "common" (koinos), is often translated "unclean," but never refers to a "father of uncleanness." A
better translation is "defiled," because the word has to do with secondary uncleanness, the result of contact
with a " father of uncleanness. " This is the sense throughout Matthew 15 and Mark 7, where the question
turns on what things "defile" a man, rendering him "common" and therefore unfit to draw into the sanctuary

18
See the discussion in James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical view of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth
& Hyatt Pub., 1988), pp. 170ff. Thanks to Peter Leithart for calling my attention to this parallel.
19
On the curtains, see James B. Jordan, "From Glory to Glory: Degrees of Value in the Sanctuary" (available from Biblical Horizons).
20
In Acts 11:8, "nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth."
21
I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 185.
Meyer states, "In a strangely arbitrary manner Kuinoel, after Calovius and others, holds that these were only unclean animals." H. A.
W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, trans. Paton J. Gloag, ed. William P. Dickson (Winona Lake,
IN: Alpha Publications, [1884] 1980), p. 205.
22
F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1956), p. 218.

183
for worship. In Acts 21:28, Paul was accused of bringing a (supposedly unclean) Greek into the Temple,
and thereby "defiling" the holy places. The same sense is found in Romans 14:14, where Paul states that it
is the idolatrous intent that renders sacrificial food "defiled," though there is nothing "defiled" or
"common" in itself. In Hebrews 9:13, the ashes of the red heifer are said to sprinkle the "defiled" person,
and this again clearly illustrates the point, because the dead corpse ("father of uncleanness") was not
sprinkled, but rather the persons who had come in contact therewith (Num. 19). The same principle is seen
in Hebrews 10:29 and Revelation 21:27.

It is clear, then, that the language of the New Testament distinguishes between defiling sources of
uncleanness on the one hand, and things defiled by such sources on the other. This precise distinction
illuminates the meaning of Acts 10 and 11. In the vision, the clean and edible animals are regarded as
corrupted by the presence of the unclean and detestable ones. From Peter's mistaken point of
view, the sheet contained no clean animals, only unclean and defiled ("common") ones.

This belief that the clean animals are contaminated by the presence of the unclean ones is not found in the
Old Testament. There is nothing in the Old Testament to indicate that the Godly Jew might not be in the
same room with a Gentile, or eat a meal with him. (See discussion in paper No.7 in this series.) It is true
that the separation of clean and unclean animals implied religious separation, but it was only an oral law
invention to suppose that it also implied complete social separation.

Peter and the other early Christians, however, had imbibed the philosophy of the rabbis on this point. Thus
Peter says in Acts 10:28, "You yourselves know how unlawfu1 23 it is for a man who is a Jew to associate
with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man common or
unclean." Just so, after the baptism of Cornelius, Peter was criticized by the party of the circumcision, "You
entered the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them" (Acts 11:3).

The Corrupting Influence of the Oral Law

15. And again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed no longer consider
common. [Or more literally, "What God has cleansed you shall not defile."]

16. And this happened three times; and immediately the vessel was taken up into the heaven.

As Johannes Bauer has pointed out, "a ceremonial declaration or legal formula is repeated three times
before witnesses in order to bring a legal-enactment formally into force."24 Thus, it was clearly established
for Peter that there was a change in law at this point. Also, a threefold repetition can point to resurrection,
and since uncleanness is associated with death, perhaps we can see in this event a picture of the ceremonial
resurrection of the animal world. To be declared cleansed is to be declared resurrected. 25

God states that He has cleansed something. The question is what has been cleansed. To get at this, let us
assume a different scenario. In Matthew 5, Jesus set out to call the Jews back to the true teaching of the
Mosaic law, over against the accretions of the Pharisees. The same zone of concerns is found in Matthew
15 and Mark 7. As we have seen, the Mosaic law did not at all teach that merely having clean and unclean
animals together in the same enclosed space rendered the clean ones impure. Nor did the Mosaic law teach
that entering a Gentile house was equivalent to entering a "leprous" house, or that eating a meal with a
Gentile rendered a person unclean. These were deductions made by the rabbis and Pharisees, but they were
wrong deductions. The Old Covenant is clearly evangelistic, and it was only by setting aside the
evangelical thrust of the Mosaic law that the Pharisees could come up with the notion of social restrictions.
23
See discussion of this term below.
24
Johannes B. Bauer, ed., Encyclopedia of Biblical TheolQ9Y: The Compete "Sacramentum Verbi" (New York: Crossroad, [1959]
1981), p. 911. Bauer calls attention to the legal transaction in Genesis 23, and to Jesus' threefold investiture of Peter with the duty of
feeding the flock in John 21:15-17. Also, "in Mt. 26:39-44 Jesus solemnly submits himself to the will of the Father three times. In 2
Cor. 12:8 Paul declares that three times he besought God with tears to take the sting from his flesh, but that he received the answer
(three times?): 'My grace is sufficient for you."'
25
Some examples of third-day judgments and/or resurrections can be found in Genesis 22:4; 34:25; 42:18; Joshua 9:16; Judges 20:30;
2 Kings 20:5; Esther 5:1; Hosea 6:2; Jonah 1:17; and the resurrection of our Lord. For a fuller discussion of the third-day theme, see
James B. Jordan, Christianity and the Calendar (available from Biblical Horizons), chaps. 25 & 26.

184
The only thing the Mosaic law forbad by these symbols was making covenants with Gentiles. It did not
forbid merely associating with them.

If this had been the only point of the vision, God would simply have said, "Peter, the presence of unclean
animals does not defile clean ones." God would then have been calling Peter back to the fundamental
principles of the Old Covenant revelation. But that is not the message to Peter. God says, "What God has
cleansed, you shall not defile."

God has cleansed something. Under the law, the clean animals were not rendered defiled by association, so
it cannot be the clean animals that ~re cleansed. It must be the unclean animals that are cleansed.

We might expect God to have said, "What God has cleansed, you shall not make unclean." Instead, God
said, "you shall not make common or defiled." If God had said, "you shall not make unclean," we would
have to take it in this sense: "You shall not regard them as unclean." That it, you shall not treat Gentiles as
fathers of uncleanness. This is not what is said, though. Rather, God said, "you shall not make defiled."
Now, as we have seen, commonness or defilement is always the result of a defiling agent. What is the
defiling agent here? Clearly it is Peter himself! God does not say, "you shall not regard them as common or
impure" but "you shall not defile or contaminate them." 26 It is Peter who becomes the father of uncleanness,
by his unbelieving and hostile attitude --hostile toward people God loves. It is Peter who might possibly
defile clean Cornelius.

How might Peter do that? By refusing to give the gospel to Cornelius. By keeping him outside. By
maintaining the middle wall of partition after Christ had torn it down. If Peter did this, he would be fouling
God's kingdom, defiling it. He would be making it impure.

This corresponds with what we saw in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. Jesus said that the oral law was a defiling
agent. Keeping the oral law, teaching it, living in terms of it, was the corruption of Israel. That which was
going out of men, the oral law, was defiling them. The same idea is found here. If Peter obeyed the oral
law, or clung to the oral law misinterpretation of the Mosaic food laws, he would become a defiling agent.

A close analogy is Romans 14:14, "Nothing is defiled in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be
defiled, to him it is defiled." It Peter had chosen to defile Cornelius, it would not have hurt Cornelius or
affected his status in any way before God. It would, however, have harmed Peter, rendering him a "weak"
believer, unfit for the task of apostleship. Thus, the warning was to Peter: Do not harm yourself and your
apostleship by defiling My saints.

The "Defilement by Association" Argument

Adventist scholar Colin House argues that it is only defilement by association that comes within the
horizon of this text.27 According to House, God was not declaring unclean animals clean, but was rather
saying that mixing clean and unclean no longer had the effect of defiling the clean. Thus, Gentiles could be
evangelized without contaminating the Christian evangelist. The vision "stated what the Cross-Event had
really done: removed the 'wall of separation,' thus allowing the 'clean' and the 'unclean' creatures to
associate freely again. Clearly, the Jew was to remain ethnically a Jew, the Roman a Roman, the Greek a
Greek, etc., but now the divine command illustrates that free social interaction cannot defile.”28

House's interpretation assumes that the oral law tradition was correct in asserting that mere social mixing
with Gentiles would defile the Jew. He assumes that the clean animals were indeed defiled by association,

26
Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 439, assumes that koinoo in these verses (and in these alone) should be translated "consider impure or
common" rather than "defile; make impure or common." The reason this will not work is that unclean animals could not become
common or defiled, since they were already unclean. If God had been speaking to this point, He would have said, "00 not regard them
as unclean," because that was the only possibility. Thus, the only possible translation is, "00 not defile them."
27
Colin House, "Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of Koinos/Koinoo in Acts 10 and 11," Andrews University
Seminary studies 21 (1983):143-153.
28
Ibid., p. 150.

185
and that God had now cleansed them. As we have seen, though, there was no such defilement in reality, and
so no cleansing was needed. Thus, the only thing that could be cleansed in the vision was the unclean
animals.

Second, House's interpretation contradicts what Peter says in Acts 10:28, "You yourselves know how
unlawful [or disorderly] it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet
God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”29 On House's interpretation,
Gentiles were still unclean, but Peter says that no man is to be regarded as either defiled or unclean.

House's Adventist beliefs force him to defend the continuation of the clean/unclean distinction in the food
laws, and he has made a worthy effort, but his interpretation cannot stand. There never was any defilement
by association in the Old Covenant, and so there was no need for any change on that point in the New.

Were Gentiles Unclean?

The laws of uncleanness were designed to help the Jews be holy, a holy and separate people. The Pharisees
and the oral law tradition, however, had (pharisaically) turned the law away from its original purpose. They
did not use it as a means for self-examination, but as a means of condemning others (the Gentiles). They
regarded the Gentiles as unclean, and as fathers of uncleanness to them as Jews, when in reality the
Gentiles were outside the parameter of these laws altogether. Jesus attacked this mentality repeatedly,
praising Gentiles for their faith and comparing them unfavorably to the Jews (Luke 4:24-29; 7:9; Matt.
15:28).

It is true that the unclean animals symbolized unconverted Gentiles, but we have to bear in mind two things
about this. First, one had to eat the animal, that is, become thoroughly united to it, in order to be defiled.
This symbolized becoming very closely covenantally tied to an unconverted Gentile, not merely associating
with him. Second, while a Jew became unclean by eating an unclean animal, it did not make him unclean to
marry an unconverted Gentile, or to form an international alliance with one. Such actions were not
symbolically or ceremonially defiling, they were morally wrong!

The point is to keep separate the distinction between the symbol and the thing symbolized. Covenanting
with an unconverted Gentile was a sin, and the penitent Jew would need to bring a sacrifice. It was not,
however, ceremonially defiling, so that penitent Jew would not need to wash himself or his clothing.

Thus, the Pharisaical interpretation of the law was wrong at every point. The Pharisees reversed the moral
and the symbolic. It was morally wrong, not symbolically wrong, to covenant with an unbeliever. The
Pharisees, however, said that the Gentiles were unclean, and so should be avoided. We can summarize this
as follows:

1. The Law impelled the Jews to evangelism, but the Pharisees made them fearful of contact and
association with Gentiles.

2. The Law said that there was no ceremonial problem with associating with Gentiles, and thus
encouraged Israelites to do so. A Jew who had dinner with a Gentile and spent the night in his
house did not need to be cleansed before coming to God's house. The Pharisees contradicted this.

29
"Unlawful" here refers to the oral law, not to Biblical law. The Old Testament nowhere taught any such notion. "St. Peter speaks
from the standpoint of traditional Pharisaism rather than from that of the Law itself." E. H. Plumptre, The Acts of the Apostles, in
Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [19th c.] 1959), p. 68. The word translated or
mistranslated "unlawful" here is not the normal New Testament word that has to do with the Old Testament law. That word is nomos,
and "unlawful" is indicated by such words as anomia (lawlessness), anomos (lawless, unlawful), and paranomeo (act lawlessly, break
the law). The word Peter uses, athemiton, does not refer to the Mosaic law but to general custom, "common law." Vincent writes that
"it emphasizes the violation of established order, being from the same root as tithemi, to lay down or establish. The Jews professed to
ground this prohibition on the law of Moses [well, actually on the oral law – JBJ] but there is no direct command in the Mosaic law
forbidding Jews to associate with those of other nations. But Peter's statement is general, referring to the general practice of the Jews
to separate themselves in common life from uncircumcised persons." M. R.
Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 2d ed. (various publishers, [1888]), comments on Acts 10:28. Emphasis his.

186
 3. The Law emphasized moral righteousness, with the laws of uncleanness as ceremonial-symbolic
reminders. The Pharisees emphasized their own ideas about uncleanness, while turning a blind eye
to all kinds of gross moral wickedness (Mark 7:8-13; John 8:1-11).

But let's grant the notion that unconverted Gentiles were "fathers of ceremonial uncleanness. " What would
this mean? There is no problem in the law with eating in the same room with an unclean animal, so there is
no problem with eating in the same room with a Gentile. There is no problem in the law with touching a
donkey, or with sleeping in the same room or house with one, so there is no problem with touching or
sleeping in the same place as a Gentile. Touching the dead carcass of an unclean animal made you unclean,
and the law expressly says (Num. 19) that touching the corpse of any dead human being had the same
effect.

Thus, assuming still that Gentiles were potential "fathers of ceremonial uncleanness," the only way to
contract ceremonial uncleanness from a Gentile was to "eat" him, which as we have seen means becoming
united covenantally with him. Examples of this would be marriage (to a heathen Gentile, not to a believing
Gentile), or participation in heathen worship (idolatry).

So, maybe if you married a heathen, or joined in idolatrous worship, you were guilty of a sin and you also
became ceremonially unclean. This might possibly be true, although I think not. I think the ceremonial
uncleanness only came from eating unclean animals and the other things specified in the law. However the
case may be, it is certain that by no stretch of a Biblical imagination can we come to the conclusion that
entering the house of a converted Gentile would make you unclean ceremonially! 30

With this background and context firmly in mind, we can see that Peter's whole understanding of the
Gentile Cornelius was totally wrong. There was nothing wrong with visiting an unconverted Gentile, and
there was certainly nothing wrong with visiting a converted one, but Peter thought that there was.

The Gentile was not unclean, even if he was unconverted and sinful, and thus could not defile an Israelite.
The only Gentiles under the laws of uncleanness were those converts who sojourned with Israel, living
within the boundaries of camp or land.

Thus, the only fountain of ceremonial contamination possible in Peter's vision was an unclean Jew. And as
God made clear to him, it was he who was in danger of becoming the source of "uncleanness" because it
was he who was following the perverted precepts of the oral law.

In concluding this section, let us clarify the true status of Cornelius, and contrast it with Peter's oral law
assumptions. First, Gentiles were not unclean, and were not to be regarded as unclean, under the Old
Covenant. Thus, there was no reason for Peter not to associate with Cornelius. It was only the oral law
tradition that had confused the symbol with the reality, assuming that since unclean animals symbolized
Gentiles, then Gentiles should also be treated as unclean.

Second, not all Gentiles were symbolized by unclean animals. Converted Gentiles were symbolized by
clean non-sacrificial animals like deer and gazelle. This was actually the status of Cornelius. If it was
wrong to avoid social intercourse with unconverted Gentiles, how much more wrong was it to avoid social
intercourse with converts! Yet, this was just what the oral law taught, and what Peter was guilty of doing.

Third, Jesus removed the entire underpinning of the oral law system by cleansing the world. If there were
no longer any unclean animals to symbolize unconverted Gentiles, then it would be impossible to reason,
however falsely, that Gentiles themselves were unclean. Even the shred of credibility possessed by the oral
law was thus removed.

30
The Jews argued that all Gentile homes were "leprous," and that since Gentiles were all "dead," to enter their homes was to enter a
space defiled by a corpse (cp. Num. 19). The Old Testament never hints at the idea that Gentiles are to be associated with Decay or
with dead bodies. The only analogy used in the Old Testament is with unclean animals, and that is the only analogy Jesus uses, and the
only analogy anyone else in the New Testament uses.

187
 James

We come now to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Briefly, the question at issue was whether or not
Gentile converts should be circumcised and required to keep the Mosaic laws. It is unclear whether or not
the oral law traditions were also involved in this, but it is a good guess that they were, since the Jews
seemed unable to separate the two. Under the leadership of James, the Council determined that Gentiles
should not be troubled by the Mosaic law. The extent of their obedience would be "that they abstain from
things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:20,
29).

What about the Ten Commandments? If the point of the Council was to express the abiding aspects of the
Mosaic law, surely the Ten Commandments would be summarized. The fact that these are absent indicates
a more restricted agenda. It seems that the Jerusalem council was only concerned with those aspects of the
law that were symbolic and Tabernacle-connected. with this horizon in view, it appears that the
prohibitions all make perfect sense, and should be viewed as permanent, not simply as accommodations for
the first century.

With this in mind, fornication is not a reference to sexual immorality in general, but to the degrees of
consanguinity forbidden in Leviticus 18 and 20. These would be questioned by Gentile converts, because of
their position in the law and their "ceremonial" phraseology (e.g., "uncover the nakedness"). The Council
asserted that these laws were reestablished in the New Covenant.

Things polluted by idols does not mean meat sold in the marketplace that had been offered to idols, for
eating such was perfectly all right (1 Cor. 8). Rather, the reference is to fellowshipping at the table of
demons. This was what the food laws of Leviticus 11 pointed to, and indicates the abiding validity of the
meaning of Leviticus 11. Gentiles --indeed all Christians --are free to eat pork and shrimp in the New
Covenant, but they are still to keep the fundamental meaning of Leviticus 11, and keep themselves from
idols.

The prohibition on eating blood, or vampirism, goes back to Genesis 9:4, and is here sustained. As we saw
in paper No.7 in this series, vampirism is an attempt to get life apart from God, and is thus prohibited. The
only blood Christians are allowed to drink is the blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

The prohibition on "things strangled" has vexed commentators for two thousand years. Some light has been
shed on this recently, but to understand it we shall have to look at the parallel passage in Leviticus.

Acts 15 and Leviticus 17-18

It has been noted that the order in which these four prohibitions are listed in Acts 15:29 and 21:25 (idolatry,
blood, "strangled meat," fornication) follows the order of discussion of Leviticus 17:8--18:30.31 The first
stipulation in Leviticus 17 applied only to the house of Israel (v. 3), and stated that Israelites were not
permitted to slaughter animals anywhere but at the central sanctuary during the wilderness period (Lev.
17:1-7). In verse 8, however, the circle addressed expands to include the Gentiles around the camp.
The first rule is that anyone who offered a Burnt Offering anywhere except at the sanctuary was to be
excommunicated (17:8-9). This is pointed against idolatry. The second rule was that no blood may be
drunk, on pain of being "cut off" by God (17:10-12). The third rule was that human priest-hunters were to
pour out the blood of their kills, and anyone who ate an animal that had died or been torn by beasts was to
be unclean until evening (17:13-16). Finally, chapter 18 deals with the degrees of incest and other sexual
crimes, and these are said to apply to the alien also (18:26).32 The punishments for these sexual crimes are
found in Leviticus 20. These four laws are said in Leviticus to have applied to Gentile sojourners, and they
can be seen to correlate with the laws rehearsed at the Jerusalem Council.

31
According to Goulder, p.168, this correlation was first observed by Bo Easton, The Purpose of Acts (1936).
32
The discourse marker in this section (Lev. 17-18) seems to be "any man" (Heb. ish ish). It is found in 17:3, 8, 10, 13, and 18:6. This
means that the idea of hunting and pouring out blood is preeminent in verses 13-16.

188
As we have observed previously, Leviticus 1-7 deal with the sanctuary, while Leviticus 8-16 deal with the
immediate household of God: Israel. These two sections concern the Israelite's relationship to God and to
himself and his immediate household. The third section of Leviticus, chapter 17-22, deals with
relationships. It is thus in this section that the law is said to apply to the sojourning Gentile as well as to the
Israelite, because we have moved beyond the borders of the household. (Of course, a proselyte who wanted
to could become a temporary member of the household, and come under the laws of uncleanness. Once a
year, the sojourners were required to observe the household laws: the fast of atonement, Leviticus 16:29.)

Just as Leviticus 10:10, which tells the priests to teach the people the difference between clean and unclean,
sets up the discussion of Leviticus 11-15, so the command that all including Gentiles are to observe the Day
of Atonement seems to set up the discussion of land-defilement laws in Leviticus 17-20. Blood makes
atonement (17:11), for Gentiles as well as Hebrews, so that the Gentiles come under the laws of blood
(Lev. 17). Leviticus 20 states that violation of the laws of Leviticus 18 cause "blood guiltiness" (20:9, 11,
12, 13, 16, 18, 27). It is blood that defiles the land, as holy blood reacts with curse-prosecuting soil to call
down God's wrath (Gen. 4:10; Dt. 21:1-9). Thus, avoiding blood guiltiness is the condition for maintaining
the land, just as avoiding uncleanness is the condition for maintaining the sanctuary. It would be interesting
to pursue the theology here, in that it may be that the atonement of Jesus Christ is the foundation for the
reiteration of the laws against blood in Acts 15.

Our immediate purpose is served, however, simply by taking note of the fact that Acts 15 is evidently
focusing on the four Gentile laws of Leviticus 17-20. It seems that the Jerusalem Council turned to
Leviticus 17-22, isolated out of it the four aspects that had explicitly been stated to apply to the Gentiles,
and determined that these were still binding.

Our translations of the Jerusalem Council's decree speak of "things strangled" where Leviticus speaks of
animals that die by themselves or are torn by beasts. I believe that the reason the Israelites were not allowed
to eat such meat is that these animals had not been slaughtered properly by human beings, the priests of
creation. To be fit to eat, the animal must be slaughtered by a human being, and in such a way that the
blood is "poured out. " This does not mean, practically, that every speck of red must be soaked out of the
meat, but it does mean that the blood is drained off and not allowed to coagulate throughout the flesh. In
light of this, it is clear that Leviticus 17:13-16 prohibited the strangulation of animals as a mode of
slaughter.

The carcass of a dead clean animal was not a source of uncleanness if it had been slaughtered, but it was a
source of uncleanness if it was found already dead. This had already been taught the people in Leviticus
11:39-40. Leviticus 17:15 is not simply repeating that provision. The focus here is not on the unclean
quality of the carcass, but on the presence of coagulated blood in the carcass.

There are three different penalties in Leviticus 17 that are relevant here. The penalty for drinking fresh
blood was excommunication, together with the threat that God would actively move against such a person
(Lev. 17:10). The penalty for eating flesh with blood, if deliberately slaughtered improperly by a human
being in defiance of God's command, was excommunication (Lev. 17:14). By way of contrast, the penalty
for eating carcass meat with coagulated blood in it was simply that one was unclean until evening. The
Israelites were told not to eat such meat, so if they ate it they would be disobeying God; while the Gentile
was free to eat it, though it would make him unfit to approach the sanctuary should he desire to do so (Dt.
14:21).

Thus, we can outline Leviticus 17 as follows:

Case 1: Slaughtering away from the Tabernacle (17:3-7). Applied to Israel only, and only in the
wilderness (Dt. 12:5-21 Penalty: excommunication.

Case 2: Sacrificing away from the Tabernacle (17:8-9). Applied to Israel and proselytes, within the
camp/land. Penalty: excommunication.

Case 3: Drinking blood (17:10-12). Applied to Israel and to proselytes. Penalty: excommunication

189
 and the wrath of God.

Law 3a: God will set His face against the man who drinks blood (17:10-11).

Law 3b: You are forbidden to drink blood (17:12).

Case 4: Improper slaughter (17:13-16). Applied to Israel and to proselytes. Penalty: two cases:

Law 4a: Refusing to pour out blood, and eating such flesh: excommunication.

Law 4b: Finding a dead carcass, and eating such flesh: unclean until evening.

From this analysis we can see that the fourth case of Leviticus 17, which is the third Gentile law, has two
sub-cases. The first applies to strangled meat, and the penalty was excommunication, which was not
"merely ceremonial." The second applies to carcass meat, and the penalty was uncleanness, which was
"merely ceremonial." In the New Covenant, this second case can no longer apply, since the laws of
uncleanness are gone. The first case, however, would still apply.

In summary, the Jerusalem Council expressed to the New Testament Church --and I believe expresses to us
as well --certain abiding elements in the laws of Leviticus. The Council carefully distinguished in the area
of dietary laws between the laws of uncleanness and the laws relating to blood. By doing so, the Council
made it clear that eating flesh is no longer an issue in the Kingdom, while eating blood continues to be. The
decision of the Council is completely consistent with the cancellation of the Mosaic dietary laws, and the
maintenance of the Noahic prohibition on blood.

Paul

One of Paul's major concerns throughout his writings is the unity of Jew and Gentile in one body in Christ.
In terms of this, Paul explains that in the Old Covenant all men were exiled to some degree from God,
being cast from the garden of Eden. The Jew was permitted to draw near, to some degree, but the Gentile,
even the Gentile convert, was still a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel and the specific promises to
Abraham.33 These degrees of exile have been overcome in the New Covenant, for all believers are in
Christ, and Christ is right next to the Father, as close as possible. Thus, all believers have the same degree
of access, and there is no more exile.

It is in terms of this doctrine that Paul carries on his polemic against keeping the Old Covenant ceremonies.
These ceremonies were precisely the laws of exile that set up the degrees of access. Obviously, they cannot
be kept in the New Covenant. To do so would be to be guilty of what God warned Peter against in Acts 10
and 11, to "defile" the Gentile convert. This is Paul's concern.

Colossians

It is most useful to begin with Colossians 2:8- 3:11. I take the "elementary principles of the world" in this
passage to be a reference to the Old Covenant. It was good for its time, but has now ceased to be of value.
To perpetuate the Old Covenant is to abuse it and corrupt it. "See to it that no one takes you captive through
philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles
of the world [Old Covenant], and not according to Christ [New Covenant]" (Col. 2:8). My reason for seeing
an Old Covenant reference here is grounded on the fact that Paul goes on to talk about circumcision, not
about Greek philosophy (2:11-15).

Similarly, in Galatians 3:23- 4:11, Paul writes to the Gentiles to persuade them not to adopt Old Covenant
rules that no longer apply in the New Covenant. In this passage, "you" are Gentile converts, and "we" are

33
In spite of the fact that he could draw near and offer sacrifice, the uncircumcised proselyte was still a "stranger sojourning among
you."

190
the Jewish converts. Paul says that the Jews were under the Law, which was a tutor to point typologically to
Christ (3:23-25). Paul equates the Law with the "elementary principles of the world" (4:3-4). Paul states
that what these elementary principles pointed to has come in Christ, and that the separations and
distinctions symbolized in the Law have been overcome, with Jew and Gentile in one body (3:26-29). Thus,
"how is it that you [Gentiles] turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which
you desire to be enslaved allover again? You observe days and months and seasons and years" (4:9-10).
The Gentiles had been slaves of false gods (4:8), but had been delivered into true sonship. Now they
wanted to become slaves again, though slaves in the Old Covenant sense (4:1-3, 9). Instead of observing
their old pagan calendars, they were observing the Old Covenant calendar. Paul says, though, that the Old
Covenant calendar was part of the tutorial system, and that to observe it as a rule is to put oneself into
unnecessary and heretical bondage. Such "elementary principles" were valid for the Old Covenant, though
even then they were "weak." Now, however, they are "worth-less," and have no function at all.

Returning to Colossians, Paul continues his attack on the "elementary principles," charging them:
"Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon
or sabbath days, things which are a shadow of what is to come; but the body is of Christ" (2:16-17). In
context, this cannot be referring to heathen practices, but to the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant it w9s a
sin to eat forbidden meat, but now there is to be no law and judgment in this area. God threatened the
priests with death if they drank wine in His presence, but now we are commanded to do so (Lev. 10:9).
Certain kinds of sabbath breaking were capital offenses, but now there is no judgment in this area. 34 All of
these things are transfigured in Christ. They were shadows, and now the "body" has come. The Lord's
Supper is our transformed food law, with the negative side of avoiding the table of demons and blood. 35
The Lord's Day is our transformed sabbath.

Paul goes on to say that "if you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world [the Old
Covenant], why, as if you were living in the world [the old world], do you submit yourself to decrees, such
as: Do not handle; do not taste; do not touch -- which all refer to things destined to perish with the using --
in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?" (Col. 2:20-22). The believer's true home is
heaven, and the rules of his life are heavenly. He is no longer exiled from the Holy Places, in the "world,"
and thus he is no longer under the "elementary principles" of the exile. The Old Covenant exile rules no
longer apply to him. Paul says that to submit to these things now is to submit to mere human teaching,
since God no longer requires them.

According to Paul, those who wanted to perpetuate these exilic ceremonies had changed their meaning.
Originally the laws of cleanness were symbolic in nature. The Judaizers had perverted their meaning, and
were teaching that it was important to continue keeping them for ascetic reasons: "These are matters which
have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment
of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence" (v. 23). The Judaizers had warped the meaning
of the exilic symbols just as some Christians do today, seeing them as important for self-discipline or
health. Paul makes it clear that the laws were not given for such purposes, and that they have been
superseded.

Paul continues, saying that the believer does not have the source of his life on the earth but in heaven, so
that such Old Covenant earthly regulations cannot be relevant to him (3:1-4). The true uncleanness is
immorality, and the true separation is moral and spiritual in nature (3:5-9). The old separations -- Greek and
Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, etc. -- are all done away in Christ (3:10-11). The animal and food
laws, which symbolized these separations, are obviously also done away. What remains is true spiritual
separation.

Ephesians

In Ephesians 21 Paul argues that Jew and Gentile believer are equal in the Church. While in the Old

34
See James B. Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty: A Theological Investigation (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986).
35
That is, the flesh of Christ (bread) is opposed to the table of demons, and the blood of Christ (wine) is opposed to drinking blood or
eating strangled meat.

191
Covenant there was a distinction, in that Gentile converts were not allowed any closer than the "court of the
Gentiles, "now all believers have equal access to God, being one in Christ. "But now in Christ Jesus you
who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who
made both groups into one, and broke down the dividing wall of the barrier by abolishing in His flesh the
enmity, the Law of commandments in ordinances, that in Himself he might make the two into one new
man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, in
Himself having put to death the enmity" (2:13-16).

The "dividing wall of the barrier" is explained as the separation (enmity) created by the "Law of
commandments in ordinances." The symbolic laws separating Jew and Gentile were the sanctuary laws:
first of all circumcision, secondly the dietary laws (Dt. 14:21), and then all the laws of uncleanness (for
they normally applied only to Israel). Because only the Jews were circumcised and under the cleanness
laws, only the Jews could routinely draw near into God's court. Thus, circumcision and the cleanness laws
served to create a physical line in the Temple complex that Jews could cross, but that uncircumcised
Gentile converts could not. In Herod's Temple, an actual wall existed between the court of Israel and the
court of the Gentiles (cf. Acts 21:28f.).

Paul states, though, that the New Covenant Temple has no such dividing wall, because it has no symbolic
laws of separation and exile. Everyone has equal access (2:17-19), and the Temple that is being built has no
zones of separation in it (2:20-22). Clearly, then, the dietary laws are no longer in force.

Romans

No survey of the Pauline perspective can be complete with some notice of Alan F. Segal's challenging
essay, "Romans 7 and Jewish Dietary Law." 36 Segal points out that Paul's concern in Romans, as elsewhere,
is with the unity of Jew and Gentile in the church. In Romans 7 in particular he addresses those who "know
the law, " that is, Jewish Christians. Segal suggests that this background needs to inform our understanding
of Romans 14. In that passage, Paul distinguishes the "strong" believer from the "weak." The strong
believer "may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only" (14:2).

The modern reader takes this as a reference to Gentile ascetic vegetarianism. Segal suggests a far more
likely explanation. He says that table fellowship is what is in view, not simply private eating. The weak
believer is the Jewish convert who is still keeping the Old Covenant dietary laws. 37 He is willing to eat with
Gentile Christians, but only vegetables. This is to avoid being ritually contaminated by meat not
slaughtered properly (Dt. 12:24). The weak believer, then, is the Jewish believer who still observes the
"weak and worthless elementary principles. " The strong believer is the one who knows that these things
have been done away in Christ. Similarly, the weak believer still keeps the Old Covenant calendar (14:5-6),
while the strong believer has been set free.

The suggestion that the dietary laws are in view in Romans 14 receives support from verse 14, for there
Paul refers to the laws of uncleanness directly: "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is
unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." The flesh of unclean
animals was not in itself unclean, even in the Old Covenant. Rather, it was "unclean for you" (Lev. 11:4,
etc.). By putting it this way, Paul informs the Jewish convert that he must change his attitude and
conscience, for such foods are no longer unclean for him. At the same time, Paul instructs the "strong
believer" to respect the conscience of the weak one.

This is a compelling interpretation, though I am not in a position to evaluate or criticize it. Segal goes on to
point out that Paul, in his attempt to be all things to all men, on some occasions observed Old Covenant

36
Sciences Religieuses / Studies in Religion 15 (1986):361-374
37
For arguments that the weak believer is the Jewish convert who still keeps the Old Covenant ceremonies, see C. E. B. Cranfield, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), pp. 694-697. Cranfield suggests
that the weak believers abstained from meat because they could not be sure that any meat sold in a Gentile city was clean. This strikes
me as unlikely. Segal's argument is that they were only vegetarians when they had to eat with Gentiles, and that it is table fellowship
that is in view. This seems much more likely. The devout Jew, and the weak believer, could always ensure that his personal meat had
been slaughtered properly. What he could not be sure of was whether or not his Gentile host had taken the same pains.

192
rituals, as when he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), and when he paid his vows at the Temple (Acts
21:24). Naturally, however, in being all things to all men Paul wound up in situations of conflict. When
Jewish and Gentile Christians were together, what was Paul to do? On such occasions, He had to side with
the strong, against those who kept the dietary laws (Gal. 2:11- 21).

Segal suggests that the much disputed passage in Romans 7:7-25 should be seen against the background of
this New Testament scenario. Paul the Christian had been freed from the Law, and was alive without it
(Rom. 7:9). In order to be all things to all men, however, Paul had put himself back under the Law, but
found that it killed him (7:9-12). The Law itself was a holy and true reflection of God's will, but to keep the
letter of it in the New Covenant was destructive. If Paul kept the letter of the dietary laws, he would be
unable to eat with Gentile believers, and this would be sin. So, while he delighted in the Law in his inward
parts, and found it easy to keep the letter of it, he dared not do so. When he tried to, he was drawn into sin.
"Though the law is holy and good, the ceremonial laws, which are literally and metaphorically the laws of
his members, have brought him under the sway of sin."38

Paul reconciles his problem this way: The Christian is to keep the Old Covenant Law with his mind, but not
with his flesh (v. 25). That is, the Christian delights in the Law because it points to Christ. The Christian
keeps the fundamental principles of the Law. But the Christian dare not keep the letter of the Law, at least
the ceremonial dimensions of it, because to do so would be to sin. Bearing in mind that this section of
Romans is addressed to Jewish converts, one can see the relevance of it. Paul is enjoining them to be
"strong" believers, and warning them that to continue to hold to the Old Covenant rules will lead them to
bondage.

I must leave it to New Testament scholars to debate Segal's thesis. Suffice it to say that it is challenging and
compelling, and some mention of it needed to be in these studies.

1 Timothy

It remains only to take note of Paul's extremely strong language in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. What Paul says here
strikes against all those who today are advocating the observance of the Mosaic dietary laws. Paul says that
they are teaching demonic doctrines:

1. But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying
attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

2. by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

3. men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be
gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

4. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with
gratitude,

5. for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

I have heard it argued verbally that what verse 3 means is that heretics advocate abstaining from clean food,
which is defined as food created by God for eating. In other words, that not all foods were created by God
"to be gratefully shared." Only the clean foods are in this category, and the heretics are renouncing clean
foods.

This argument falls apart not only under the assault of everything we have seen thus far in the present
study, but also from the express statements of verse 4. As if he anticipated this argument, the apostle goes
on to say that everything is good, and nothing is to be rejected. We are straining at gnats and swallowing

38
Segal, p. 372f.

193
(unclean) camels if we see this as anything other than an affirmation that no flesh is detestable.

Paul goes on to say in verse 5 that the only issue at stake is prayer and gratitude. This and this alone
separates sanctified and unsanctified meals. This means that every meal is proper, except idolatrous
sacramental meals and drinking blood.

Thus, it is clear that the demonized heretics to which Paul referred are those who advocate dietary
restrictions.39 Clearly any teacher, movement, or organization that sets up non-Biblical restrictions on
marriage (such as requiring clerical celibacy) or diet (such as insisting that the Mosaic dietary laws are
mandatory) is coming within the circle of those whom Paul characterizes as "deceitful spirits" who
advocate "the doctrines of demons." It is interesting to observe that the purpose of the Mosaic dietary laws
was to signify Israel's avoidance of idolatry and demonized persons. Now, in the New Covenant, those who
advocate continued observance of these laws are denoted by Paul as demonized!

A stronger condemnation can hardly be imagined.

Hebrews

The author of Hebrews is often thought to have been Paul, or at least to have been in the Pauline circle,
because of structural similarities between this letter and Paul's. 40 Since, however, Hebrews comes at things
differently from the rest of the "Pauline matter," it seems well to discuss it separately.

The Repeal of the Dietary Laws

The first passage relevant for us, which clearly states that the Mosaic dietary laws have been "repealed," is
in Hebrews 9. The argument is complex, so we need to get the context in mind.

1. Now even the first [covenant] had regulations of divine worship and an earthly sanctuary.

2. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the first one, in which were the 1amp stand and the table
and the bread of the face [put before God's face]; this is called the Holy [Place].

3. And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,

4. having a golden altar of incense 41 and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in
which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the
covenant.

5. And above it the cherubim of the Glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we
cannot now speak in detail.42

6. Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the first
tabernacle, performing the divine worship,

39
It is my opinion that the "later times" spoken of in verse 1 are the "latter days" in the sense of the period between 30 and 70 A.D.
After all, the warning must have been relevant to Timothy's own day. For arguments, see David Chilton, Paradise Restored: An
Eschatology of Dominion (Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1985), pp. 115ff. In line with this, I believe Paul's demonized heretics are the
Judaizers, who were forbidding Jewish Christians to marry Gentile Christians, and who were advocating the Mosaic dietary laws. Just
because Paul's first reference was to the Judaizing antichrists does not obviate applications to others in the history of Christianity who
have advocated these notions.
40
2 Peter 3:15 is sometimes pointed to as a proof text in this regard, since Peter is writing to Jews, and tells them to heed what Paul
had written them. A summary of traditional arguments can be found in Arthur w. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1954), pp. 9-18.
41
The Golden Altar was positioned in the Holy Place right before the veil leading to the Holy of Holies. Thus, it is associated with the
Holy of Holies, as prayer leads to heaven.
42
Note that Hebrews does not reject the study of the details of this system. Rather, the author only says that it is not his purpose to go
into detail, but to deal with the overall big picture. There is no rejection of proper typological and symbolic study here.

194
 7. but into the second only the High Priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he
offers for himself and for the ignorance [unknown sins] of the people.

8. The Holy Spirit [is] signifying this: that the way into the [Holy of] Holies has not yet been
disclosed, while the first tabernacle [the Holy Place] is still standing;

9. which is a symbol for the time [ then ] present, according to which both gifts and sacrifices are
offered which cannot make the worshipper perfect in conscience,

10. since they are only for [relate only to] food and drink and various washings, regulations for the
flesh imposed until a time of reformation.

Hebrews clearly states that the dietary laws, including both the laws of meat (Lev. 11) and those pertaining
to drink (Lev. 10:9; Num. 6:3), were temporary and are done away in the New Covenant. The same is true
of all the baptisms or sprinklings in the Law, which were necessary to cleanse people who had been defiled.
These were all regulations for the "flesh," which here refers to the condition of man in the Old Adamic
(Flesh) Covenant. They have been superseded by the "time of reformation," the New (Spirit-powered)
Covenant.

I believe that the argument here is as follows: The Holy of Holies was a symbol of the highest heavens, and
the Holy Place was a symbol of the firmament heavens of the Old covenant. 43 These were actually two
separate tents, though they were covered by a common covering of red ram skin and dolphin leather. The
common covering indicated that they were both part of the heavenlies, but the two separate curtains of
linen and the two separate tents of goat's hair indicated that they were two different heavens. 44

The Israelites of old were associated with the Old Covenant firmament heavens, for according to the
promise given to Abraham, they were like the stars of the firmament heavens. 45 The priests, admitted to the
"firmament heavens" of the Holy Place, represented the status of Old Covenant Israel. Thus, Israel was
positioned in the firmament heavens, but outside the veil. By way of contrast, Jesus Christ passed through
the firmament heavens and beyond the guardian cherubim to the very throne of the Holy of Holies (Rev. 4-
5).46 Thus, being "in Christ," the New Covenant Church is positioned in the Holy of Holies, in the highest
heavens.

Israelites of old did not go into the Holy Place, but they were positioned there by their representatives. Just
so, the Church Militant on earth does not go into the Holy of Holies, into the highest heaven, but we are
positioned their by our Representative. At death, we go to heaven.

Thus, to put it simply, the Holy Place was a symbol for the "time then present," that is, for the Old
Covenant. As long as the Holy Place stood, access to the Holy of Holies was impossible. In other words, as
long as the Old Covenant stood, there was no access to Heaven. 47

43
See paper No.9 in this series; and James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical view of the World (Brentwood, TN:
Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), chap. 15.
44
For particulars on the coverings of the Tabernacle and what they meant, see Jordan, "From Glory to Glory."
45
See Jordan, Through New Eyes, chap. 5
46
Notice for instance that though the High Priest had no regular access to the Holy of Holies, he did enter once a year. Yet, he
sprinkled the blood of a bull and a goat only on the ground in front of the mercy seat and on the mercy seat itself. He did not throw
any of the blood above the cherubim or through the barrier they formed, and he never went behind the barrier they formed in the
middle of the Holy of Holies. Thus, at no point in the Old Covenant ritual did any person pass beyond the barrier formed by the
cherubim around the Throne, nor was any animal blood taken there. See Leviticus 16:14-15.
47
Some commentators take "first tabernacle" in verse 8 to refer to the entire Mosaic Tabernacle -- first in time rather than first in
location --so that while the Tabernacle stood, access to heaven was impossible. This is less likely, because "first tabernacle" has
already been defined in context as the Holy Place. Additionally, the Mosaic Tabernacle was torn down when the Temple was built, but
heaven was not opened at that point. Thus, it seems to me far more likely that "first tabernacle" in verse 8 means what it does in verses
2 and 6. For a discussion, see Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp.
322-323; and see Westcott, Selles, Hewitt, Guthrie, and Moulton below.
Hughes takes "time then present" in verse 9 to mean "the present time," that is, the New Covenant (ibid.). While this view is held by a
few exegetes, it seems very unlikely to me. Hebrews goes right on to say that this symbolic system could not perfect the worshipper

195
In the Holy of Holies were hidden the three Mysteries: the Law, the manna, and the rod. These Mysteries
were incarnated in Jesus Christ,48 and now have been published as the Gospel Mystery in the New
Covenant. The Keys of the Kingdom have been taken from the guardian cherubim and given to the Church.

The fact that the Mysteries of the Holy of Holies are published in the New Covenant indicates again that
the Holy of Holies, a symbol of heaven, is to be associated with the New Covenant. Hebrews is saying,
then, that the sanctuary law of the Old Covenant was "firmament heavens" law, associated with the
ministry of the Holy Place, in which Israel was positioned. With the unveiling of the fullness of the
Mystery, and the opening of the Holy of Holies, and the entrance of the Church into the highest heavens,
the "outer" or "first" tabernacle (Holy Place) is abolished, and with it the sanctuary laws of the Old
Covenant -- including the dietary laws, which, as we have seen throughout these studies, had to do with
access to this Old Covenant sanctuary.

The Old Covenant sanctuary regulations are termed "fleshly," and this must be understood in terms of the
redemptive-historical meanings of "flesh" and "Spirit." The first Adam was made of flesh, and the Old
Adamic Covenant is a flesh-covenant. Its sign was circumcision, performed on the "flesh." By way of
contrast, the ascended Christ in His transfigured humanity, is "life-giving Spirit." (See 1 Corinthians 15:35-
50.) The New Covenant is "in the Spirit." Thus, the sanctuary laws of the Old Covenant were imposed on
the "flesh," on Adamic humanity, until the "time of reformation," or time of "re-structuring" of the cosmos,
the transition from "flesh" to "Spirit."49

This does not mean that the New Covenant has nothing to do with "flesh" in the sense of physical matter or
the bodies of human beings. Rather, the idea is always "Adamic flesh" versus "resurrection Spirit." The
New Covenant is still concerned with the physical world, and the two sacraments are still very physical.
The contrast is to be understood in Biblical terms, as Old Aeon versus New Aeon, not in Greek terms, as
matter versus spirit. The Old Covenant sanctuary laws (including the dietary laws) have been done away
with, not because they were fleshly in the sense of "physical," but because they were fleshly in the sense of
"Adamic Covenant."

Hebrews goes on to state in verse 13 that the blood of goats and bulls and the various cleansing rituals of
the Old Covenant did perform a certain cleansing or sanctification of the "flesh," but could never take away
sin (Heb. 10:4). Thus, the cleansings and the other aspects of the Old Covenant sanctuary law were only a
"holding pattern" that kept the "flesh" alive until the time should come when Jesus would enter the

and was only temporary. How, then, could it be a symbol [literally, parable] for the New Covenant? We should, accordingly, go with
the alternative view, which is that the Tabernacle, and specifically the Holy Place, was a symbol for the Old Covenant. Thus "present"
would either refer to the entire Old Covenant, or more particularly to the pre-A.D. 70 situation [kairos, crisis], during which the Old
Covenant forms overlapped the New Covenant reality for forty years. One or the other of these views, both of which relate the Holy
Place to the Old Covenant rather than the New, is defended by the following:
John Calvin, New Testament Commentaries: Hebrews (various editions), comments on Hebrews 9:9.
Matthew Henry's Commentary (various editions), comments on Hebrews 9:9;
John Owen, Exposition of Hebrews, 7 vols. (various editions, [1668-84; 1855]) 6:247;
Arthur Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), p. 480;
B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1892] 1973), p. 252;
L. Selles, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hamilton, Ontario: Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches, 1969), p. 47;
Gottlied Lunemann, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 4th ed., trans. Maurice J. Evans. Meyer's
Commentary on the New Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, [1883] 1979), p. 609;
Thomas Hewitt, The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 151 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), p. 144;
Donald Guthrie, The Letter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 152 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 183;
W. F. Moulton, The Epistle to the Hebrews, in Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [19th c.]
1981), p. 316.
Of course, regardless of how we understand these verses, the statement of verse 10 is clear enough: The dietary laws were only for the
Old Covenant.
48
The so-called "Messianic Secret," that is, Jesus' constant admonition to people not to tell about His works, is to be understood in
light of the concealing of the Mystery during the Old Covenant. Not until the resurrection was the Mystery revealed, and with it the
Three Gifts given to men.
49
For a full discussion of the redemptive historical shift from "flesh" to "Spirit," see Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., The Centrality of the
Resurrection: A Study in Paul's Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978).

196
heavenly Holy of Holies with His own blood and effectuate eternal salvation (Heb. 9:11-28). This having
now been done, the Holy Place, the "outer" or "first" tabernacle, is rendered wholly superfluous. The entire
system is transcended and abolished. 50

All of this simply confirms once again what we have already seen in the earlier papers of this study, which
is that the Mosaic dietary laws were part of the Tabernacle law. They were irrelevant to believers outside
Israel. They were irrelevant before the building of the Tabernacle. They are irrelevant in the New
Covenant. They were part of the system of sanctuary law tied to the Holy Place, which is done away in
Christ.

The Hygienic Impotence of the Dietary Laws

It has been argued that the dietary laws as part of the sacramental system of the Old Covenant have been
repealed, but that they were useful for health and still should be observed for that reason. (See our
discussion of this in papers Nos. 2 and 5 in this series.) Hebrews 13:9-10 dismisses this consideration also:

9. Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be
strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not
benefited.

10. We have an altar, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.

"Strange" teachings are "alien" teachings, heresies. (Compare the "strange" or “lawless" fire of Leviticus
10: 1-2.) The writer of Hebrews is dealing, as Paul did elsewhere, with people who were trying to impose
the dietary laws on the New Covenant. He states flatly that the Old Covenant believers "were not benefited"
by the dietary laws.

Clearly, as we have seen, there was a benefit to obeying the dietary laws in the Old Covenant. Only those
who kept these laws were allowed to draw near, and those who disobeyed displeased the Lord. The point of
Hebrews is that considered as food these laws contained no benefit. This, of course, is not surprising. If
these laws were beneficial for health God would have given them to Noah or to Abraham.

Hebrews goes on to point our attention to the New Covenant dietary law, the Lord's Supper. The "altar" of
verse 10 is the Person and body of Jesus Christ. We have to bear in mind always that the altar of the Old
Covenant only symbolized human beings, which is why it was consecrated. Thus, the ultimate "Altar" is
Christ Himself. Eating of the Christ-Altar is eating the Lord's Supper. Against many Roman Catholic
interpretations we must say that the altar is not the table in the Church. Against many Protestant
interpretations, however, we must say that "eating from the altar" is not simply a metaphor for meditation
on Christ. Food is in view here. Thus, it is the Lord's Supper that is spoken of. (Compare the reference to
New Covenant baptism in Hebrews 10:22.) Of course, by way of application meditating on the whole
sacrificial work of Jesus Christ is not excluded from consideration, but the direct reference surely seems to
be to the Covenant Meal proper.

50
Possibly this correlates with our observations in paper No.10 in this series concerning the flesh. The flesh is the "middle man,"
while the spirit is the "inner man" and the skin and garments the "outer man." The flesh then corresponds to the Holy Place, while the
innermost part of the person corresponds to the Holy of Holies. From this perspective, the cleansings of the Old Testament could only
cleanse the flesh, but not the heart or spirit of man, and thus the defiled heart kept re-defiling the flesh. In the New Covenant, the Holy
Spirit has come to cleanse the human heart and spirit, the innermost aspect of man. The correlations seem to be thus:

Flesh Spirit

Architectural Holy Place Most Holy

Psychological Middle Man Innermost Man
Eschatological Adam/Old Covenant Christ/New Covenant

197
 Conclusion

Without trying to summarize all the material presented in this paper, one thing clearly emerges: It is the
uniform testimony of the New Testament that the dietary laws of Moses have been abolished in the work of
Christ. The strongest statement of this, perhaps, is in Hebrews 13:9, where those who advocate the
continued observance of these laws are said to advocate teachings alien to the Gospel. That is, such
teachings are heretical, and they are heretical because they divert attention from the True Altar, Jesus
Christ.

198
SECTION 13 - AN EXPOSITION OF LEVITICUS 11

Table of Contents

An Overview of Leviticus 11 3 The Laws of Food and Unclean Animals, 4 The Laws of Uncleanness, 6
Divide the Hoof and Chew the Cud 8 Moses and Aaron, 8 Edible Animals, 10 Hooves, 11
The Divided Hoof, 13
Bringing up the Cud, 14 The Clean Man, 17
Counterfeits of the Clean Man, 18 The Sociological Picture, 18 Swine, 23
Eschatological Incorporation, 27 Meat and Carcass, 28 Conclusion, 28
Addendum: The Covering of Angelic Feet, 29
Armor in the World. 30 The Language of Detestation, 30 Seas and Rivers, 32 Fins and Scales, 32 The
Gentile Sea, 35 Conclusion, 36
Unclean Spirits 38 Identifications, 38 Interpretations, 43 Birds of Prey, 45
Birds of Desolation, 47 Conclusion, 49
Additional Note: Elijah and the Ravens, 50
Hopping Things. 52 Clean Swarmers, 52
A Full picture of the Dietary Law System, 54 Leviticus 11 and Genesis 3, 55

Touch Not, Handle Not. 57 Touching and Handling, 59

Unclean Issues, 59
The Plague of Decay ("Leprosy"), 61 Corpse Contamination, 62
Sacrifices for Impurity, 63 Garments, 64
Touching and Eating, 67 Washing with Water, 73
Unclean Until Evening, 75 Conclusion, 75
Housebreakers. 77 Swarming and Crawling, 78
Boundary Transgression, 80
An Overview of Leviticus 11:32-38, 82
The Spread of Death. 83 Contaminated Articles, 83 Immersion, 85
The Spread of Death, 86 Conclusion, 87
Clay Pots and Stoves. 89 The Porosity Interpretation, 90 Man: Made of Clay, 92 Vessels of Clay, 95
House and Vessel, 97
Stoves and Altars, 99 Food, 101
Conclusion, 102
Clean Water, New Life 103 Water, 103
Water and Men, 106 Seeds, 180
Daniel's Seeds, 110
A Summary of the Domestic Symbolism
of Leviticus 11:32-38 112 Swarming Things. 116 The Dietary Laws of Deuteronomy 14 119

Chapter 1 - An Overview of Leviticus 11

We turn now from our consideration of the overall Biblical theology of the Mosaic dietary laws to an
exposition of Leviticus 11, the chapter where those laws are set out in fullest detail. The purpose of the
present chapter is to provide an outline and overview of Leviticus 11, preparatory to our exposition of it.

Leviticus II falls into two large sections. The first deals with animals of land, sea, and air. It states first
which may and may not be eaten. The second section deals with uncleanness as it comes to men and
implements from contact with dead animal carcasses. It focuses primarily on swarming creatures, boundary
transgressors that invade the home.

In general, the chapter follows the concerns surrounding the serpent in Genesis 3. The serpent was a "dead
boundary transgressor," bringing death into the garden. He also seduced Eve and Adam into eating

199
forbidden food. More pointedly, the curse on the serpent in Genesis 3:14-15 has two parts. The first speaks
of his habits and diet, and the second speaks of the enmity the woman has against him. 1

14. And the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than
all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly shall you go, and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.

15. "And I will put enmity between you and woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall
bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."

The enmity between the seeds does not seem to come up in Leviticus 11 per se, unless this is an extended
implication of the seed laws of verses 37-38. Of course, more generally since the laws have to do with
idolatry and alliances, the war of the seeds pervades the chapter.

The first section of Leviticus 11 describes the characteristics of unclean animals, and states that their flesh
is not to be eaten, and that a man becomes unclean if he touches their carcasses. This corresponds to
Genesis 3:14. All unclean creatures are like the serpent in the way they move about the earth. They are
either unshod (most land animals, fish, and crawlers), or else put their feet in unclean places (birds).

In the course of the second section of Leviticus 11 we move to the enmity between the serpent and the
woman. The serpent " invaded " the garden and assaulted the woman. Just so, the swarming things invade
the woman's home and leave their carcasses in her cookware, on her stoves, and in her stores.

As we shall see in Chapter 7 below, this division corresponds in a general way to the distinction between
crawling and swarming. The idea of crawling is the idea of locomotion. The idea of swarming is the idea of
boundary trespass.

The Laws of Food and Unclean Animals

Outline:
I. Laws of Food:
A. Clean and unclean land animals, vv. 2-8.
B. Clean and unclean water animals, vv. 9-12.
C. Clean and unclean birds, vv. 13-19.
D. Clean and unclean swarming things, vv. 20-23.

Eve explained to the serpent, "From the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said,
“You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die" (Gen. 3:2). Leviticus 11 follows this progression of
thought. Verses 2-23 discuss which animals may be eaten, and verses 24-45 state that their carcasses cause
uncleanness (symbolic death) if touched.2

Four categories of animals are discussed, as summarized in verse 46: "This is the law regarding the animal,
and the bird, and every living tiling that moves in the waters, and everything that swarms on the earth." We
have seen in paper No.6, "Animals and the Bible," that this four-fold category scheme is very common in
the Bible.

Clean land animals must have hooves. They must be shod against the soil's curse, and not travel in the soil
like the serpent. Their hooves must be fully divided, seemingly to give them greater precision and accuracy
in locomotion. Finally, they must chew the cud. These animals are most like man, being created on the

1
Bear in mind our discussion in paper No.8, "Diet From Adam to Moses," to the effect that God has no hostility toward His friend the
serpent. The serpent bears this curse only as a reminder to humanity. The serpent is God's agent to bring judgment upon sinful man.
2
Given the fact that the Bible here and elsewhere associates eating with touching, we must reject the notion that Eve was guilty of
"adding to God's word" when she said "neither shall you touch it." Rather, she had made an apparently legitimate inference from what
Adam had told her. It is difficult to be dogmatic here, of course, though in my opinion the strong weight of the rest of the Biblical
testimony goes to show that Eve's inference was proper.

200
same day as man, and thus like man they must "eat with care."

Are clean animals required to chew the cud as an image of the Israelite's adherence to the Mosaic dietary
laws? It would seem not, for two reasons. First, the clean wild animals (deer, gazelle) seem to be associated
with God-fearing Gentiles. Second, the requirement is stated in terms of what they eat, not in terms of how
they eat. Human beings cannot eat the grasses normally eaten by ruminants, and goats will readily eat filth.3
Thus, I shall argue that rumination was to be associated with any Godly person, whether an Israelite under
the dietary laws, or a converted Gentile not under them.

Clean fish must have scales, which is the equivalent of being shod against the soil, and they must have fins,
which is the equivalent of having a divided hoof enabling them to move with precision and accuracy.

Leviticus 11:13-19 simply lists unclean birds without giving a rule. The rule is implied, however, by
Genesis 8:7-9, where the dove was unwilling to put her food on defiled places of the earth, while the raven
was willing to do so. Thus, by implication the rules of contact and carefulness are operative here as well.
(Unclean birds are usually explained as carnivores, though. For a full discussion, see Chapter 4 below.)

Finally, the only clean swarming things are those that have wings, and thus generally avoid the cursed soil
to which they are so closely bound, and also have jointed legs with which to hop. Once again we are in the
areas of contact and locomotion.

Thus, arising from Genesis 1 and the created nature of animals, locomotion is a concern in distinguishing
clean and unclean animals (see paper No.6). Arising from Genesis 3, contact with the soil is the other major
concern. Since the dirt-eating serpent was cursed "above all cattle and beasts of the field" (Gen. 3:14), is it
with reference to only land animals that the criterion of eating habits comes into play.

The laws of Uncleanness

Outline:
II. Laws of Uncleanness.
A. The carcasses of unclean animals, vv. 24-28.
B. Eight swarming things that pollute the home.
1. The general rule of swarming things, vv. 29-31.
2. Contamination of household objects, v. 32.
3. Contamination of cooking implements, vv. 33-35
4. Contamination of springs of water, v. 36
5. Contamination of seeds, vv. 37-38.
C. The carcasses of clean animals, vv. 39-40.
D. The law of all swarming things, vv. 41-54.

This section moves from law to sanctions. In verses 2-23, the people were simply told not to eat certain
animals and to regard their carcasses as unclean or detestable. In verses 24-45 it is stated that men and
things became defiled through certain kinds of contact with these animals.

The first set of laws concerns the uncleanness caused by the carcasses of unclean land animals. Though it is
not stated, it is generally agreed that the carcasses of unclean fish, birds, and swarming things caused the
same kinds of uncleanness.

Eight animals (two rodents and six lizards) are listed in verses 29-30 as unclean among the swarming
things. Verses 41-44 state that all swarming things are unclean. It seems, then, that the laws found
immediately after verses 29-30 deal only with the eight large swarmers mentioned. These eight animals
caused contamination if their corpses were found on household implements, particularly those associated

3
"Chickens and goats...given motivation and opportunity, also readily dine on dung." Marvin Harris, The Sacred Cow and the
Abominable Pig (New York: Simon and Schuster/Touchstone, 1985), p. 68.

201
with food and cooking. Evidently other swarming things, such as roaches and ants, did not cause such
contaminations. After all, if dead insects caused pollution to household implements, they would be unclean
constantly. Thus, it seems that only these eight larger swarmers -- and possibly those equivalent in size --
caused uncleanness to implements.

These two paragraphs (Lev. 11:24-38) deal only with uncleanness from contact with carcasses of dead
animals. The last two paragraphs return to the theme of food, and the uncleanness caused by eating
forbidden flesh. Verses 39-40 state that the carcasses of food animals are unclean, and cause uncleanness if
touched or eaten. Verses 41-45 state that all swarming things are forbidden as food, and cause uncleanness
if their carcasses are touched.

Conclusion

There is an interesting, though incomplete, parallel between the two sections of Leviticus 11. The first of
the four subsections in each group deals with land animals, and the last in each group deals with swarming
things. It is possible to speculate on "depth connections" between these sections:

Diagram 13.1

Leviticus 11:2-23 Leviticus 11:24-45

1. Clean & unclean land animals Pollution from unclean land carcasses
2. Clean & unclean swarming fish Pollution from 8 swarming house-breakers
3. Clean & unclean birds Pollution from clean land carcasses
4. Clean & unclean swarmers Pollution from unclean swarmers

There is a slight connection between the fish and the house- breakers in that the fish are expressly called
"the swarming life of the water" in verse 10 (and cf. Gen. 1:20-22). The connection between unclean birds
and clean land carcasses is harder to find, but perhaps an Israelite who meditated on the law day and night
(Ps. 1:2) might come up with this: Unclean birds put their feet in unclean places, and as a result light on and
eat carrion. This may be analogous to the man who puts his hand on the carrion of a clean animal and eats
it.

Possibly, of course, no such connections are intended, but there does seem to be some correlation between
the first and fourth in each group, which invites us to consider the possibility that there is more under the
surface.

202
Chapter 2 - Divide the Hoof and Clew the Cud

Leviticus 11:1. The Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them:

2. Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, This is the animal [beast] that you may eat from all the
animals [cattle] that are on the land.

3. All that is covered with hoof and dividing is a divider of hooves, a bringer up of cud, among the
cattle, you may eat her.

4. Only this you must not eat from the bringers up of cud and from the coverers with the hoof: The
camel, though he is a bringer up of cud, yet a hoof is not to him a covering; unclean is he for you.

5. And the rock hyrax, 1 though he is a bringer up of cud, yet he does not cover [with] hoof;
unclean is he for you.

6. And the rabbit, though she is a bringer up of cud, yet she does not cover [with] hoof; unclean is
she for you.

7. And the pig, though he is a coverer of hoof, and dividing is a divider of hoof, yet he does not
grind cud; unclean is he for you.

8. From their meat you must not eat, and on their carcass you must not touch; unclean they are for
you.

Moses and Aaron

Both Moses and Aaron are addressed in this speech. Exactly what accounts for this is unclear. There are
thirty-six speeches of the Lord in Leviticus. Thirty-one are addressed to Moses alone, and four are
addressed to both Moses and Aaron. These four all fall within the second section of the book, chapters 8-
16, which commences with Aaron's consecration as the new Adam of the sanctuary. After the
fall and destruction of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2), the Lord spoke directly to Aaron, the
only time He did so, and told him that he had "to make a distinction between the holy and the profane,
between the unclean and the clean, and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has
spoken to them through Moses" (Lev. 10:10-11).

The chapters that follow set out the laws of uncleanness, and perhaps that is why Aaron is addressed along
with Moses. Yet Aaron is not included every time. Aaron is addressed along with Moses regarding the food
laws, "leprosy" identification and quarantine, "leprosy" in houses, and discharges from the flesh (Lev. 11:1;
13:1; 14:33; 15:1), but Moses is addressed alone regarding uncleanness from childbirth, cleansing of
"leprosy," and the day of atonement (Lev. 12:1; 14:1; 16:1).

I think that what accounts for the difference is this: Moses received the law, but the Aaronic priests and the
Levites were to teach it to Israel (Lev. 10:11). Those sections of the laws of uncleanness that require a great
deal of awareness on the part of the people are addressed to Aaron with Moses, because Aaron would have
to train the people in that awareness. The people would have to be intimately aware of the dietary laws and
the domestic contamination laws of Leviticus 11. They would have to be intimately aware of the signs of
Decay, set out in Leviticus 13, and of the signs of such "leprosy" in houses, Leviticus 14:33-57. They
would also have to be intimately aware of the nature of flesh discharges and the degrees of uncleanness
caused by them (Lev. 15).

1
Or coney. Not rock badger. The rock hyrax lives among the rocks (Ps. 104:18; Prov. 30:26), and is called feeble (Prov. 30:26),
something not true of any badger.

203
As regards childbirth (Lev. 12), cleansing from "leprosy" (Lev. 14:1-32), and the day of atonement (Lev.
16), the primary focus is on the work of the priests. Compared to the other sections, there was relatively
little for Aaron to teach the people. Thus, he is not explicitly addressed.2

Verse 2 says that Aaron and Moses were to "speak to the sons of Israel" and tell them these laws.
Obviously teaching is involved here. The curious thing is that this phrase is not attached to all the laws. For
instance, in Leviticus 12:2 and 15:2 we find this same phrase, "Speak to the sons of Israel." After Leviticus
13:1, 14:1, and 14:33, however, we find no such phrase. The results of this are tabularized in Diagram 13.2.

Diagram 13.2

Dietary Laws Moses and Aaron Teach Israel

Childbearing Moses Teach Israel
Decay Identification Moses and Aaron
Decay Cleansing Moses
Decay in Houses Moses and Aaron
Issues Moses and Aaron Teach Israel

An examination of other sections of Leviticus will reveal the same phenomena. Sometimes we read, “The
Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak unto Aaron....’” (at 6:8, 24; 21:1, 16; 22:1). In these places it is clear
that the laws being given pertain mainly to the priests. At other places, Aaron and Israel are addressed (at
17:1 and 22:17), and again the laws given at these places very much concern both priests and Israel. But
what accounts for the fact that in the laws of sacrifice, Israel is to be “told” concerning Whole Burnt
Offerings, Peace Offerings, and Purification Offerings (at 1:1; 4:1), but is not ordered to be “told” about
Compensation Offerings (at 5:14; 6:1)? More to the point, what accounts for this omission of this phrase in
all the laws of Decay?

Possibly this indicates that Gentile proselytes were more concerned with Decay than with other forms of
uncleanness, so that not just Israel but everyone was to be taught about this. Such an hypothesis fails to
account for the omission of this phrase in connection with the law of the priests' cereal offering (at 6:19),
the Day of Atonement (at 16:1-2 and 23:26), and the qualifications for sacrifices (at 22:26).

Well, it is the business of a commentator to point out his ignorance as well as his knowledge. I am
providing a complete commentary on Leviticus 11 here, but I have to confess that this is a problem for
which I can offer no suggested solution at present.

Edible Animals

In Leviticus 11:2, both the word "beast" and the word "cattle" are used. Possibly the contrast is significant
here. The verse states that of all "beasts," that is, land quadrupeds in general, these are the "cattle," that is,
domestic animals that may be eaten. While Israel was in the wilderness, only domestic animals were
generally available. The food of clean "beasts," such as deer and gazelle, was seldom obtainable before
they came into the promised land (cf. Dt. 14:4-5). Possibly the law intends to speak only of clean domestic
animals, and for this reason. At the same time, since Israel did encounter and eat some non-sacrificial
animals in the wilderness (Lev. 17:13; Num. 11:31-33), I doubt if verse 2 intends a contrast. More likely,
"beast" and "cattle" are both used in order to indicate that the law covers both categories.

Edible animals have three characteristics. They have hooves. Their hooves are completely divided. They
chew cud. We need to look at each of these in detail.

2
This is also the view, in general, of Samuel Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch Translated and Explained, trans. Isaac Levy. Vol. 3:
Leviticus, 2nd ed. (London: Honig and Sons, 1962), pp. 266-67, 330.

204
 Hooves

The first characteristic of a clean animal is that it must have hooves. The Hebrew says maphreseth parsah.
There is dispute over what this means. It is agreed that parsah means hoof, but the question is what does
maphreseth mean? Both words are related to the Hebrew verb paras. Some authorities say that paras means
"divide, split," and it is because hooves are split that parsah means "hoof."3 Others say that paras means
"cover," and that it is because hooves are shoes that parsah means "hoof."

Hirsch writes, "As parsah occurs also referring to the single-hoofed horse, it can not be derived from paras
'to break,' and mean a cloven hoof. It seems rather, from the meaning of paras 'to spread over, to cover,' to
mean the horny covering which forms the hoof in which the claws of hoofed animals are set, and then
parsah would mean 'hoof."4

The "s" in parsah is a samekh, and paras with a samekh is generally thought to mean "break, split." The "s"
in paras meaning "cover" is a sin. Thus, it is understandable that parsah is usually related to paras meaning
"split." At the same time, though, very often sin and samekh change places,5 and Hirsch is completely
within the bounds of Hebrew orthography to suggest that parsah is related to paras meaning "cover." Hirsch
makes a telling point in asking why a word meaning "split" would be used to refer to a horse's hoof, which
is unsplit? Moreover, why would Leviticus 11:3 go on to say that the hoof must be divided (shasa’), if
maphreseth parsah already means "split hoof"?6

Thus I take it that the first qualification is that the clean animal be naturally shod. He must have a shoe to
keep his feet from contact with the curse-prosecuting soil. In this regard he is an image of the godly man.

Regarding the camel it is said (v. 4) that "a hoof is not to him a covering," while of the rock hyrax and
rabbit is it said (vv. 5, 6) that he or she "does not cover [with] hoof." The difference in phrasing reflects the
fact that the rock hyrax and rabbit do not have a hoof at all, while "the hoofs of the Arabian camel are not
typical of ungulates but are rather like great claws. The toes are not completely separated and the main part
of the foot applied to the ground is a large pad that underlies the proximal joints of the digits." 7 Thus these
animals are like the serpent in that they move with their feet in contact with the soil, "crawling on their
bellies" as it were, either unshod or incompletely shod.

This stipulation is repeated with slightly different language in verses 26 and 27:

26. Regarding every animal that is covered of hoof but dividing does not divide or cud is not
chewing, they are unclean to you. Everyone who touches them will be unclean. 8

27. And every one that walks upon his paws among all the animals that walk upon all fours, they
are unclean to you. Everyone who touches their carcasses will be unclean until the evening.

The animal in verse 26 is like the horse or donkey, which has a shoe but whose hoof is not divided.

3
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Walkte, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1980), #1821; also Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon.
4
Hirsch, op cit. Vol. 2: Exodus, 3rd ed. (1967), on Ex. 10:26. Transliterations mine, and punctuation adjusted for clarity.
5
“Syriac always represents both sounds by samekh, and in Hebrew also they are sometimes interchanged." Gesenius's Hebrew
Grammar, 2d. Eng. ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1910), p. 33.
6
Hirsch goes further and insists that paras (samekh) does not mean split or divide, but cover, and is just a variant spelling of paras
(sin). "That the verbal form of the word likewise does not mean divide or split is shown by the expression mqrin mpris (Ps. 69:31),
where mpris quite clearly means 'hoofed' as mqrin 'horned.' Wesseley too, in his commentary on this verse [Lev. 11:3] gives it this
meaning." Hirsch, Leviticus, p. 268. Transliterations mine. Thus, Isaiah 58:7 would not say "divide your bread with the hungry," but
"spread out your bread for the hungry." Jeremiah 16: 7 would not say "neither will men break bread in mourning," but "neither will
men spread out bread in mourning." Lamentations 4:4, which uses a sin rather than a samekh (remember, they are often
interchangeable), would not read "the little ones ask for bread, but no one breaks it for them," but "no one spreads it out for them."
Finally, the last instance, Micah 3:3 (again sin instead of samekh), would not read "who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh
for the pot,” but "who spread them out like meat for the pan, like flesh for the pot." All of these are perfectly reasonable re-
translations.
7
"Camel," in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia fully reviseded. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-) 1:583.
8
That is, touches their carcasses, in context. See Chapter 6 below.

205
Verse 27 speaks of animals that walk on their paws, or more generally "soles, palms." The Hebrew, kaph,
refers to the fleshy sole of the foot, the hollow of the thigh, or palm of the hand. 9 It is also the word for
spoon. The Hebrew word yad means "hand" in the sense of an extension, figuratively a manifestation of
power and control. Kaph, by way of contrast, means "palm."10 And as mentioned, it also refers to the sole
of the foot (Gen. 8:9; Dt. 11:24; Josh. 1:3; etc.). Thus, kaph has to do not with extension and power but
with contact. It is thus the appropriate word to use in contrast to hoof. The hoofed animal is shod and
avoids contact with the soil. The kaph animal is unshod and his fleshy palm walks on the earth.

The Divided Hoof

In addition to having a covered foot, the clean animal must have a split hoof. Deuteronomy 14:6 amplifies
and elucidates the idea:

And any animal covered with hoof and dividing is a divider of two hooves, a bringer up of cud,
among the animals, her you may eat.

The expression "two hooves" makes it clear that in the expression "dividing is a divider of hooves" in
Leviticus 11:3, the repetition of "divide" indicates that the hoof must be completely separated, forming two
hooves.

Why does the hoof have to be divided? Remember, these laws have nothing to do with hygiene. They are
symbolic. How does the divided hoof image the righteous man? There are several dimensions of this we
can look at.

First, the cherubim who guard the throne of God and who support His chariot are said to have divided
hooves. "The soles of their feet were like a calf's hoof" (Ezk. 1:7). This certainly correlates to the idea that
the righteous man is also a guardian of God's holiness. 11

Second, three times the Bible states that God "has made my feet like hinds' feet, and makes me walk on my
high places" (2 Sam. 22:34; Ps. 18:33; Hab. 3:19). These verses speak of the sure-footedness of God's
warrior, but they may also imply walking on God's holy mountain, access to His sanctuary. 12

Third, the divided hoof enables the animal to walk with greater precision and accuracy. This is probably the
root association, especially since distinguishing between the holy and the profane, between the unclean and
the clean, is the overall purpose of this passage and the rest of Leviticus 11-15. The righteous man makes
such a distinction. He walks with precision and accuracy. He is not only shod against the soil, he is also
careful in his contacts with the world.13

Fourth, Colossians 2: 21 distinguishes between touching and handling, and we shall discuss this in detail in
Chapter 6 below. It is the fact that a man's hand is broken into fingers, particularly the opposition of the
four fingers and the thumb, that enable a man to grasp or handle an object, as opposed merely to touching
it. If a man grasps something, he divides his hand into two parts, thumb and fingers. Just so, the division of
the hoof into two separately-moving parts means that the animal "handles" as well as "touches" properly.
His hoof is a shoe for his kaph, but being divided it is also a glove for his yad.

9
A curious mistake in the otherwise careful and excellent work of Gordon Wenham occurs in his Leviticus, where he says that the
word here is yad, which means "hand." This is simply not the case. Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 177.
10
Thus, e.g., Deuteronomy 25:12 does not say that the criminal's hand should be cut off, but that her palm should be cut off; that is,
split.
11
For some further remarks on the covering of angelic feet, see the end of this chapter.
12
Particularly since it was as a war-host that Israel encamped with God in the wilderness (Num. 1-2), and it was as a war-host that the
Israelite males were to present themselves thrice annually before God at the sanctuary (Ex. 23: 17).
13
“I do not find any fault with, nor even refuse, that which has been handed down from the ancient teachers, viz., that by the cleaving
of the hoof is signified prudence in distinguishing the mysteries of Scripture." John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of
Moses, Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles w. Bingham, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1852-55] 1979) 2:61.

206
 Bringing up the Cud

Except for verse 7, which says "grind the cud," the expression for chewing the cud is literally "bring up the
cud. " The idea is that the animal brings back up into its mouth something that it has already swallowed,
and chews on it. Ruminants have more than one stomach, and bring food back into the mouth from inside,
only to swallow it again into another stomach. Thereby they process their food slowly and carefully.

The rabbit does not ruminate, but does re-ingest its droppings, thereby bringing back up the cud. As
Harrison writes, "While the rabbit does not have a four-part stomach, it can nevertheless ferment food. By
ingesting its soft droppings, it increases its nitrogen and protein balance, and at the same time acquires
extra sodium and potassium. The ingestion process provides the rabbit with 100% more riboflavin, 80%
more niacin, 160% more pantothenic acid, and a little in excess of 40% more of vitamin B 12." 14 Similarly,
Cansdale writes, "At certain times of the day, when the hare is resting, it passes droppings of different
texture, which it at once eats. Thus the hare appears to be chewing without taking fresh greens into its
mouth. On its first passage through the gut, indigestible vegetable matter is acted on by bacteria and can be
better assimilated the second time through." 15

It is also often remarked that the way the rabbit chews its food has the appearance of cud-chewing, and that
the Bible is simply using the language of appearance here. That is possibly intended, though as we have
seen a more literal interpretation is possible for the rabbit. The other animal mentioned, the rock hyrax,
does not in fact eat its food twice, although "the hyrax spends much time chewing with a cross-wise
movement of the jaws, suggestive of ruminating.” 16 Thus, the language of appearance seems paramount in
its case. The hyrax appears to bring up cud, even though he does not in fact do so.

Well, what does bringing up the cud mean, considered symbolically? The traditional interpretation is that it
is a picture of the righteous man meditating on the Word of God.17 The righteous man reads and learns the
Word, and then brings it back up into his mind so that he can meditate on it day and night (Ps. 1:2). This
interpretation has much to commend it, and since no other interpretation has been forthcoming, it is still the
best.

The Bible speaks of eating God's Word:

How sweet are Thy words to my palate!

Sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Psalm 119:103

Thy words were found and I ate them,

And Thy words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart.
Jeremiah 15: 16

Then He said to me, "Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the
house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. And He said to me,
"Son of man, feed your stomach, and fill your inward parts with this scroll which I am
giving you." Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.
Ezekie1 3:1-3

The Bible speaks of holding God's Word in one's mouth:

14
R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1980), p. 121.
15
G. S. Cansdale, "Hare," Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible [ZEPD] (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, date) 3:33.
16
G. S. Cansdale, "Coney," in ZPEB 1:937.
17
Calvin, 2:61-62; Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 3 vols. (London: Banner of Truth, [1683] 1962) 1:221;
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Bible (numerous editions), comments on Lev. 11:1-8.

207
 And it [the Feast of Passover] shall be for a sign to you on your hand, and as a reminder
between your eyes, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth.
Exodus 13: 9

And do not take the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,

For I wait for Thine ordinances.
Psalm 119:43

The Bible speaks of meditating on the Word:

But his delight is in the law of the Lord,

And in His law he meditates day and night.
Psalm 1:2

O how I love Thy law!

It is my meditation all the day
Psalm 119:97 (cp. vv. 15, 23, 48, 78, 99, 148)

Finally, the Bible puts these ideas together in passages that speak of the law's being in both mouth and
heart, such as Deuteronomy 30:14, "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that
you may observe it." Or more powerfully, Joshua 1:8, "This book of the law shall not depart from your
mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night." Here the law stays in the mouth (not the heart) for the
purpose of meditation. It is hard to resist associating this with chewing the cud. Last but not least,
Revelation 10:9-11 pictures eating the word, taking it down into the belly, and then bringing it up again:

And I went to the Angel, telling Him to give me the little book. And He said to me, "Take it, and
eat it; and it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey." And I
took the little book out of the Angel's hand and ate it, and it was in my mouth sweet as honey; and
when I had eaten it, my stomach was made bitter. And they said to me, "You must prophesy again
concerning many people and nations and tongues and kings."

In other words, the content of John's prophecy is the little book that he has just eaten.

The C1ean Man

We now have a picture of the clean man, a picture as valid today as when it was first given. The clean man
is first of all a man who wears spiritual shoes, creating a barrier between himself and the corruptions of the
world. Like the Tabernacle, which was itself shod in dolphin leather, the clean man respects the boundary
between righteousness and sin, and between clean and unclean things.

Second, he is a man who moves with spiritual precision and accuracy in the world. His hooves, with which
he contacts the world, are divided, enabling him to exercise discrimination. He distinguishes between the
clean and the unclean, between the holy and the profane.

Finally, he is a man who meditates on God's word. He takes it into himself, and then chews on it betimes,
until it becomes part and parcel of the warp and woof of his being.

The clean man is the Godly man. Perhaps we should see in the characteristics of the clean animal also a
picture of God Himself. The Tabernacle, as we have seen, was shod with leather, establishing a boundary
between God and sin. God certainly "divides the hoof" as He approaches the world, justifying the righteous
and condemning the wicked. Finally, our God is a continually consuming fire in Himself (Dt.4:24).

How could the clean man become unclean under the Old Covenant? First of all, he could become unclean
by touching the carcass of an unclean animal. Thus he defiled his hoof.

208
Second, he could become unclean by handling the carcass of an unclean animal. Thus he defiled his organ
of handling, his divided hoof.

Third, he could become unclean by eating the flesh of an unclean animal. Thus he defiled his stomach, and
substituted defilement for rumination.

We shall take up these three stages of uncleanness in more detail in Chapter 6. While these symbolic forms
of defilement no longer operate in the New Covenant, i t is still the case that the Christian feels defiled if he
comes in contact with wickedness. He begins to become more spiritually defiled if he grasps and handles
wickedness, and he becomes most seriously defiled if he consumes wickedness, taking it into himself.

Counterfeits of the Clean Man

Verses 4-6 mention three animals that chew the cud but do not part the hoof: the camel, the rock hyrax, and
the rabbi t. As we "meditate on the law day and night" we can see these animals as pictures of people who
are full of opinions, but who do not live righteous lives. They are not shod against the world, and they do
not discriminate in their behavior. They picture the kind of people who had taken over the Pharisees in
Jesus day. Such men spent their time discussing theology but lived immoral lives. Their meditations were
perverse and pointless. We can make this even more pointed when we realize that the hyrax only appears to
chew cud, and the rabbit eats his own manure. How many "righteous Pharisees" of old were busy
meditating on something other than God's Word -- on the oral law? How many Pharisees today meditate on
and live by standards not derived from the Bible? (On the Pharisees and the law, see our discussion in
paper No. 12, "The Mosaic Dietary laws and the New Covenant.")

From the Pharisee we turn to the heretic. The pig is unclean because though it divides the hoof, it does not
meditate on the Word of God. The pig is a picture of the fastidious heretics of all ages. They are
meticulously careful in their external walk, but inwardly they are filled with evil opinions. The Word of
God runs right through them. It never takes hold. Curiously, fastidious heretics throughout history have
often advocated weird dietary rules, among which avoidance of pork generally figures prominently.

Possibly in that we are given three cases of orthodox but immoral people and only one case of the
moralizing heretic, the Bible wants us to consider the former more dangerous to the covenant community.

The Sociological Picture

We should now drop back and take a larger view of the land animals in general, and the correlations
between them and the nations. Up to now we have engaged in "wisdom" religious meditation on how the
clean and unclean animals image righteous and sinful men. These laws are also sociological in character.
There are four basic kinds of land animals, and just so there are four basic classes of people the Israelites
might come in contact with. The following, I suggest, is what the scheme as a whole implies:

209
 Diagram 13.3

Main categories:

1. Clean domestic animals Israelites

la. Unblemished Clean: sanctuary access
lb. Blemished Unclean: no sanctuary access
2. Unclean domestic animals Excommunicated Israelites
3. Clean wild animals God-fearing Gentiles
4. Unclean wild animals Heathen

Borderline cases:

5. Unshod animals that ruminate (rabbit) Eunuchs?

6. Shod but lacking split hoof (horse) Bastards?
7. Shod but don't ruminate (pig) Moabites & Ammonites?

First, the three clean domestic animals were the sheep, the goat, and the ox. These three alone had access to
the sanctuary as sacrifices, and thus they represent Israelites. To be eligible for sacrifice, these animals had
to be unblemished (Lev. 22:18-25). Just so, in order to draw near to the sanctuary, the Israelite had to be
clean.

Second, the primary unclean domestic animal was the donkey. To separate the clean from the unclean, the
donkey was not to be yoked with the ox (Dt. 22:10). The donkey was the beast of burden for Israel (Gen.
44:3, 13, 23; Ex. 23:5; etc.). I originally speculated that the donkey might refer to the heathen slaves
purchased by the Israelites as "hewers of wood and drawers of water" (Dt. 29:11; Josh. 9:21, 23, 27). Since,
however, all such slaves were circumcised and thereby made child-like members of Israelite households, I
have discarded this interpretive option.18 It seems to me now that the unclean domestic animal is to be
associated with the excommunicated ("cut off") Israelite.19

It would be wrong to associated the (permanently) unclean animal with the unclean Israelite, because
uncleanness in men was only temporary. Mere ceremonial uncleanness would be no bar to a relationship.
The unclean Israelite would be like the blemished sacrificial animal: edible but not offerable. Thus, I
believe that the logic of the system requires that both clean and (temporarily) unclean Israelites were
symbolized by the clean domestic animals

By way of contrast, however, the God-fearing Israelite was not to yoke himself, in marriage or business
contracts, with an Israelite who had been excommunicated from the assembly for sin. Such
excommunicated persons might be used, as one would use a donkey, but should not be "eaten,” or joined
with in covenant. Thus, the unclean domestic animal would be a symbol for the apostate Israelite. Such a
man still lived in God's land, but he had been permanently barred from the sanctuary (until he brought a
sacrifice, and by means of such a "new Passover" was given access once again).

Diagram 13.4

Unblemished Clean Domestic Animal = Clean Israelite, having both theoretical and actual sanctuary access.
Blemished Clean Domestic Animal = Unclean Israelite, having theoretical but not actual sanctuary access.
Unclean Domestic Animal = Excommunicated Israelite, lacking both theoretical and actual sanctuary access.

18
Exodus 12:44; Leviticus 22:1; Genesis 17:12,13. On Biblical slavery, and the circumcision of slaves, see James B. Jordan, The Law
of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), pp. 75-92; and see also Gary
North, Tools of Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus 21-40 (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).
19
On excommunication and "cutting off," see James B. Jordan, "The Death Penalty in the Mosaic Law: Five Exploratory Essays,"
chap 5 (available from Biblical Horizons).

210
Third, we find in Deuteronomy 14:4-5 a list of three clean domestic animals and seven clean wild animals.
These clean wild animals are:20

‘ayal the deer

tsvi the gazelle
yahmur the fallow deer (roebuck) [bubale]
‘qqo the wild goat or ibex [Nubian ibex]
dishon white-rumped antelope (pygard, ibex) [addax antelope]
th’o the wild ox or oryx or antelope [desert oryx]
zamer the wild goat or mountain sheep

These animals did not have access to the sanctuary, but they might be eaten. In terms of the symbolism of
this passage, that means they represent people who did not have routine access to the sanctuary, and thus
were not Israelites, but who might be married and otherwise covenanted with. Thus, they represent
converted, God-fearing Gentiles.

Zechariah 14:16 indicates that God-fearing Gentiles were welcome at the Feast of Tabernacles. At that
feast seventy bulls were sacrificed, and this is generally associated with the seventy nations of the world
(Num. 29:12-32; Gen. 10). Thus, while the uncircumcised God-fearer did not have the priestly status of an
Israelite, and thus was not invited to Passover, he was invited to share in God's eschatological, seventh
month feast.

It may seem a bit contradictory to say that animals that lacked sanctuary access (deer) could represented
people who did (proselytes). Remember, though, that all clean animals had sanctuary access outside the
borders of Israel. The Noahic provisions allowed the sacrifice of any clean animal, not just the five animals
allowed Israel.

Fourth, there are the unclean wild animals. Such animals were not to be eaten, and had no access to the
sanctuary. They represent people with whom Israelites were to make no covenants, primarily those of the
heathen idolatrous nations. As we shall see in Chapter 3, the land and its animals have to do with the land
of Israel, while the sea has to do with the Gentile world outside her boundaries. Thus, these unclean wild
animals would signify unconverted Gentiles who were passing through or sojourning in the land of Israel.

Beyond these four categories, there are the animals that seem to be half clean and half unclean, examples of
which are camel, hyrax, hare, and pig. Possibly these animals represent people who might have been
thought to be included in the covenant, but who are excluded. These examples show that to be clean an
animal (and a man) must have all three marks of cleanness, not just one or two. 21

What follows is quite speculative, but it is offered for your meditation. We can notice a rough correlation
between the three marks of cleanness (shoe, divided hoof, rumination) and three categories of questionable
persons who are excluded. These people are excluded from the assembly of the Lord. Joining the assembly
would have to mean changing from the status of proselyte to that of Israelite by circumcision. The people
excluded from the assembly were people excluded from the normal privileges of circumcision and
membership in Israel. If, for instance, an Edomite was circumcised, it was only his grandson who might
stand in the assembly (Dt. 23:7-8). Such excluded persons would not stand when the host gathered three
times a year to be presented before the Lord (Ex. 23:17), and they would not be enrolled as full citizens of
Israel (Num. 1:3). It also means that while they were permitted to come into the sanctuary forecourt to offer
personal sacrifices, they were not allowed to participate in Passover. They were not excluded from other
social and religious functions, however. They might attend sabbath-day worship (Lev. 23:3), own property,
and so forth.
20
Translation of several is in doubt. The first entry is from United Bible Societies, Fauna and Flora of the Bible, 2nd ed. (New York:
united Bible Societies, 1980). Entries in parenthesis indicate alternatives found in various translations. Entries in brackets are those of
George S. Cansdale, All the Animals of the Bible Lands (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 81-95.
21
For this insight I am indebted to Mary Douglas, though my development differs from hers. Douglas, Implicit Meanings: Essays in
Anthropology (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), chap. 17, "Self-evidence."

211
Thus, fifth, the eunuch: "No one who is emasculated, or has his male organ cut off, shall enter the assembly
of the Lord" (Dt. 23:1). The private parts of the human anatomy, below the waist, were called "feet," and
covering or uncovering the "feet" referred to covering or exposing nakedness. (See Ruth 3:4,7-9; 2 Kings
18:27; Is. 36:12; Ezk. 16:25, in Hebrew or in marginal English renderings; "urine" is literally "water of the
feet.") Is it possible that in the Hebrew mindset, the eunuch, whose "feet" were damaged, was equivalent to
an unshod animal?

Sixth, "no one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even unto
the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord" (Dt. 23: 3). The expression "unto the tenth
generation" does not mean "forever," but means that in the tenth generation the descendants may enter the
assembly once again.22 The bastard is a man who lacks a parent. Is it possible that in the Hebrew mindset,
the bastard, not having two legal parents, was equivalent to an animal lacking a "covering," a fully divided
hoof?23

Seventh, "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of their descendants, even
to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the Lord, because they did not meet you with bread
and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against Balaam the son of Beor
from Pethor of Aram-Naharaim to curse you" (Dt. 23:3-4). Ammonites and Moabites were descendants of
Lot, cousins of Israel. Were they "clean" or "unclean"? Could they be "eaten" into the assembly? No,
because they had not offered Israel food. Is it possible that in the Hebrew mindset, the sons of Lot, not
being committed to the Law and having refused food to Israel, were equivalent to animals that do not
ruminate?

Notice the language of the next verse, Deuteronomy 23:7-8, "You shall not abominate an Edomite, for he is
your brother; you shall not abominate an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. The sons of the
third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord." "Abominate" is the term used
with reference to the flesh of unclean animals in Deuteronomy 14, and implies religious and societal
rejection. The point of these verses is that Edomites and Egyptians are included, not excluded. They are
given three generations to learn the law, so that they can become proper ruminants.

I have argued elsewhere that the laws of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 are an exposition of Deuteronomy 22:10,
"You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” 24 Since the food laws of Leviticus 11 have to do
with who gets incorporated into the nation, with alliances, and with marital alliances and incorporation, it is
not surprising that there should be some correlation. Even if the correlation is not point for point as I have
expounded it, it is certainly the case that Deuteronomy 23:1-8 deals with questionable and borderline cases
of persons in the same way that Leviticus 11:4-7 does with animals.

Swine

For some reason, most American Christians believe that the Bible singles out the pig as the most
abominable, disgusting, detestable, abhorrent, and evil of all the animals. There is no foundation
whatsoever for this notion.

First of all, the flesh and carcasses of unclean animals are not spoken of as detestable, but only as unclean.
Thus, while pork was "unclean for you," shellfish was "detestable for you." As we shall see in Chapter 31
these differences in language are symbolic I and have to do with the fact that land animals are more closely
associated with the land of Israel, while other kinds of animals are more closely associated with the outside

22
The point of the genealogy in Ruth 4 is to show that David is at least ten generations removed from the Judah's bastard son Perez.
23
"Uncovering the feet" is an expression denoting marital relations in Ruth 3:4. Marriage involves the husband's "covering" of his
wife, Ruth 3:9. The bastard has no such covering, for his father did not cover his mother legally. In English also we use the word
"cover" in these ways, both for a physical "shoe" around something, and also for being in a protected situation (as when a cop says to
his partner, "Cover me.")
24
James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 71; and
Jordan, "The Law of Forbidden Mixtures" (available from Biblical Horizons).

212
world. Nevertheless, the language surrounding unclean fish, birds, and swarming things is stronger than the
language surrounding pigs.

Second, it is true that Peter says that "a sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire," but in the
same verse he says that "a dog returns to its own vomit" (2 Peter 2:22). Given a choice, would you rather
wallow in mud or eat vomit? In my opinion, this certainly makes dogs sound worse than pigs.

Third, there are only three references to eating swine's flesh as a sin, and they are in Isaiah 65 and 66.
Speaking of idolatrous worship, Isaiah 65:4 says that idolaters "sit among graves, and spend the night in
secret places, who eat swine's flesh, and the broth of desecration is in their pots.” 25 Isaiah compares dead
ritualism to idolatry in 66:3, including this statement: "He who offers a grain offering [is like one who
offers] swine's blood." Finally, Isaiah 66:17 says, "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the
gardens, following one in the center, who eat swine's flesh, detestable things, and mice, shall come to an
end altogether, declares the lord." Eating ritual pork is no worse than eating ritual mouse.

If the Bible does not single out pork as particularly revolting, then where did the idea come from? It makes
sense to suggest that it came into Western mythology from Islam. Pork is the only forbidden food for
Moslems, and they make a great to-do about avoiding it.26 In the Middle Ages, Jews in Moslem lands, such
as Moses Maimonides, were happy to please their Islamic hosts by joining in special condemnation of pork,
and thus of Christians, who relished it. Accordingly, Jewish writings became permeated with strong
language about swine. Christian expositors of the Old Testament have always leaned heavily -- too heavily
-- upon Jewish studies, and thus the influence came in. 27

Notice the comments of Elijah Judah Schochet:

The swine is the metaphorical symbol of disgust par excellence. A beautiful woman who is bereft
of discretion is aptly compared to a golden ring placed in the snout of a swine [Prov. 11:22].
Swine epitomized the food that was forbidden to the Israelites as detestable, and Isaiah describes
apostate Jews spitefully participating in heathen rites consisting of the consumption of swine-
flesh, while the First Book of the Maccabees depicts attempts to coerce pious Jews to eat pig-meat
[1 Macc. 1:47, 62]. Swine were also held in abhorrence by the Phoenicians and shunned by the
Egyptians, and later Mohammed also forbade his followers to partake of pig-flesh [Koran
2:168].28

This is awfully thin support for the contention that the pig is the "symbol of disgust par excellence. "
Important as the story in 1 Maccabees is for Jewish sentiment and tradition, it is not part of the Bible. We
are left only with a single verse in Proverbs.

If we want to see a really disgusting animal, let us consider that the Bible says about the dog. Dogs are said
to be noisy (Ps. 59:7-14), greedy (Is. 56:11), stupid (Is. 56:10), and filthy (Prov. 26:11). They feed on
carrion, blood, and vomit (Ex. 22:31; 1 Ki. 22:38; 2 Pet. 2:22). The term "dog" is applied as an insult to
humans (2 Kings 8:13). Furthermore, "dog" appears to have been a designation for male prostitutes (Dt.
23:19).29

Having rehabilitated the noble truffle-hunter from the literary swine-trough of Islam-influenced rhetoric, it

25
Contrary to English versions, the phrase is not "broth of unclean meats," but "broth of desecration" (Heb. piggul). On the meaning
of piggul as desecration, see Jordan, Covenant Sequence, p. 53; and David Pearson Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination
Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 101 (Atlanta: Scholar's
Press, 1987), pp. 140-143. On the basis of Leviticus 7:18 and 19:7, "broth of desecration" most likely refers to eating the Peace
Offering on the third day, and not to the flesh of unclean animals. The only other use of piggul is Ezekiel 4:14.
26
"Unlike the Old Testament, which is a treasure trove of forbidden flesh, the Koran is virtually free of meat taboos. Why is it the pig
alone who suffers Allah's disapproval?" Marvin Harris, The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig (orig. titled Good to Eat; New York:
Simon and Schuster/Touchstone, 1985), p. 67.
27
Christians often assume that Jews understand the Old Testament. Jews do not live by the Old Testament but by the Talmud.
28
Elijah Judah Schochet, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition: Attitudes and Relationships (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1984), p.
38.
29
See Ibid.

213
remains to note that many modern Jews feel less hostility toward porcine fare than did their forefathers.
According to a report from Kibbutz "X," in the Negev Desert,

Now, amid considerable secrecy, this small collective farm at the desert's edge has made another
breakthrough: It breeds penguins that weigh up to 600 pounds, have curly tails, roll in mud -- and
squeak “oink-oink.”

In other countries, "penguins" answering to this description are called pigs. But religious tradition
proscribes pork for Jews, so in Israel, pigs must masquerade as "penguins" -- or sometimes as
"ducks." Restaurants that serve pork describe it as "white steak," and many butchers who sell the
forbidden meat put it discreetly out of sight.

The wide availability of pork in Israel -- and of ham, bacon, spareribs, pig's knuckles, pork
sausages, and a variety of other pork products -- is one of the Jewish state's best-kept secrets,
at least from the outside world. Another unofficial secret is the excellence of Israeli pork.

"I have been told by Americans that our pork is delicious, better than in the States,” says an Israeli
butcher with many diplomats among his clientele. "Never in my life have I seen animals raised so
clean as are pigs in Israel."

Similarly, many Israelis who assert they respect the dietary laws "won't hesitate about ordering
calamari, which isn't kosher," an Israeli government official notes. (To be considered kosher, a
fish must have fins and scales. Besides calamari, or squid, a large variety of non-kosher seafood,
such as crayfish, lobsters, shrimp, and other shellfish, is served in Israeli restaurants.)

In contrast, says the same official over a light lunch of sweet-and-sour pork, many non-religious
Israelis don't eat pork. "Pork is something they won't touch," he says. "It's deeply rooted in their
subconscious."

History has heightened the symbolic role of pork for Jews. They are taught how the Maccabees
faced death and rose in revolt against Syrian conquerors, rather than submit to eating pork; in
more recent times, the persecution of East European Jews often included attempts to humiliate
them by forcing them to taste pork….

Non-kosher butcher shops and restaurants obtain most of their pork from Jewish meatpackers,
who, in turn, legally buy freshly slaughtered pigs from the Nazareth area of northern Israel, where
Christian Arabs are allowed to raise swine. 30

A couple of comments are in order on this. First, though modern Jews like to eat pork and do so on the sly,
there is no evidence that Jews in Biblical times did so. The pig-keeping Gerasenes of Mark 5 were
Gentiles.31 As we have seen in paper No.5, "Suggested Explanations of the Dietary Laws," pork avoidance
was the rule in both Egypt and Mesopotamia. It is not likely that Biblical Jews had any more interest in
eating pigs than we do in eating cats. The only invader to ever try and force Jews to eat pork was the
Roman-trained herald of Daniel's fourth beast, Antiochus Epiphanes, whose taste and methods were not
those of the Near East.32

Second, this article confirms again that pork has come to take on a special meaning for Jews, avoidance of
which symbolizes loyalty to tradition in a way that shellfish does not. This is not the Biblical perspective,
however. It is only Jewish cultural tradition.

30
Felix Kessler, "And on This Farm, He Had a Penguin, with an oink-oink..."The Wall Street Journal, 2 August 1979.
31
Gerasa was founded by Alexander the Great, and at the time of the New Testament was part of the Decapolis, a loose confederation
of essentially independent Hellenistic cities, originally settled by Greeks. Greeks and Romans did not share the pork avoidance of the
Egyptians and Mesopotamians. On Gerasa and the Decapolis, see any Bible encyclopedia or dictionary.
32
Pfeiffer writes that Antiochus's "twelve years in Rome gave him a heal thy respect for Roman power and Roman ways of doing
things." Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959), p. 79.

214
 Eschatological Incorporation

In the New Covenant we are commanded to bring men of all nations into the one body of Christ. Just so,
we are encouraged to eat of any flesh we please. Thus, the dietary prohibitions of Leviticus 11 were
designed as temporary. We have also seen in Deuteronomy 23 that in the tenth or third generation, various
excluded families may be incorporated into Israel. Thus, eating temporarily forbidden food is
an eschatological blessing.

This correlates with the two trees of Genesis 2. The Tree of Life was the Alpha tree, as we saw in paper
No.7, "The Meaning of Eating in the Bible." It is the "bread" with which to start the day. It may not be
especially tasty or rich, but it provides the energy to work. The Tree of Judicial Enthronement was the
Omega tree. It is the "wine" with which to end the day. It is rich, delicious, and relaxing.

Just so, pork and some other forbidden meats, such as shellfish, are rich Omega foods. A very interesting
sidelight on this is provided by Harris. He points out that unlike ruminants, pigs eat what people eat. Thus,
pigs are costly to raise in places like the Near East. Only an economically developed society can really
afford pigs. Pigs are an eschatological luxury.

Raising pigs in the Middle East therefore was and still is a lot costlier than raising ruminants,
because pigs must be provided with artificial shade, extra water for wallowing, and their diet must
be supplemented with grains and other plant foods that humans themselves can eat.

To offset all these liabilities pigs have less to offer by way of benefits than ruminants. They can't
pull plows, their hair is unsuited for fiber and cloth, and they are not suited for milking.

It seems to me that Satan wants men to reject the blessings of God. For centuries, Satan persuaded
Christians in the Western world to reject the wine of communion and eat only the bread. During the past
century in the united States, Satan has persuaded Christians to substitute paltry grape juice for wine. Nor
surprisingly, Satan has also stirred up part of the Christian community to oppose the eating of pork. Pork,
however, is a rich food, and eating it (in moderation) is, like drinking wine (in moderation), a sign of the
coming of the Kingdom.

Meat and Carcass

It remains only to note that verse 8 forbids the Israelite to touch the carcass of the dead unclean animal.
This is because meat is itself dead. (As we saw in paper No.7, almost all the food we eat is dead, the result
of killing plants and animals and pasteurizing milk.) Thus, the dead flesh of unclean animals was neither to
be eaten nor to be touched. We shall reserve a full study of this important theme for Chapter 6.

Conclusion

The law of edible and inedible land animals has six dimensions. The practical dimension showed the
Israelites which animals God had given them to eat, and which He had not.

The theological dimension showed them something about God. God sets a bound between Himself and sin.
God separates between good and evil as He approaches His creation. God is a continually-ruminating
consuming fire.

The wisdom dimension enabled them to reflect on the characteristics of the righteous man. His feet are
shod against the corruptions of the world. His feet are divided, enabling him to make proper distinctions
and walk carefully. He ruminates on what he eats, meditating on the law day and night.

The sociological dimension gave them a perspective on domestic and political alliances. They were to

215
marry only people who were like clean animals, and were to avoid entangling alliances with heathen
nations. They were to eat --to incorporate into themselves --only righteous people.33

The liturgical dimension gave them a perspective on God's house. Just as they were not to defile their
persons by eating the flesh of unclean animals, so God's sanctuary was not to be defiled by the
encroachment of ceremonially unclean persons. Just as they were to avoid entangling marital and political
alliances, so the assembly of the Lord was to be kept pure.

Finally, the eschatological dimension showed them that in the Messianic age these laws would be repealed.
After all, Abraham had been able to eat any flesh he desired. In the age to come, God would dwell among
men without the barriers of the Tabernacle curtains between Himself and them --without the sociological
barriers of priest, people, and sojourner. In the age to come all men would be in one body in the Messiah,
and all animals would be welcome in the personal tabernacle of the individual human being.

Addendum: The Covering of Angelic Feet

As we saw above, the cherubim of Ezekiel 1 are spoken of as having cloven hooves. The idea of the
covered foot is also found in Isaiah 6: 2, where we read concerning the heavenly throne of God that
"seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered
his feet, and with two he flew." The idea of the covered, if not cloven, foot is thus here present.

The cherubim with their animal faces are to be seen as partially analogous to the animal kingdom, as well
as analogous to humanity. Thus, though men are to go unshod on holy ground, it seems that in heaven the
angels cover their feet. This seems to be contradictory. After all, if the purpose of shoes (coverings, hooves)
is to keep one's feet unspotted by the dust of the earth, and if men are to go unshod on holy ground, why do
the angels cover their feet?

Angels are unfallen and sinless. Moreover, they have no contact with the curse on the soil. Thus, the
covering of their feet must have a different rationale. I suggest that it is simply a confession of creaturely
modesty before the holiness and glory of God. If that is so, why then are men to go unshod? Possibly
because the holy places on the earth (the Tabernacle, for example) are relatively less holy than God's throne
in heaven. Perhaps in heaven men will also cover their feet. Another possibility is that men are higher in the
"chain of beings" created by God (Heb. 1:14), and so while angels must cover their feet, men need not do
so.

What is clear from this, however, is that heavenly creatures are shod. It is those land animals that image the
heavenly creatures that were accounted "clean" in the Old Covenant, while those that were unshod were
accounted "unclean."

33
If I am right in correlating Moabites and bastards with pigs and horses, there would be a gray area here.
There was no reason not to marry a converted Moabite or a devout bastard, even if these were kept from
full membership in the assembly.

216
Chapter 3 - Armor in the World

9. This you may eat from all that is in the waters: All that possess a fin and scale, in the waters, in the seas,
and in the streams. You may eat them.

10. But any that does not possess fin or scale in the seas or in the streams from among every swarmer of the
waters or from among every living creature that is in the water, they are detestable to you.

11. And they are detestable to you: From their meat you must not eat, and their carcass you must detest.

12. Any that does not possess fin or scale, in the waters, is detestable to you.

The Language of Detestation

For reasons that are not made explicit, the language of detestation begins here, not being used of land
quadrupeds. The expression "it is detestable to you" in verse 12 might seem to indicate that all unclean fish
are detestable in themselves. Compare verse 13: "And these you must detest from the birds." Clearly,
though, as living creatures these animals are not detestable. There is no reason not to touch them. Rather,
the meaning of the expression "you must detest them" is found in verse 11, which sets up the meaning of
the idea throughout the rest of the chapter. " And they are detestable to you, to wit, you must not eat of their
meat, and you must detest their carcasses."

How about the carcasses of clean fish? Are they detestable? It would not seem so. Rather, the carcasses of
clean land animals, fish, and birds are simply unclean. So are the carcasses of unclean land quadrupeds.

This produces a rather complicated system, and this is as good a place as any to set it out. We can
summarize as follows:

1. Living land animals are clean or unclean.

2. Dead carcasses of clean land animals are unclean.
3. Dead carcasses of unclean land animals are unclean.
4. If you eat the carcass of a clean animal you become unclean (v. 40).
5. If you eat the flesh of an unclean animal, whether slaughtered or found as a carcass, you become
detestable (20:25).
6. I f you touch the carcass of a clean animal you become unclean (v. 39)
7. If you touch the carcass of an unclean animal you become unclean (vv. 27-28).

8. Fish and birds are clean or unclean.

9. Dead carcasses of clean birds or fish are unclean.
10. Dead carcasses of unclean birds or fish are detestable.
11. If you eat the carcass of a clean bird or fish, you apparently become only unclean (v. 40, by
implication).
12. If you eat the flesh or an unclean bird or fish, whether slaughtered or found as a carcass, you become
detestable (20:25).
13. If you touch the carcass of a clean fish or bird you become unclean.
14. If you touch the detestable carcass of an unclean fish or bird you become unclean, not detestable.

15. All crawlers/swarmers are unclean.

16. Dead carcasses of swarmers are detestable.
17. If you eat the detestable carcass of a swarmer, you become detestable.
18. If you touch the detestable carcass of a swarmer, you become unclean, not detestable.

We can summarize this way:

1. Touching the carcass of any creature makes you unclean, but is not prohibited.

217
2. Eating the flesh of any unclean creature makes you detestable, and is prohibited.
3. Eating the carcass of any clean creature makes you unclean, and is prohibited (Lev. 7:24).
4. In itself the meat and the carcass of an unclean land animal is "unclean for you, " while the meat and
carcass of all other unclean creatures is "detestable for you."
5. These laws apply only to the meat of the animal. The bones, hair, feathers, etc. of unclean creatures were
not defiled and might be used for appropriate purposes. This is also true of the "fat" (Lev. 7:24; 3:3-4).

Thus, the effects of touching and eating are the same regardless of what kind of creature you touch or eat.
Yet, the land animals are set apart from the rest by a different vocabulary at one point.

The only good explanation for this difference that I can come up with, and one that fits the rest of the
meaning of this passage, is that unclean land animals bear a closer relationship to humanity than do other
unclean creatures. In terms of the symbolic structure of the food laws, unclean land animals are heathen in
the midst of Israel, while other unclean animals are heathen outside Israel. Heathen within Israel are not to
be "eaten" (married, covenanted with), but are not to be cast out either. They are unclean, but not
detestable. Heathen outside Israel are already "cast out" in that they are outside, and thus they are
"detestable. "

Another aspect of this would be that "detestable" has, as we have seen, a close identification with liturgical
idolatry. The unconverted heathen within Israel were not permitted the public practice of liturgical idolatry
(Dt. 13:12-15), and thus were not "detestable" but only "unclean. " This was not true, of course, for heathen
outside Israel.

Seas and Rivers

One other matter raised in these verses needs to be dealt with by way of preliminaries. Leviticus 11:9
speaks of the fish that are “in the waters in the seas and in the streams.” Many rabbis have taken this to
mean that such fish are unclean only when found in seas and streams, not when bred in closed containers. 1
They take “in the seas and in the streams” as restrictions on the previous phrase “in the waters.” This
certainly seems far-fetched. The creatures themselves are unclean, and the rule seems to be that no unclean
creature may be eaten.

Seas and rivers are the two categories of water established by creation. The seas were formed on the third
day of creation, and the rivers are associated with the Garden of Eden. Since Israel is the new holy land,
surrounded by the Gentile sea, I believe we can see "seas and rivers" as covering all water, both bodies of
water outside Israel (seas) and those inside the boundaries of the land (rivers).

With these explorations behind us, let us look at the fish.

Fins and Scales

"I will say nothing of the scales and fins," writes Calvin. 2 Calvin was so mortified by the unedifying
speculations concerning the "ceremonial law" to which his generation was heir that he generally refused to
engage in any investigations of his own. In fact, commentators have often found the stipulation of fins and
scales rather difficult. Those who follow the hygienic school simply assume that fins and scales are mere
outward signs of what is healthy or unhealthy. Those who follow a general aesthetic approach feel that fins
and scales indicate glorious, shiny fish, while other sea creatures are ugly.3 Keil suggests that other sea
creatures are bottom dwellers, and thus resemble the serpent (Satan) in crawling in the mud. These, he says,
are forbidden: "Of water animals, all serpent-like fishes and slimy shell-fish, and of small creeping things,

1
Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch Translated and Explained, trans. Isaac Levy. Vol. 3: Leviticus, 2nd ed. (London: Honig and
Sons, 1962), pp. 274-276.
2
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses. Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles w. Bingham, 4
vols (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1852-55] 1979), 2:65.
3
See paper No.5, "Suggested Explanations for the Dietary Laws," for examples. I don't think this is entirely amiss; see below.

218
all except some kinds of locusts, partly because they recall the old serpent, partly because they seek their
food in all sorts of impurities, and partly because they crawl in the dust, and represent corruption in the
slimy character of their bodies."4

I believe, however, that we must take our cue from what we have already seen. Clean land animals must
wear shoes, to avoid the curse-prosecuting soil, just as men must be shod. Also, clean land animals must
have cloven hooves, enabling them to walk with greater precision than single-hoofed beasts. As we shall
see, clean birds are particular where they put their feet.

Now, as regards water creatures, what shall we say corresponds to shoes and feet? It is a simple matter to
see scales as the shoes of fish, and fins as providing greater accuracy of locomotion.

Diagram 13.5

animal fish
contact with environment: hoof as shoe scales
accuracy of locomotion: divided hoof fins

The word for fin occurs here and in Deuteronomy 14, referring to clean fish, and nowhere else in Scripture.
Nor are there any other words apparently from the same Hebrew root letters. 5 Thus, we are bereft of any
place to go to find confirmation for our suggestion that fins have to do with accuracy of locomotion.

Scales, however, are found elsewhere. Pharaoh is spoken of as an aquatic dinosaur in Ezekiel 29:3-5, and
his scales are referred to in verse 4. Goliath's armor is spoken of in 1 Samuel 17: 5 using the word for scale.
Using a different term, scaled armor is referred to several times in the Old Testament (1 Kings 22:34; Neh.
4:16; Jer. 46:4; 51:3).6 Finally, the aquatic dinosaur Leviathan is spoken of as having scales that function
like armor: "His 'rows of shields' are his pride, closed up, a tight seal. One is so near to another that no air
can come between them. They are joined one to another; they clasp each other and cannot be separated"
(Job 41:15-17).

Perhaps we shall not be going to far astray to consider that the clean fish is an image of the righteous
warrior, sealed against the world and moving carefully in it. If we allow that the scales of the fish are a
symbol of armor, we can point to the robe of the High Priest, whose top was ''as it were the opening of a
coat of mail" (Ex. 28:32; 39:23). We can go to Isaiah 59:17, where God's righteousness is spoken of as a
breastplate (and cf. Eph. 6:14).7

The image of the fish as a warrior is not so strange when we consider that even clean fish are predators.
Some approaches to Leviticus 11 have assumed that only peaceful creatures were counted as clean, but
such an approach always breaks down where fish are concerned. If, however, the particular nuance in the
area of fish is warfare, then the system continues to make sense. The clean land animal is shod with respect
to the earth, avoiding the contamination of the cursed soil. The clean water creature is shod with respect to
his total environment, prepared to resist the fiery darts (well, harpoons) of the wicked. The clean bird is not
shod at all, but is particular about where she puts her feet.

We have noted already that the Tabernacle was covered with dolphin leather. We have seen that the
Tabernacle, a symbol of the body politic, is associated with the bride in Ezekiel 16, and the dolphin leather
there becomes her shoes (Ezk. 16:10). This gives us another avenue of evidence, though rather attenuated,
to show that the outer skin of a fish is his shoe. The dolphin, of course, is an unclean "fish," and his skin is

4
C. F. Keil, Manual of Biblical Archaeology, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1887-88) 2:119, as cited in Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of
Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 173.
5
The two standard Hebrew lexicons differ as to the basic meaning of the word for fin, snp. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon
associates it with an Aramaic word meaning "nail, point." Koehler- Baumgartner Old Testament Lexicon associates it with an
Akkadian word meaning either "shaggy skin" or "eyelash."
6
Zondervan Pictorial Encvclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 1:319.
7
On the correspondences between the High Priest's outfit and a warrior's armor, see Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1980), pp. 47ff.

219
not scales but leather. Nevertheless, if the dolphin's skin is his shoe, then clearly the scales of a fish are
also. The outer covering of the Tabernacle then becomes another (attenuated) image of a warrior's armor.8

It is also interesting to observe, while we are on the subject, that the word used for the dolphin leather cover
on the Tabernacle is only used one other place, for the covering of Noah's Ark (Gen. 8: 13). 9 Since Noah's
Ark was a house that had to travel on the sea and in torrential rains, the purpose of its cover was protection
against the assaults of an aquatic environment. As we shall see, the Tabernacle and Israel existed in the
Gentile Sea of the world, and thus needed such an aquatic covering. Such a covering is armor, is a shoe,
and corresponds to the scales on the fish.

The Gentile Sea

The clean fish with his shiny scales shows us the glory of the righteous man in a warfare context. He is an
image of any righteous man, Jew or Gentile. Since, however, he is undomesticated, and since the sea is so
often associated with the Gentile world, he is in particular, I believe, an image of the righteous Gentile.

In terms of the Biblical three-decker world, the sea is below and outside the land. Since the land is the place
of God's people, the sea often becomes a place for those who are not, in one sense or another, God's people.

Some of the Israelite tribes were fisher folk in the Old Testament, but we hear next to nothing about them
(Gen. 49:13; Dt. 33:19, 23; Ps. 107:23-32). Aquatic imagery seems to be reserved primarily for the
Gentiles. Thus, to avoid going to Nineveh, Jonah went to sea. He was on a boat manned by Gentiles. He
was swallowed by a fish. Afterwards he went to preach to Gentiles. Similarly, when Solomon built a fleet
of ships, Tyreans came to help him man them (1 Kings 9:26-28). God's judgment on Tyre in Ezekiel 27
speaks of Tyre as a ship on the sea. Pharaoh, as we have seen, is pictured as an aquatic dinosaur. Such
oceanic imagery is simply not used of Israel in the Old Testament.

In fact, invasions of Gentiles into the land are spoken of as floods of water (2 Sam. 22:4-5; Is. 5:30; Jer.
6:23). Calming the nations of the world is spoken of as calming the seas (Ps. 65:7-8; Is. 17:12-13; 57:20).
The boundaries of the nations are the boundaries of the sea (Jer. 5:22).

In Daniel and Revelation the association is made most explicit, but we should not isolate these
"apocalyptic" books from the rest of the Bible. The imagery of "apocalyptic" (actually, prophetic)10
writings is generally drawn from the symbolism of creation and the Pentateuch. Daniel 7:2-3 says that
Daniel "was looking in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great
sea. And four great beasts were coming up from the sea." These were, of course, four Gentile world
empires. Similarly, John sees Rome as a beast coming out of the sea (Rev. 13:1), in contrast to a Jewish
false prophet who is a beast out of the (holy) land (Rev. 13:11). Later he sees harlot Jerusalem sitting
enthroned upon the nations of the world, as their demonic-spiritual leader (Rev. 17:1, 15). Similarly, in
Revelation 18 we have three laments, that of Israel's leaders (the kings of the land, vv. 9-10), that of Israel's
merchants (the merchants of the land, vv. 11-17a), and that of the Gentile sailors of the sea (vv. 17b-19). In
the New Jerusalem, however, the Jew-Gentile distinction is gone.

While the leading men of the Old Testament were shepherds, farmers, and herdsmen, the leading apostles
were fishermen. Though Jesus did tell Peter to feed His sheep, His first call was to become "fishers of
men." Jesus repeatedly traveled by sea, calmed the sea, walked on the sea, and preached from boats. He fed
the multitudes fish, and ate fish after His resurrection. There is very little in the Old Testament to prepare
8
On the correspondences between the dress of the High Priest and the design of the Tabernacle, see ibid., pp. 42-47.
9
The word is mikhseh. A related word, rnkhasseh, is used for the awning of the ship of Tyre in Ezk. 27:07 and for a durable garment
from Tyre in Is. 23:18. The imagery surrounding Tyre in the Bible is generally oceanic, so we are still in a zone of aquatic imagery
here. The association of the Sea with the Abyss and Sheol may lie behind the use of this word rnkhasseh in Is. 14:11, where the king
of Babylon is told that he has been brought down to Sheol and that worms are his covering. I make no claim that these passages prove
my case, but I think the general associations here do correspond nicely with my thesis.
10
Apocalyptic is fundamentally anti-historical: the world is coming to an end. Prophecy is fundamentally historical: the world is
coming to a new beginning. The apocalyptic literature of the late centuries B. C. and the early centuries A. D. was a perversion of the
symbolic prophetic literature of the Old and New Testaments.

220
us for this. It is largely "new." Thus, aquatic imagery surfaces in the New Testament, an adumbration of the
gospel's going to the Gentiles.11

Conclusion

The righteous man mediates on the law day and night (Ps. 1:2). We have sought in this chapter to come up
with appropriate Biblical meditations on Leviticus 11: 9-12. We have sought to avoid importing to the text
considerations foreign to it, such as that unclean fish were unhealthy to eat or that they had bad habits. We
have rather focused on the details of the text, the fins and scales, and used these as the foundation for our
meditations. We have suggested that scales have to do with shoes over the whole body, an idea with a good
in-context rationale. We have suggested further that such body scales can be associated with a warrior's
armor, and we have seen that there is Biblical foundation for so thinking. Thus, we have associated the
clean fish with God's holy warriors, armored against the world. This is the wisdom dimension.

In terms of the theological dimension, what do clean fish reveal about God? First, the armor of the fish can
be associated, as we saw, with the "armor" of the High Priest, which it itself a replication of God's glory
cloud. Thus, the shining armor of the fish shows the shining glory of God. Second, the quick, purposeful,
and angular movements of the fish, enabled by his fins, can also be correlated with God's actions. The
Tabernacle moved purposefully through the wilderness, but more than that, quick and angular movements
are characteristics of angels and of God's glory cloud (Ezk. 1:12, 14, 17). 12 As the fish darts to destroy its
prey, so God's chariot darts like lightning to bring swift judgment upon the wicked and deliverance for the
righteous.

In terms of the sociological dimension, we have pressed further and taken note of the fact that Leviticus 11
in its literary structure follows the three-decker world order established at creation. This invited us to
consider the possibility that the creatures of land are to be associated more particularly with the
environment of Israel, while the other creatures are to be associated more particularly with other
environments. We have seen a contrast in language between land creatures (unclean) and other creatures
(detestable). We have also seen that in terms of overall Biblical symbolism, sea creatures can readily be
associated with Gentiles.

So how shall we sum it up? First of all, the righteous Israelite must be shod as he goes about the land, to
avoid the contamination of the ground, but he must be armored as he faces the Gentile world, for the threat
is much greater there. Second, the righteous Gentile must also be armored as he moves about in his world.
Finally, the righteous man, Israelite or Gentile, must have fins; that is, he must move purposefully,
carefully, and accurately in this world of spiritual dangers.

11
On the symbolism of Paul's ocean voyage in Acts 27, see James B. Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty (Tyler, TX:
Geneva Ministries, 1986), p. 80.
12
This, by the way, is why in liturgical churches the "angels" (ministers, Rev. 2-3) execute their movements using right angles. These
are also military movements, as His ecclesiastical lieutenants lead the assembly in worship of the Captain of the Host.

221
Chapter 4 - Unclean Spirits

13. And these you must detest from among the birds. They are not to be eaten; they are detestable.
The eagle, and the black vulture, and the bearded vulture,

14. and the black kite, and the common buzzard, any of her kind;

15. any raven, any of his kind;

16. and the daughter of the eagle-owl, and the short-eared owl, and the long-eared owl, and the
sparrow-hawk, any of his kind;

17. and the tawny-owl, and the fisher-owl, and the screech-owl,

18. and the little owl, and the scops-owl, and the osprey,

19. and the stork, the cormorant, any of her kind; and the hoopoe, and the bat.

Identifications

There are a number of problems with these verses. The first is the question of the identification of these
birds. I have used the identifications of G. R. Driver, but in Diagram 13.6 I have listed the translations from
several modern versions that reflect other current opinions. 1 since most of these birds are wild, and thus not
commonly encountered by Israelites, it is very likely that some of these Hebrew terms covered several
different birds, using today's classification methods. It is possible to identify at least 413 species and
subspecies of birds in Palestine, but "the biblical writers speak of only some fifty birds, and therefore must
have classified more than one species in some instances under one label."2

The second problem comes from the grammar of these verses. There are two questions here:

1. Why is there no "and" between the stork and the cormorant in verse 19? In Deuteronomy 14:18 they are
separated by "and." Dr. Bruce Waltke of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), an expert in
Hebrew grammar and a student of this passage, tells me that this is most likely a "textual problem," and
should not be assumed to have some additional meaning. 3

2. Does the expression, "any of her/his kind" refer only to the preceding bird, or does it serve to group the
birds listed before it into a category? Dr. Waltke's opinion is that the grammatical construction cannot
answer this question. Only if we know for certain what the birds are can we answer the question of whether
the expression groups the list.4 Most translators and expositors believe that "any of her/his kind" refers only
to the immediately preceding bird. The Hebrew words translated raven and sparrow hawk "are generic
terms for whole classes of birds, " and the term we have translated cormorant" is possibly a generic term for
any number of small birds of prey hunting fish in river, lake, or sea. This lack of completeness should be
borne in mind in connection with the twenty-one varieties listed in the parallel passage, Dt. 14:11-18."5

At the same time, consider the contrast between Deuteronomy 14:12-13 and Leviticus 11:13-14:

1
G. R. Driver, "Birds in the Old Testament, I. Birds in Law," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 87 (1955):5-20; idem., "Once Again:
Birds in the Bible," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 90 (1958) : 56-58. See also idem., "Birds in the Old Testament, II. Birds in Life,"
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 87 (1955):129-140. Driver is followed by Alice Parmelee, All the Birds of the Bible: Their Stories.
Identifications, and Meaning (New Canaan, CT: Keats Pub., 1959). Not all scholars agree, however; see the United Bible Societies,
Fauna and Flora of the Bible, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980).
2
At the same time, consider the contrast between Deuteronomy 14:12- 13 and Leviticus 11:13-14:
Bruce K. Waltke, "Birds," in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [ISBE], fully revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979) 1:511.
3
Telephone conversation with Dr. Waltke, winter 1988.
4
Ibid. Dr. Waltke's own work on this passage is found in his articles “Birds," and "Abomination, Birds of" in ISBE.
5
Waltke, ISBE 1:14. See also Driver, "Birds: I. Birds in Law," p. 19.

222
 eagle, black vulture, bearded vulture, black kite, common buzzard, any of her kind.
Leviticus 11:13-14

eagle, black vulture, bearded vulture, red kite, common buzzard, kite, any of her kind. 6
Deuteronomy 14:12-13

In Leviticus we have the buzzard in its kind, while in Deuteronomy we have the kite in its kind. The
interchange of these terms might indicate that the entire preceding list is to be grouped as a "kind." If this
be the case, then the list would have five sections:

1. Five vultures (six in Deuteronomy)

2. The Raven
3. Four "owls"
4. Eight owls and water birds
5. Hoopoe and bat

This grouping is not very productive, however. The fourth group includes five owls and three water birds,
which makes little sense as a group. Moreover, Leviticus 11:29-30 reads: "weasel, rat, great lizard, any of
his kind; gecko, monitor lizard, wall lizard, skink, chameleon." If "any of his kind" is taken as a group
indicator, we have a lizard grouped with two rodents, and separated from five other lizards. This makes
little sense. Thus, it seems by far most likely that the phrase "any of his/her kind" applies only to the
immediately preceding animal in the list, and does not indicate any kind of grouping.

Concerning precise identifications, Waltke regards Driver's study as the best to date. "G. R. Driver, in
consultation with D. L. Lack, Director of the Grey Ornithological Institute (Oxford), has provided the best
study on the identification of these birds....He established their identity by four factors: (1) a philological
study of the Hebrew radicals, (2) the translations of these words in the ancient versions, (3) the description
of each bird's habitat and habits in the literature, (4) the idea of 'uncleanness.' significantly he also noted
that they are arranged in a roughly descending scale of sizes by natural families." 7 His list is reproduced
below.

For our purposes in the present chapter, Driver's identifications will be used. 8

Driver's category scheme is as follows: First we have a list of five eagles and vultures, listed in descending
order of size. Next we have the raven, also a large bird but not in the eagle-vulture category. Then we have
a list of nine "owls," which includes the kestrel or sparrow hawk, also listed in descending order of size.
until the nineteenth century hawks and owls were classified together. 9 Following the nine "owls" we have
three large water birds. All of these eighteen birds are raptors, birds of prey. The list concludes with the
hoopoe and the bat, which are not birds of prey, but which are also unclean.

We can also note that the list also seems to separate day and night birds. The first six birds are diurnal
(daytime), while the owls are nocturnal. Then we have the water birds and the two non- raptors. The only
problem is that the hawk is put in the list of the owls, and the hawk is diurnal.

6
Black kite is Hebrew da’ah in Leviticus 11. In Deuteronomy 14, this word does not appear, but we have two other words: ra’ah, here
rendered red kite, and dayah, here given simply as kite. See further in Chapter 13 below.
7
Waltke, ISBE 1:14.
8
Cansdale remarks are also worth considering. "The fullest recent work on these birds, and some others, is by G. R. Driver.…The
Heb. names are analyzed in the light of philology and natural history; unless further important material is found his work must be
considered definitive, but it must be accepted with caution, not because his findings differ largely from the traditional, but [because]
they imply more detailed knowledge of birds by the ancient writer than seems likely." G. S. Cansdale, All the Animals of the Bible
Lands (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), p. 141n.
9
Driver, "Birds: I. Birds in Law," p. 14.

223
 Diagram 13.6 - Birds of Leviticus 11

Driver NASV NIV NKJV New Berkeley

griffon vulture or eagle eagle eagle eagle

golden eagle
black vulture vulture vulture vulture fish hawk
bearded vulture buzzard black vulture buzzard black eagle
black kite kite red kite kite vulture
saker falcon or falcon black kite falcon buzzard
common buzzard

raven/rook raven raven raven crow

eagle-owl ostrich horned owl ostrich ostrich

short-eared owl owl screech owl short-eared owl owl
long-eared owl sea gull gull sea gull sea gull
kestrel/sparrow hawk hawk hawk hawk
hawk
tawny owl little owl little owl little owl white owl
fisher-owl cormorant cormorant fisher owl cormorant
screech-owl great owl great owl screech owl horned owl
little owl white owl white owl white owl marsh hen
scops owl pelican desert owl jackdaw pelican

osprey carrion vulture osprey carrion vulture carrion eagle

stork/heron stork stork stork stork
cormorant heron heron heron heron

hoopoe hoopoe hoopoe hoopoe lapwing

bat bat bat bat bat

224
 Interpretations

Because Leviticus 11 provides no overall rule for distinguishing clean and unclean birds, expositors and
theologians have had to look elsewhere in scripture for possible rationales. The problem is rendered the
more difficult in that so many of the identifications have been and many still continue to be in doubt.

Thus, Matthew Poole wrote (1683), "The true signification of these and the following Hebrew words is
now lost, as the Jews at this day confess, which not falling out without God's singular providence may
intimate the cessation or abolition of this law, the exact observation whereof since Christ came is become
impossible. In general, this may be observed, that the fowls forbidden in diet are all either ravenous and
cruel, or such as delight in the night and darkness, or such as feed upon impure things; and so the
signification and reason of these prohibitions is manifest, to teach men to abominate all cruelty or
oppression, and all works of darkness and filthiness."10

Also, Matthew Henry (1706), "But the law being repealed, and the learning in a great measure lost, it is
sufficient for us to observe that of the fowls here forbidden, (1.) Some are birds of prey, as the eagle,
vulture, &c. and God would have his people to abhor every thing that is barbarous and cruel....(2.) Others
of them are solitary birds, and abide in dark and desolate places, as the owl and the pelican (Ps. 102:6), and
the cormorant and raven (Is. 34:11); for God's Israel should not be a melancholy people, nor affect sadness
and constant solitude. (3.) Others of them feed upon that which is impure, as the stork on serpents, others of
them on worms; and we must not only abstain from all impurity ourselves, but from communion with those
that allow themselves in it."11

John Gill, writing around the 17605, took a similar approach, saying that some of the birds are ravenous,
emblems of persecutors; others are libidinous, emblems of the lustful; others are night birds, emblems of
those who love darkness rather than light; others cannot fly, emblems of those who are earthly-minded; and
others live on impure things, emblems of those who live impure lives. 12 Similarly, Andrew Bonar (1846)
takes each bird separately and explains symbolically why it is an image of the unrighteous man. 13

The problem with these approaches is two-fold. First, they prove too much. As we have noted in previous
papers in this series, such unclean animals as the lion and the eagle are perfectly honorable creatures in the
Bible, these two in fact being found as faces of the cherubim. Thus, while the book of Proverbs does indeed
tell us to consult the ways of animals and learn from them the ways of men, and thus the Bible is not at all
opposed to the kind of symbolic meditations employed by these expositors, this method is not suited as an
explanation for the distinction between clean and unclean.

Second, these explanations go too far astray from the context of Leviticus 11. All the other animals are
distinguished in terms of their shoes and locomotion. It stands to reason that this plays a part in the
distinction between clean and unclean birds. Also, the land animals are distinguished in terms of eating
habits, and so this may also playa role in the distinctions between birds. Other considerations, however, are
not likely to be relevant to this particular passage.

A significant possibility is hinted at in Genesis 8:9. Remember that the distinction between clean and
unclean beasts was known before the Flood, and Noah took animals and birds on the Ark in terms of this
distinction (Gen. 7:2-3). In this context, we find that Noah first sent out a raven (Gen. 8:7), "and it flew
here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. " The raven was an unclean bird. Then Noah sent
out a dove, a clean bird, "but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him
into the ark" (Gen. 8:9).

What is significant about this is that it distinguishes the clean bird from the unclean bird in terms of where
each is willing to place his feet. The unclean bird is willing to light onto things that the clean bird avoids. If

10
Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 3 vols. (London: Banner of Truth, [1683] 1962) 1:221.
11
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Bible (numerous editions), on Lev. 11:9-19.
12
John Gill, Gill's Commentary. Vol. 1: Genesis -Joshua (Grand Rapids: Baker, [c. 1760; 1852 ed.] 1980), on Lev. 11:19.
13
A. A. Bonar, A Commentary on Leviticus (London: Banner of Truth, [1861] 1966), pp. 220-223. Of course, this assumes we know
for certain what all these birds are, and we don't.

225
we are able to generalize this into a rule, we shall have a rule that squares with the other rules of Leviticus
11, most of which have to do with feet and locomotion.

Sadly, I have been unable to find information on this particular subject. A call to the information service of
the Audubon Society was fruitless. Are some birds particular about where they put their feet? No one
seemed to know, and no one knew where to tell me to look. So, I must simply suggest the following: Birds
of prey fall upon other animals and upon carrion. That is where they put their feet. By way of contrast,
clean birds do not put their feet to such use. The hoopoe and the bat, though not birds of prey, yet choose to
put their feet in extremely filthy environments, laden with excrement, which is itself disgusting. 14

Thus, we can suggest that unlike animals and fish, birds do not come in the categories "shod" and
"unshod," but they do manifest a similar distinction. Clean birds avoid putting their feet in unclean places.
Just as the clean animal and the clean fish are shod against the cursed soil and other unclean things lying on
the ground, such as manure and carrion, so the clean bird avoids contact with such things. The carcasses of
unclean animals, whether slain or found dead, are unclean. Men are not to touch them. Clean birds do not
put their feet on them. Similarly, filth and manure are unclean, and to be kept out of God's army camp (Dt.
23:12-13).15 God will not walk in such an environment (Dt. 23:14), and neither will clean birds. Clean birds
want clean nests, unlike the hoopoe and the bat.

In my opinion this explanation, though it lacks thorough proof and demonstration, does full justice to the
zone of concerns of Leviticus 11, and in the absence of any other explanation, it will have to do.

Birds of Prey

The Hebrew word ‘ayit. means "screecher" and refers to birds of prey specifically. As we have seen, not all
the birds in Leviticus 11 are birds of prey, so we cannot make an exact correlation between the two ideas.
All the same, most of the birds are birds of prey, and a look at how the Bible considers birds of prey will
prove helpful in uncovering the intended associations here.

First, just as God is pictured as "eating" the righteous into His kingdom, so the wicked are pictured
eschatologically as corpses devoured by birds of prey. The idea that birds of prey devour the wicked
associates them with hell and with the demonic realm. Thus, when Abram made his dream sacrifice, he
drove away the birds of prey that attempted to eat the dead animals (Gen. 15:11). To be left for the birds to
eat was the preeminent curse of the covenant (Dt. 28:26, 49; Is. 18:6; Jer. 34:18-20; Matt. 24:28; Rev.
19:17-21). A person who died under God's curse was stoned, and then his corpse was nailed up to be eaten
by birds of prey. This is what is meant by the expression, "Cursed is every one who is hanged upon a tree"
(Dt. 21:22-23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; Gal. 3:13). Jesus was crucified, hanged alive, but in Jewish law it was the
corpse that was nailed up (cf. 2 Sam. 21:10, 13).

Second, birds of prey could symbolize warrior nations that would attack and pillage God's people (Is.
46:11; cp. Lev. 26:27-39; Dt. 28:49-57; Jer. 49:16; Hos. 8:1, 9; Ob. 4; Dan. 7:4; 11:41; Hab. 1:8).

Third, perhaps most significant is that the verbal form of 'ayit. is used three times in the Old Testament,
comparing the actions of men to those of birds of prey. In 1 Samuel 14:32, the people "flew upon the spoil"
and devoured flesh with the blood still in it, because Saul had starved them during battle. This act, which in
context is an eating of "forbidden food" analogous to Genesis 3, 16 is verbally associated with the actions of
birds of prey. In 1 Samuel 15:19, Samuel accuses Saul of "flying upon the spoil," because he spared part of
the Amalekite cattle instead of destroying it all as God commanded. Here the idea is of seizing what is
God's. Finally, Nabal the Fool is pictured as "flying upon" David, railing (screeching) at him, in 1 Samuel
25:14.

14
Deuteronomy 23:14. The hoopoe "finds its food on dunghills and does not clear its nest of filth." Fauna and Flora of the Bible, p. 42.
15
Though "shameful" rather than "unclean" is used of excrement, Deuteronomy 23:9-15 puts it parallel with nocturnal emissions,
which are "unclean." Thus, while excrement does not render the person unclean, it is itself incompatible with the holiness of God's
camp.
16
See James B. Jordan, "King Saul: A Study in Humanity and the Fall" (available from Biblical Horizons).

226
From this we get a general idea of the behavior of birds of prey. They swoop down and seize what is not
theirs, and they take into themselves (eat) what is not to be eaten by men. Just so, when people swoop down
and seize what is not theirs and "eat" it, they are acting like birds of prey. There are two good examples of
this. The first is in Judges 18. Here we have the story of the apostate Danites. These people had refused to
take the land God gave them, and instead fell upon "a people quiet and secure" and murdered them and
seized (ate) their land.17 A parallel story is found in Ezekiel 38-39, where Gog and his armies fall upon
"quiet and secure" Israel, and then are themselves destroyed and given to the birds to eat.

Now, while the idea of eating something unclean is naturally implied in passages dealing with birds of
prey, and their human analogues, I wish to point out that the central idea is not that of eating but of "falling
upon." In Genesis 15:11 the birds of prey "came down" upon the sacrifices. In 1 Samuel 14:32, the people
"flew upon" the bloody meat. In 1 Samuel 15:19, Saul "flew upon" the spoil. In 1 Samuel 25:14, Nabal
"flew upon" David. Thus, on these occasions the (human) bird of prey puts its claws upon something
forbidden. This, of course, squares with the overall thrust of Leviticus 11, which is concerned with feet.

We have seen, however, in paper No.10, "The Meaning of Clean and Unclean," that tearing prey is a proper
function of the civil magistrate, and that birds of prey are sometimes symbols for the righteous work of the
magistrate. Thus, simply being a bird of prey does not imply heathendom. In a theological sense, the
Israelite was not to eat judgment to himself by eating birds of prey. Given the fact that Leviticus 11 focuses
on the unclean animals in their capacity as symbols of unrighteous (heathen) curse-prosecutors, however,
we shall have to look further than this. Simply being birds of prey is not enough.

Moreover, since not all the birds of Leviticus 11 are birds of prey, we must come up with a somewhat
broader designation that will cover the entire list.

Birds of Desolation

It is possible, and I believe very likely, that we should regard the unclean birds as "birds of desolation." We
have seen that the raven was willing to spend its time in a cursed environment, and land upon unclean
things, while the dove returned to the blessed environment of the Ark. A number of other passages
associate unclean birds with desolate or unclean places.

A key passage is Revelation 18:2, "And he cried out with a mighty voice, saying, 'Fallen, fallen is Babylon
the great! And she has become a dwelling place of demons and a haunt of every unclean spirit, and a haunt
of every unclean and hateful [detestable] bird." We notice here an association of birds with spirits. We saw
in paper No.2, "Animals and the Bible," that winged fowl are associated with the heavenly environment, as
fish are with the waters under the earth. Thus, fishes come to be associated with Gentiles, good or bad, and
birds come to be associated with angels, good or bad. The dove that descended upon our Lord at His
baptism was an emblem of the Holy Spirit. Unclean and detestable birds are accordingly emblems of the
demonic.18

The wilderness area, being cut off from the water of life and separated from the holy land of God, is
regarded as a haunt of demons in the Bible. Jesus said, "When the unclean spirit goes out of a
man, it passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to my
house from which I came;' and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order. Then it goes,
and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the
last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation"
(Matt. 12:43-45; cp. Luke 11:24-26). Jesus cast the demons out of the Israel of His day, but most of the
Jews refused to accept Him as Messiah. Thus, the demons returned and Judaism became demonized seven-
fold. This is what Revelation 18:2 is speaking of, since (as I believe) Babylon symbolizes Jerusalem and by
17
This story is an anti-exodus. See James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985), pp.
279-290.
18
Winged cherubim guard the Ark of God. The unclean anti-ark of Babylon is guarded by women with the wings of unclean birds
(Zech. 5:9).

227
extension Judaism. We notice, moreover, that the demons inhabit waterless, wilderness places. Similarly,
the radically demonized Gerasene dwelt among the tombs until Jesus exorcised him (Mark 5). 19

The Old Testament pictures the "demons of the wilderness" with unclean animals and birds. Speaking of
the desolation of Old Testament Babylon, Isaiah wrote, "desert creatures [marmots] will lie down there, and
their houses will be full of owls [hyenas]. Ostriches [Eagle-owls] also will live there, and shaggy goats
[goat-demons] will frolic there. And hyenas [jackals] will howl in their fortified towers and jackals
[wolves] in their luxurious palaces" (Is. 13:21- 22).20 We note that goat-demons are included along with the
other unclean beasts and birds.21

Similarly, speaking of the desolation of Edom, Isaiah prophesied, "The pelican [scops-owl] and hedgehog
[ruffed bustard] shall possess it, and the owl [screech-owl] and raven shall dwell in it....It shall also be a
haunt of jackals [wolves ] and an abode of ostriches [eagle-owls]. And the desert creatures [marmots] shall
meet with the wolves [jackals], the hairy goat [goat-demon] also shall cry to its kind; yes, the night-monster
[lilith-demon] shall settle there and shall find herself a resting place. The snake [sand-partridge] shall make
its nest and lay there, and it will hatch and gather its brood under its shade; yes, the hawks [black kites]
shall be gathered there, every one with its kind." 22 Here again the goat-demon is mentioned, and also the
nocturnal lilith-demon.23

Finally, prophesying against Nineveh, Zephaniah states that "both the pelican [scops-owl] and the
hedgehog [ruffed bustard] will lodge in the tops of her pillars; birds will sing in the window, desolation [the
bustard] on the threshold."24

It is certainly reasonable to suppose that all the unclean birds listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14
are birds of desolation. We have seen that it is likely that they are all birds that settle their feet in unclean
places. Also, regardless of how we translate the debated terms, they always come out to be one or another
bird that prefers to haunt filthy or wilderness areas.

God's people were a heavenly people. They are symbolized by stars (Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 26:4), and their
numbers are the numbers of the stars (Num. 1, 26).25 They are dressed in robes that have wings
(Num. 15:38, "comers" is literally “wings"). Thus, they form part of God's heavenly host. As such, they are
to fly around His throne, not fly off into unclean and demonic places. Like the swallow, a clean bird, they
are to nest in His Temple (Ps. 84:3). They are symbolized by the clean birds, who are careful where they
put their feet. The heathen nations, however, do dwell in unclean places, far from the throne. They are
symbolized by the unclean birds, which prefer such dwellings for their feet.

Conclusion

I believe that the unclean birds are birds of desolation, birds that live in, nest in, walk in, and fall upon
unclean places. As such, the distinction between clean and unclean birds provides one more slant on the
basic theme of Leviticus 11. Clean land animals may go where they please, provided they are shod and that
their divided hooves give good purchase of the ground, distinguishing things that differ. Clean birds, on the
other hand, avoid unclean places. Since all birds are "unshod," the clean birds are those that prefer a clean
environment. They are a picture of what God’s people, those who have access to His holy places, are to be
like. God's people are not to dwell in uncleanness by choice. This is the wisdom dimension.

In terms of the theological dimension, clean birds show us something about God. God insists on a morally
19
See James B. Jordan, "Understanding the story of the Gerasene Demoniac," in George Grant, The Dispossessed: Homelessness in
America (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1986), pp. 243-249.
20
Translation NASV. Identifications in brackets are by Driver, "Birds: II. Birds in Life," pp. 134-136.
21
Cf. Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15. See Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 1:428.
22
Translation NASV; terms in brackets from Driver, ibid.
23
Young 2:440-441.
24
Translation NASV; words in brackets from Driver, ibid.
25
See my discussion of this in James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical view of the World (Nashville: Wolgemuth
and Hyatt, 1988), pp. 58f.

228
clean, and in the Old Covenant ceremonially clean, environment to put His nest: the Tabernacle. God
would not "walk" in a place defiled by manure and other filth (Dt. 23:14). God did not pitch His "nest" in a
desolate place, but in the center of the world. God does not "fall upon" dead carcasses to eat, but desires
living sacrifices.

In terms of the sociological dimension, clean and unclean birds can be associated with angels and demons.
Additionally, they can be associated with the people who "fly about" in God's land. Just as with the land
animals, there were two kinds of clean birds. The dove and pigeon, which were used in the sacrificial
system, would closely symbolize the Israelite. 26 They had access to the Tabernacle.27 Other clean birds such
as ~ail, partridges, chickens, and sparrows (miscellaneous small birds) 28 were like deer and gazelle; they
symbolized the God-fearing Gentile. They might be eaten, but they might not be brought into the sanctuary.
Unclean birds would be associated with the heathen.

Additional Note: Elijah and the Ravens

According to 1 Kings 17:4, 6, when Elijah was by the brook Cherith, he was fed by ravens at God's
appointment. Though some have speculated that the ravens here are really "Arabs,” 29 there is absolutely no
foundation for that supposition, and unquestionably real ravens are in view. 30

The food eaten by ravens is unclean. Ravens themselves are unclean. Thus, we are surely to understand that
the food brought back by this flock of "ravens of the valley" (Prov. 30:17) was unclean (carrion). Yet Elijah
ate it, and at God's command. How could this be? I believe the following considerations shed light on the
matter.

1. Elijah was outside the land and cut off from the sacrificial worship at the Temple. Thus, if he became
unclean, it made no difference. He was not going to sacrifice anything anyway.

2. Elijah was living among Gentiles, which the unclean animals and birds signified. Notice the parallel
between the ravens and the widow of Zarephath:

I have commanded the ravens to provide for you there.

1 Kings 17:4

I have commanded a widow there to provide for you.

1 Kings 17:9

3. There are many parallels between Moses and Elijah. Moses fled Pharaoh and dwelt with the God-fearing
Gentile Jethro. Elijah left Ahab and dwelt with the God-fearing widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:12).
While in Midian, Moses did not practice circumcision, and only had to circumcise his son when he drew
near to God's people once again (Ex. 4:22:26). While in Sidon, Elijah did not keep the Mosaic dietary laws,
which only became relevant to him once he drew near to God's people again.

4. I have argued elsewhere in these studies that to eat the flesh of unclean animals in a high-handed fashion
was a sin, but to eat it in an emergency would simply cause ceremonial uncleanness. 31 Such certainly was
the case here. During the drought in Israel, many godly people probably had to eat unclean and otherwise
undesirable food, simply to survive. In union with his people, Elijah did the same.

26
Doves were available in the summer, and pigeons in the winter, See Parmelee, pp. 64-65.
27
"Two clean live birds" were used in cleansing the leper (Lev. 14:4), and evidently these did not have to be doves or pigeons. The
cleansing from leprosy did not, however, take place in the Tabernacle but in the open field.
28
Ibid., p. 244.
29
John Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), pp. 378-80; C. F. Keil, The Books of
the Kings. Keil and Delitzsch Old Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [19th c.] 1970), p. 236.
30
On the ornithological aspects of this, see Parmelee, pp. 147-149.
31
Paper No.11, "The Meaning of the Mosaic Dietary Laws."

229
5. The Mosaic dietary laws were part of the symbolic system that spoke of Israel's priestly privileges. Israel
had lost those priestly privileges because of sin, and God was pouring out His wrath upon them through the
drought. God was treating them as "unclean" and punishing them; thus, detestable food was appropriate for
them.

6. Why then did Daniel refuse to eat Babylonian food? We shall deal with this question in Chapter 10
below. I believe it was because God Himself had come to be with the exiles in Babylon (Ezk. 1, 8-11), and
Nebuchadnezzar had taken the furniture of the Temple to Babylon (Dan. 5), so that "Tabernacle law" was
in a sense operative there. Such was not the case for Elijah.

230
Chapter 5 – Hopping Things

20. Any swarming thing with wings that walks on all fours is detestable for you. 1

21. Yet this you may eat from all the swarming things with wings that walk on all fours: the one
that possesses hind legs above his feet to hop with upon the land.

22. These from them you may eat: the locust, any kind of him; and the katydid, any kind of him;
and the cricket, any kind of him; and the grasshopper, any kind of him.

23. But any swarming thing with wings that possesses four feet is detestable to you.

We come now to the last category of animals, the swarming things. Virtually all swarming things are
unclean. As we shall see, the latter half of Leviticus 11 speaks of swarming things as unclean because they
are boundary transgressors. Like Satan, they invade and corrupt the garden. The summary verses of the
chapter, however, also specify that they are unclean because they crawl in the cursed soil, "Anything that
crawls on its belly, and anything that moves on all fours, and anything that has many feet from all the
swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you may not eat. They are detestable for you" (Lev. 11:42).

Clean Swarmers

This certainly eliminates most swarming things, because almost all swarming things travel in the dust. How
about swarming things with wings; i.e., winged insects? Are any of them clean? Well, simply having wings
and flying from place to place is not enough. After all, many winged insects light upon filthy things. More
to the point: When they light, they crawl from place to place. Thus, they are still crawlers. The only
exception is the hopping winged insects. When they light, they still generally hop from place to place, and
seldom walk or crawl. Thus, they avoid contact with unclean environments as much as possible, and are
regarded as clean.

The New International Version gives these as locust, katydid, cricket, and grasshopper. The New American
Standard Version and the New King James Version give locust, devastating locust, cricket, and
grasshopper. All are orthoptera that have dramatically jointed legs, "hind legs above their feet."

None of these animals is sacrificially acceptable. Thus, the clean insects had no particular association with
Israel. In fact, the only time we see anyone eating them is when John the Forerunner ate them while outside
Israel in the wilderness (Mark 1:8). There in the wilderness he called both Jew and Gentile to repentance
(Luke 3:14).

In Joel, a devastation of locusts is mentioned, "What the gnawing locust has left, the swarming locust has
eaten; and what the swarming locust has left, the creeping locust has eaten; and what the creeping locust
has left, the stripping locust has eaten" (Joel 1:4). In Joel 2, the prophet plays on this to describe the coming
Assyrian invasion as a plague of human locusts. Possibly there is a certain appropriateness in using a clean
insect to describe Assyria, because Assyria had been converted under Jonah (Jonah 3-4), but had fallen
away (Nahum 1-3).

At any rate, I believe that in the scheme of Leviticus 11, the clean insect is a picture of the God-fearing
Gentile in the world, much as the clean fish is. There are very few clean insects (four kinds,
numerologically indicating the whole world?), existing in a sea of unclean swarming things. Just so, God-
fearing Gentiles must have been relatively few for most of Old Covenant history. The clean insect flies and
hops, avoiding as much as possible unclean environments. Just so, the God-fearing Gentile must be very
careful in his contact with his world.

1
God was well aware that insects have six legs, not four. The Jews also knew this. Thus, the expression
"walks on four" is not to be taken numerically but simply as an indication of its mode of locomotion.

231
We have sought to give theological as well as sociological explanations of these laws. Thus, the question
comes: What does the clean swarmer show about God? From my reflections, I suggest that just as God is
omnipresent and not personally limited by any barriers, so is the clean swarmer. Moreover, just as the clean
swarmer hops fro~ place to place, so does God. We see this in Ezekiel 1:15- 21. There God's chariot is
pictured flashing from place to place, but not running on the ground. The chariot lights in a place, but to get
to another place it takes off on its wings. "Whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings" (Ezk. 1:24,
25). Thus the motion of God's chariot seems to be the archetype for the motion of clean swarming things,
and thus of all clean people.

A Full Picture of the Dietary Law System

Having surveyed the four categories of animals and what they symbolize within the horizon of Leviticus
11, let us pull it all together into a working model.

Birds and beasts primarily have to do with the environment of Israel, a heavenly environment, God's holy
land. Sacrificially acceptable birds and animals most closely represent Israelites, for they have sanctuary
access. Clean birds and animals have to do largely with God-fearing Gentiles living in, or at least having
access to, the holy land. Unclean birds and animals have to do with the ungodly.

Fish and swarmers have to do with the environment of the world outside of Israel. Clean fish and swarmers
have to do largely with God-fearing Gentiles as they live in the world outside Israel. Unclean fish and
swarmers have to do with the ungodly.

To get a full portrait of the clean Israelite, we put the land animals with the birds. On the one hand, the
clean Israelite wears Spiritual shoes to keep himself unspotted by the world. He distinguishes between
clean and unclean, holy and profane, with his divided hoof. He meditates on the word of God. On the other
hand, the clean Israelite prefers to avoid unclean places, and like a clean bird rests only in clean places.

To get a full portrait of the clean Gentile, we put the fish with the swarmers. On the one hand, the clean
Gentile is armored against the continual defilements of his Gentile environment, and he swims purposefully
with his fins. On the other hand, he seeks to avoid as much as possible all contact with the unclean places
of the world, flying and hopping like a clean insect.

Diagram 13.7

Clean Israelite Clean Gentile

Contact Clean animal: hoof, Clean fish: scales,

divided hoof, fins
meditation
Place of rest Clean bird: avoids Clean swarmer: hops
unclean places from place to place

Leviticus 11 and Genesis 3

In Genesis 3:14, the serpent was cursed "away from" all cattle and beasts of the field. That means that this
particular serpent is regarded as separated from all other animals. Because of this we cannot say that "the
animal kingdom fell in union with the serpent, " or any such thing. At the same time, it seems that in the
laws of uncleanness, God chose to separate off the unclean animals in a way analogous to the way He
separated off the original serpent, and the symbolic judgment placed on the primordial serpent then
becomes an archetype for understanding symbolically the characteristics of unclean animals, as these differ
from clean.

232
The animals denoted as clean did not possess the essential external marks of the serpent's curse. They did
not crawl on their bellies, eat dust, or rise up at enmity against man. Those animals that possessed one or
more of these characteristics, however, were denoted as unclean. They portrayed the judgment against
original sin.

Curiously enough, Leviticus II does not describe unclean animals in terms of what they eat, but only in
terms of how they move. It would have been a simple enough matter for God to say, "As for any carrion-
eater, you shall not eat of it," and like statements. We find nothing of the sort here, however. Cud-chewing
has more to do with how the animal eats than what he eats, and as a stipulation does not seem to be
derivable from Genesis 3. (Let me make it clear, if I have not done so already, that I am not arguing that
Leviticus II is nothing more than an exposition of Genesis 3:14-15. I am, rather, arguing that Leviticus II is
related to and expands upon Genesis 3:14-15.) The forbidden birds are not said to be birds of prey, and they
are not described in terms of their diet; moreover, as we have seen, the Biblical concept of a bird of prey
has more to do with its method of alighting than with its diet.

The second half of Leviticus 11, to which we turn in Chapter 7 below, focuses on the unclean animal as
boundary transgressor: that is, it focuses on the animal at enmity with the woman and her garden- house.
This means that Leviticus 11 deals with the "serpent" as crawling in the dust and as at war with the woman,
but not as eating dust and at war with the seed. Is there a reason for this?

I believe the answer lies in the fact that touching is the first step to eating. We shall see in the next chapter
that the people were not to touch the things they were not to eat. From this we can see that Eve had
reasoned rightly when she said, "neither shall we touch it" (Gen. 3:3). What this means is that by discussing
unclean animals in terms of their contact (touching "dirt"), Leviticus 11 also covers the subject of their diet
(eating "dirt").

To put it another way, the curse of eating dirt is but an extension of the curse of crawling in it. It is not
categorically separate. Thus there is no need for a separate discussion in Leviticus 11 of the topic of "eating
dirt." Those animals that "crawl" in the dirt may be presumed to "eat dirt. " Those that do not "crawl" may
be presumed not to "eat."

Just so, Satan's attack on the Seed is but an extension of his attack on the Bride. Notice in Genesis 3 that he
first approached the woman. Also, more generally, Satan's assault against humanity was an attack on
humanity as God's Bride. His further assault on the Seed of the woman is but an extension of this.

Thus, by discussing the enmity of unclean swarmers against the woman and her domestic environment,
Leviticus 11 is automatically discussing the enmity of such swarmers against the seed. A dead mouse on a
stove can just as easily be a dead mouse in the baby's crib.

233
Chapter 6 - Touch Not, Handle Not

Colossians 2:20-21. If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as
if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not
taste, do not touch"?

Leviticus 11:24. By these [winged insects], moreover, you will be made unclean: whoever touches
their carcasses becomes unclean until the evening,

25. And anyone picking up any of their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the
evening.

26. Regarding every animal that is covered of hoof but dividing does not divide or cud is not
chewing, they are unclean to you. Everyone who touches them [their carcasses] will be unclean. 1

27. And every one that walks upon his paws among all the animals that walk upon all fours, they
are unclean to you. Everyone who touches their carcasses will be unclean until the evening.

28. And the one who picks up their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the
evening; they are unclean to you,

31. These are unclean for you from among all the swarmers. Anyone touching them when they are
dead will be unclean until the evening.

39. And if one of the animals dies that you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes
unclean until the evening.

40a. And the one eating from its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening ;

40b. And the one picking up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening.

From these verses the following principles emerge. First, carcasses of clean animals that died by
themselves and were not properly slaughtered for food, caused uncleanness (v. 39). 2

Second, all carcasses of unclean animals caused uncleanness. Though nothing is said directly about fish and
winged fowl, the rule surely applied to them. Additionally, since nothing is said about these animals dying
by themselves, I assume that their carcasses polluted even if they were killed by man, the reason being that
they were not slaughtered for eating.

Third, we learn from verses 32-33 that if a large swarming thing died in contact with an instrument or
vessel, these latter became unclean. This implies that any instrument that came in contact with such an
animal carcass became unclean. Thus, a shovel used to carry out a dead rat would have become unclean. 3
This uncleanness was not transmitted further, to the human wielding the instrument, as is clear from these
same verses. (This stands in contrast to the pollution caused by a human corpse, which was much more
potent; Numbers 19:22.)

Fourth, there was a distinction between light contact and serious contact, between mere touching on the one
hand, and handling or eating on the other. The former required only that the defiled person wash his body.
The latter required laundering of garments as well.

Fifth, since the carcass of a clean animal defiled just as much as the carcass of an unclean one, it follows
that the defilement caused by eating the carcass of a clean animal was the same as the defilement caused by
1
Clearly, just touching or riding a donkey or camel did not render one unclean. The reference must be to the carcasses of these
animals. This is obvious from the context. To my knowledge, no one disputes this.
2
Proper slaughter required the blood to be drained (Lev. 17:13).
3
On whether this would apply to a dead dog or cat, see the discussion in Chapter 7.

234
eating unclean meat. Both were explicitly prohibited (Dt. 14:21; Ex. 22:31; Lev. 22:8), and eating either
involved an act of will, a volitional transgression. See our discussion in paper No. 11, "The Meaning of the
Mosaic Dietary Laws. " Uncleanness lasted only one day and was removed by washing, laundering, and
waiting until sundown (Lev. 11:40; 17:15).

Our concern in this chapter is with the distinction between 1ight and serious contact, between "touching"
and "handling," and thus with the difference between washing and laundering. For a full understanding of
the requirements in Leviticus 11, it will be helpful to examine this distinction as it comes to expression in
the laws of uncleanness as a whole.

Touching and Handling

We have noted that merely touching an animal carcass only mandated washing, while handling one (or
eating one) mandated washing and laundering. Let us now look at other areas of uncleanness to isolate the
same principle.

Unclean Issues

Since most of the information on this distinction is found in Leviticus 15, we shall turn our attention there
first. These laws have to do with issues of blood or sexual material from the privates In each case, the more
serious contact with uncleanness was like handling, and required both washing and laundering.

If a man had a nocturnal emission, or engaged in sexual relations, he needed only wash (15:16, 18). If he
had discharges for a longer period, however, then when they ceased he was required both to wash and to
launder (15:13).

If you touched something that a man with a serious discharge had sat upon, you needed only wash; but if
you picked it up and carried it, you were required also to launder (15:9-10). Similarly, if you sat where he
had sat, thus prolonging contact, you were required to wash and launder (15:6).

If you touched his bed, you were required both to wash and to launder (15:5). This may have been because
the unclean man had spent more time there, and thus the impurity was considered stronger. Another
interpretation is that "touching" may here imply sitting on the bed, while merely brushing against it might
only have required washing.

If the unclean man touched you with unwashed hands, you were required both to bathe and to launder
(15:11). What if he touched you with washed hands? The answer to this will appear in a moment.

If you touched his "flesh," you were required to wash and launder (15:7). The question here is whether
"flesh" refers to the privates (as it does in verse 2) or to the whole body (as it does in verse 13). If it refers
to any part of his body, then whether he had washed his hands or not, contacting him would have been in
the "handling" category. Such an interpretation renders verse 11 superfluous. It makes more sense to put the
material together this way:

a. When a physician examined the man's privates, he was required to wash and launder.

b. Contact with any other part of the man's body was a lesser defilement; you were required only to bathe.

c. If the man touched you with unwashed hands, you were to bathe and launder. In context, "unwashed"
does not imply ordinary dirt, but that the hands have not been washed since their latest contact with the
defiled area (e.g., since urination, etc.). Thus, the impurity itself was on the hands.

d. If his hands were clean, you needed only to bathe.

This construction preserves the difference between touching and handling, and eliminates a contradiction

235
between verses 7 and 11.4

If the unclean man spat on you, you were both to wash and to launder (15:8). This requirement is
apparently due to a perceived analogy between spitting and the discharge. Wenham, who does not make
this point himself, gives helpful information in his comments on 15:3, "The discharge may be quite runny;
the word runs (rar) is used only here but is connected with the word for saliva (rir) (Job 6:6; 1 Sam.
21:13)."5 Thus, being spat upon by the unclean man was equivalent to touching his privates. 6

The laws for contacting a menstruating woman, or a woman suffering a more extended discharge, are
compressed in Leviticus 15:19-30. The material provided shows that the situations here are just like those
for the man with a discharge. Sitting on a chair whereon she has sat, or touching her bed (probably in a
prolonged sense), was in the "handling" category requiring both bathing and laundering (15:21, 22, 26-27).
Merely touching these items would probably only have required washing. Simply touching the woman
would have required washing (15:19), while a medical examination of her condition would have required
the physician both to bathe and to launder.7

The Plague of Decay ("Leprosy")

The Bible is silent concerning pollution from contact with a "leper," but it does say that the "leprous" house
caused contamination. If you merely entered a "leprous" house, you had to wash, but if you lay down in it
or ate a meal in it, you also had to launder (Lev. 14:46-47). The distinction between a light touch and a
more serious contact ("handling") was thus preserved.

If a plagued house caused pollution, obviously a plagued person also did, especially since the rites for
cleansing them were the same (Lev. 14:4-7, 49-53).8 Accordingly, "it seems reasonable to suppose, as the
Mishnah does, that an infected person polluted much like a [man with a discharge].” 9 In other words,
anything that contacted a "leprous" sore would have been in the "handling" category, while anything that
contacted the clean part of a "leper's" body, or merely brushed his bedclothes or garments, would have been
in the "touching" category.

Wright notes that Leviticus 13 sets up two situations of suspected "leprosy." Some suspects were shut up
for two weeks and given two examinations (vv. 2-8, 29-37), while others were only shut up for one week

4
Contra David Pearson Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature.
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 101 (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1987), p. 181, n. 34.
5
Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979),
p. 218. Carmichael supports the analogy in remarks on the Levirate law of Deuteronomy 25:9, "The analogy of spitting with the
emission of seed is obvious. The analogy is especially appropriate in regard to the woman's action because her gesture is a
contemptuous one. ... An example in post-Biblical Hebrew of roq ' spittle' in the euphemistic sense of semen occurs in b. Nid. 16b
[Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 16b]." Could it be that the use of spitting in the face of the recalcitrant levir is a public statement that he
is "impotent," and takes its rise from the uncleanness of discharges in Leviticus 15? See Calum M. Carmichael, "A Ceremonial Crux:
Removing a Man's Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt," Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977) :330f. Carmichael is careful to
note that not all Biblical references to spitting carry this symbolic overtone; e.g., Numbers 12:14; Isaiah 50:6.
6
It might be argued that spittle is a liquid coming from the inside of the unclean person, and for that reason alone entails the more
serious contact, requiring laundering as well as bathing. If this were the rationale, however, it would apply equally to tears, bleeding
from a wound, and any other kind of liquid coming from
inside a defiled person. Only spitting is mentioned, however, and in view of the information provided in footnote 5, I believe that the
analogy to the seminal discharge is what is in view.
7
It is not the purpose of the present study to go into the meaning of the details of Leviticus 15. Let me point out, however, that since
material objects cannot become unclean in themselves, and thus have no need of cleansing in themselves, they must symbolize human
beings. As we shall see more fully in Chapter 8 and 9 below, the items of furniture in the house symbolize other members of the
household. The general idea is the spread of death from one person to another under the Old Covenant, in this case from a person to an
item that symbolizes another person, and then to a third person.
8
The only difference is that water was included with the blood of sprinkling in the case of the stricken house. My guess is that this
ceremonially equivalent to the requirement that the stricken man wash, launder, and shave (Lev. 14:8). The other differences in rite
have to do with the fact that the "leper" is a person, and must be readmitted to the covenant community by means of a Passover-like
ritual, while the house does not need any such readmission (Lev. 14:8-32). A comparative study of these rites could profitably proceed
on the following principle:
Cleansing/Establishing High Priest: Cleansing/Establishing Tabernacle :: Cleansing "leper" : Cleansing "leprous" House.
9
Wright, pp. 209-10

236
(vv. 18-23, 24-28).10 Laundering was required in the more serious, two-week cases. Nothing is said about
bathing in any of the four cases, but it certainly seems obvious, especially "since the requirement for
ablution is often left unsaid.”11

A man who actually contracted "leprosy" was obviously in an even more serious condition. His cleansing
ritual was very elaborate, but included bathing, laundering, and a third requirement: shaving off all the hair
on his head (Lev. 14:8-9). This same extreme form of cleansing was required also of the corpse-
contaminated Nazirite (Num. 6:9). Thus, the most serious forms of defilement seem to have defiled the
head.

Corpse Contamination

The information on this is found in Numbers 19. The human corpse was the most powerful contaminant,
causing anyone touching it to be unclean for a week, and requiring special rituals for cleansing. Objects
touching a corpse also became contaminated, and passed that contamination on to men who touched them.
" A person who touches a corpse-contaminated object becomes unclean for one day and requires bathing
(Lev. 22:4-6). It is highly likely that if a more aggressive form of contact occurred (e.g., carrying),
laundering would also be required.”12

Sacrifices for Impurity

The Purification Offering, and its variants, were used to carry off impurity from the Tabernacle and the
people, which were the true tabernacle represented by the physical Tabernacle. These sacrifices and their
residue became unclean as the uncleanness passed to them, leaving the Tabernacle and the people cleansed.
The idea of substitution is clear: The Purification Offering took upon itself the uncleanness of the person.
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in
Him" (2 Cor. 5:21).

When a Purification Offering was made, part of the sacrifice was burned up on the altar to satisfy the wrath
of God (Lev. 6:8-9), while the rest of the carcass was burned outside the camp (Lev. 6: 11- 12). The priest
responsible for this latter action was dealing with a seriously impure carcass, since the contamination for
which it was a substitute had been imputed to it. Thus, the priest was required both to bathe and to launder
(Lev. 16:27-28).

On the annual Day of Atonement, a special Purification Offering, that of the scapegoat was made. The man
who drove out the scapegoat was also in contact with serious impurity, and had to bathe and launder (Lev.
16:26).

Finally, the pollution caused by corpse contamination was extremely serious, but also very common both in
daily life and in wartime (Num. 31:19). A special Purification Offering was set up to deal with this: the red
heifer. This animal was reduced to ashes, which were then mixed with water and sprinkled on corpse
contaminated persons and objects. The man who burned up the animal, the supervising priest, and a third
man who gathered up the ashes, all became seriously contaminated, and were required both to bathe and to
launder (Num. 19:7, 8, 10).

When a person became contaminated by a corpse, he had to be sprinkled with these ashes, quickened with
water, on the third and seventh days. Whoever did the sprinkling, and thus "handled" the ashes (albeit at a
distance), was required to launder (and presumably to bathe), while someone who merely touched the ashen
water, or got sprinkled by it accidentally, only had to bathe (Num. 19:21).

Summary

10
The more serious varieties were those that assaulted the whole body or the head; see remarks on Decay in paper No. 10, "The
Meaning of Clean and Unclean."
11
Wright, p. 212. Wright can be consulted for more detailed discussion of the degrees of "leprous" impurity and its transmission, pp.
206-215.
12
Ibid., p. 198.

237
The Levitical system makes a consistent distinction between serious and light contact with unclean persons
and items, the former being equivalent to "handling" and the latter to "touching." In the case of serious
defilements, cleansing required both bathing and laundering.

Garments

Why did serious contact, "handling," require laundering of garments? Wright's comments on this are worth
citing at length.

The reason for the requirement of laundering cannot simply be that the clothes have contacted the
impurity. The prescriptions do not give this as a reason for laundering. Indeed, we would expect
the rules to be more direct on this matter if clothing needed washing because it has touched the
impurity. Furthermore, the forms of contact that require laundering do not necessarily imply
contact with clothing has been made. Conceivably, one could carry a dead mouse by its tail
without touching clothing and one could eat impure meat with spilling it on clothing. Most
decisive, however, is the rule about entering a ["leprosy"] infected house. If the requirement to
launder was based purely on the contact of clothing with the impurity, then the clothing on the
person who merely enters the house should become impure by overhang as the person does when
he enters and should, consequently, require laundering. But this is not the case. Laundering is
required only in the case of eating or lying down in the house. This suggests that the reason for
laundering is more abstract than mere contact with the clothes. In my view, the requirement to
launder is due to a more aggressive or longer lasting form of contact that the person makes with
the impurity. His clothes do not need to touch it to require laundering. In other words, the more
extensive the contact, the more complete the pollution of the person. Consequently, both bathing
and laundering are required.13

Clearly, then, there is something symbolized by the garment that is in view in these stipulations. Garments
in the Mosaic economy, and in the Bible as a whole, are never mere clothing. They are also symbolic of a
person's position and glory. As Hobbs has written, "The outer cloak was a symbol of personality and
power."14 To a greater or lesser degree, they were robes of office. 15 Glory and office are, however,
ultimately social. Noah's robe meant nothing unless his sons upheld it (Gen. 9:23). The model for this
symbolism is found in the garments of the High Priest, which included the names of the tribes of Israel both
on the shoulder stones and on the breast piece -- indicative in part of the fact that his true covering and
glory was the people themselves (Ex. 28:11, 21).

The Tabernacle, representing the body politic, was of cloth, and thus was God's garment. 16 It was woven
with cherubim, guardians, representing His heavenly people. In its widest form, the universe itself is God's
garment (Ps. 102:26; Is. 51:6). God is robed in His cloud of glory, which cloud represents His people.
When the prophet Ahijah offered the kingdom of Israel to Jeroboam, he tore his cloak into twelve pieces
for the twelve tribes of Israel, and gave ten to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:29-32). Similarly, Samuel tore the
corner off of Saul's robe to signify that the kingdom was being torn from him (1 Sam. 15:27-28).17 When
Jesus entered Jerusalem, the people put their garments on the road for His donkey to step on, thereby
asking Him to be their king and offering to be His footstool (Mark 11:8). Ezra rent his garment as a sign of
the rending of the body politic (Ezr. 9:3, 5). (See also Isaiah 50:9; 51:8.)

Every Israelite male wore a special garment. "Speak to the sons of Israel, and tell them that they shall make
13
Ibid., p. 186, n. 39.
14
T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), p. 115. See 1 Samuel 24:4-5; 1 Kings 19:19; 2
Kings 2; 9:13; Matthew 21:7-8. In these passages, the garment represents the person.
15
For a discussion of this theme in Genesis, beginning with Adam's nakedness and carrying through to Joseph's triple investiture, see
James B. Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis," in Gary North, ed., Tactics of Christian Resistance.
Christianity & civilization 3 (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1983), pp. 38-68.
16
On the Tabernacle as a symbol of the body politic, see James B. Jordan, Through New Eves: Developing a Biblical view of the
World (Nashville, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), pp. 213-216.
17
On this passage see James B. Jordan, "King Saul: A Study in Humanity and the Fall" (available from Biblical Horizons).

238
for themselves tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and that they shall put
on the tassel of each a corner of blue" (Numbers 15:38). These were the special clothes worn by all
Israelites, and they spoke of the fact that each man was a priest in the nation of priests. Moreover, the
"tassel" was literally a "wing."18 The association here is with the four-winged cherubim who guard God’s
holiness. The Israelite was to look at these "in order that you may remember to do all My commandments,
and be holy to your God" (Numbers 15:40). These wings pictured Israel as a heavenly people (Genesis
15:5) and as a heavenly army (Numbers 2).19 In both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants Israel's
heavenly calling was to be salt and light to the Gentiles -- thus, these garments had to do with her peculiar
calling, witness, and influence.20

A man's garment, then, has to do symbolically with the society of people gathered around him, and with
whom he has influence.21 The spread of uncleanness to a garment is a symbol of its spread to others. This
can be seen in a number of ways. If an influential man, who would wear glorious garments, falls into a sin
publicly, he will carry others with him, for they will imitate his example. To a lesser degree, this is true of
any of us.

With this mindset firmly in place, we can draw practical inferences from what we have looked at thus far.
Many personal sins, including idolatry (Leviticus 11) are private. We need to repent of these and cleanse
ourselves of the judgment they bring, but since others do not know of them, we need not draw others into
our acts of cleansing -- we need not wash our garments. Other sins, however, are more public, or involve
other people. When we repent of these, we need to cleanse our brethren -- our garments -- as well. They
need to know of our repentance, and we need to exhort them to follow our lead in repenting, if they have
followed our lead in sin.

Touching and Eating

There is an additional dimension here. In Chapter 9 we shall see that the human body is both al tar and
vessel. The former contemplates one's outward life, one's "touching," while the latter contemplates one's
inner life, one's "eating." Handling, as a more prolonged and intense form of touching, is associated with
eating, and thus like eating, handling defiles the temple. The garment surrounds the man as a temple, and
thus it is defiled as a sign that the man's innermost part has been defiled. The more internally a man is
defiled, the more outwardly will his defilement be manifested in society. 22

There is another avenue we can take to acquire the mindset of Scripture on this point, and that is to look
briefly at the Purification Offering. This was the sacrifice used to purge uncleanness, and so it is directly
related to our concern. There were three degrees of uncleanness, and thus three degrees of Purification
Offering. Third-class transgressions were inadvertent sins committed by private individuals. Such
transgressions put equivalent defiling marks (so to speak) on the bronze altar, which symbolized the people.

18
Hebrew kanaf. The term is used for bird wings and the wings of cherubim and seraphim. As regards human garments, it is a
pregnant symbol. The four corners signify the extent of a man's personal or political dominion, and thus also the four pillars of his
house (garment = tent: wing = tent peg or cornerstone). To cut it off is to undermine a man's house, to assault his dominion. Cf.
Deuteronomy 22:30: 27:20: Ruth 2:12: 3:9: 1 Samuel 24:4, 5, 11: Job 37:3: 38:13: Isaiah 11:12: 24:16: Ezekiel 16:8: Daniel 9:27:
Haggai 2:12: Luke 8:44. The wing of the garment is also associated with a man's wife, who is his glory (Dt. 22:12-13, 30: 27:20: 1
Cor. 11:7).
19
The census figures here and in chapter 26 line up with astral periods. See M. Barnouin, “Les recensements du Livre des Nornbres et
l'astronomie babylonienne,” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 280-303. An English translation of this article is available from Biblical
Horizons.
20
A very fine essay on this whole subject is Jacob Milgrom, "Of Hems and Tassels," Biblical Archaeology Review 9:3 (May/June
1983) : 61-65. Milgrom points out regarding 1 Samuel 24 that "the hem that David cut off was an extension of Saul's person and
authority" (p. 61). He also says that "extra-Biblical texts teach us that the ornate hem was considered a symbolic extension of the
owner himself and more specifically of his rank and authority" (p. 61). Moreover, the blue tassels "signified nobility because the blue
dye used to color the threads was extraordinarily expensive" (p. 62). Blue cloth could only be afforded by the nobility (Ezk. 23:6;
Esth. 1:6). Finally, only wool could be dyed, and since the common man's clothing was made of flax, his garment mixed wool and
linen in a tiny way, just like that of the priests, signifying his status as a priest himself (p. 65).
21
In Jeremiah 43:12, Nebuchadnezzar clothes himself with Egypt. In Isaiah 49:18, Israel is clothed with converts. A good summary of
the metaphorical usages of clothing is provided in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, fully revised ed. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979-) 1:724-5.
22
Compare the discussion of holiness and glory, the internal and the external, in paper No.10, "The Meaning of Clean and Unclean."

239
The required Purification Offering was a goat or lamb (Lev. 4:22-35), and the blood of this sacrifice was
used to cleanse the bronze altar of its defilement, symbolizing cleansing the people.

Second-class transgressions were inadvertent sins committed either by the congregation as a whole (in the
decisions of its governors), or by the High Priest. Notice that these transgressions were social in character,
not private, and thus in the "garment, handling" category. Such transgressions defiled the garment (veil) of
the Holy Place of the Tabernacle, and also the golden altar, which symbolized the priesthood. The required
Purification Offering was a bull (Lev. 4: 1-21), and the blood of this sacrifice was used to cleanse the
environment of the Holy Place.

Now before looking at first-class transgressions, let us compare the second and third classes. The Holy
Place was shrouded in a garment, the veil, and second-class transgressions penetrated it and defiled the
area.23 There is an association here with the human garment, which was also defiled by serious
uncleanness. Serious uncleanness involved handling, and also eating. Note the connection: strong
uncleanness went into the human vessel and defiled him and his garments; second-class transgressions
went into the Tabernacle and defiled the golden altar and the veil (Lev. 4:6). Lesser uncleanness involved
only touching, and only defiled the skin; and third-class transgressions only defiled the outer altar.24

To round out this discussion, let us remember that most serious defilements required the shaving of the
head.25 This has a parallel to most serious transgressions. First-class transgressions -- highhanded sins --
defiled the Holy of Holies.26 The ceremony of the Day of Atonement was required for it (Leviticus 16).
Blood of the Purification Offering was put on the Ark of the Covenant the footstool of God's throne, also a
symbol of the people.27 Since the Lord was Israel’s King, we can see that we are in the realm of defilement
of "headship."28

As we saw in paper No.11, impenitent eating of forbidden flesh was a highhanded sin, and would cause
God to regard the eater as detestable, and consequently such a person would be excommunicated from the
worship assembly. With this in mind, we are now in a position to set forth a full paradigm on degrees of
uncleanness, as Diagram 13.8 (p. 70) indicates.

For the sake of completeness, we need to call attention to one aspect of the rite. In the case of second-class
transgressions, the blood was taken into the Holy Place and daubed on the horns of the golden altar and

23
As noted, garments have to do with glory and thus with society. On the curtain as a symbol of God's body politic, and thus of
Israelite society, see James B. Jordan, "From Glory to Glory: Degrees of Value in the Sanctuary" (available from Biblical Horizons).
24
It is worth noting that there were three environmental shrouds -- garments -- for the Tabernacle complex. The veil of the Holy of
Holies was the costliest, then less costly was the curtain of the Tabernacle, and finally least was the screen around the court. Third-
class transgressions penetrated this outer screen and defiled the brazen altar. Second-class transgressions penetrated the middle curtain
and defiled the golden al tar and the inner veil. First-class transgressions penetrated the veil of the Holy of Holies and defiled the Ark.
On these curtains, see Jordan, "From Glory to Glory."
25
On the hair a man's glory-crown, see my remarks in James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva
Ministries, 1985), p. 226. Notice the glory-crown around the head of Christ in Revelation 10:1. See also Leviticus 10:6, where God's
priests were told not to disrupt their hair in mourning.
26
There was no sacrifice for highhanded crimes. When the sinner was apprehended, he was dealt with by the magistrate. The Day of
Atonement dealt with crimes -- highhanded sins -- that were not caught. Wright, p. 20. Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and
Terminology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983), chap. 6: "Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray. "' On repentance for high-
handed sins and consequent reduction of penalty, see Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The "Asham" and the Priestly Doctrine of
Repentance (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), chap. 3; and James B. Jordan, "The Death Penalty in the Mosaic Law: Five Exploratory
Essays" (available from Biblical Horizons), chap. 2.
27
For completeness, let us note that the entirety of the Holy of Holies was not defiled, nor was it cleansed. Only the Ark and Mercy
Seat, and the space in front of them, represented Israel, and thus only they became symbolically defiled and were symbolically
cleansed. Beyond this, above the Mercy Seat, were the cherubim, whose wings formed the Throne itself. Man's sins could not defile
these, and thus no blood was put on them. The area behind the Throne was not cleansed either. Blood was only put on the front, on the
"east side" of the Mercy Seat (Lev. 16:14). Men were not admitted to the area behind the cherubim during the Old Covenant, so it was
not possible for man's sins to defile that area. Only in Revelation 4-5 do we see a Man pass beyond the barrier formed by the
cherubim.
28
Wright points out another connection. On the Day of Atonement, the sanctuary was purified in the following order: Holy of Holies,
Holy Place, Bronze Altar. The progression was from most serious to least. Wright compares the anointing of the High Priest and the
restoration of the leper, in both of which cases blood was placed on the head (ear), hand (thumb), and foot (toe) -- again, clearly from
most important to least (Ex. 29:19-20; Lev. 8:22-24; Lev. 14:14, 17, 25, 28). Ezekiel's altar was anointed with blood in "three separate
locations, from top to bottom: altar horns, upper ‘azara corners, and the gebul at the base." Wright, p. 154, n. 19.

240
sprinkled on the veil. In my opinion, the altar is the heart of the area, and the veil represents its extremity.
Thus, the whole area is cleansed by this action, from the innermost part (the defiled inward parts) to the
outermost parts (the skin). In view of the fact that each of the three zones of the Tabernacle represented the
human person, the rite shows a thorough cleansing of the whole person. 29

Diagram 13.8

Transgressions Defilement Degree of Degree of Requisite

Uncleanness Uncleanness Cleansing
"Inadvertent" Defile the Purification Touching: mere Bathing of skin.
sins of laymen brazen altar offering of goat or physical contact of
and local in the courtyard. lamb; blood put on the outer body
leaders. brazen altar; with animal
defiled meat carcass.
purged by cooking
in a holy place.**
"Inadvertent" Defile the Purification Handling: serious Bathing of skin
sins of nation Holy Place offering of bull; contact (altar) and
as a whole or and its central blood put on with animal laundering of
High Priest as Golden Altar. "garment" veil of carcass. Also, garments (veil).
nation's head. Holy Place as well eating forbidden
as on the Golden flesh.
Altar; defiled meat
burned outside in a
clean place.
(Undetected) Defile the Purification Full eating: refusal (Trespass offering
high-handed Holy of Holies offering to cleanse oneself after repentance
sins in the and the mercy of goat; blood put after eating for
nation. seat.* on forbidden flesh. high-handed sins,
mercy seat and on Lev. 6:1-7.) In the
ground of Holy of case of "leper" and
Holies; Nazirite, total
second goat sent to shaving of head.
unclean
place (Azazel;
wilderness).
* Also seems * * The impurity is
to defile the transferred to the
High Priest, cooking vessel,
since he must cleansing the meat,
make the same Lev. 6:28.
sacrifice for
himself,
Lev. 16:11-14.

Similarly, as regards third-class transgressions blood was put on the horns of the bronze altar in the
courtyard, and also poured at its base. In my opinion this is equivalent to what we have just seen in the case
of second-class transgressions. The horns at the top have to do with the innermost parts of the person, while
the base has to do with the outer man.30

29
The Tabernacle as a whole also represented the human person: the Holy of Holies his innermost heart and mind, the Holy Place his
senses, and the courtyard his activities. At the same time, however, each of these also represented the human person, and the heart of
each was its altar. This follows from the fact that each of the three zones is specifically associated with certain groups of people, and
thus with the individuals in those groups --and by extension with every Israelite considered in the particular dimension represented by
the specific Tabernacle zone. On the Tabernacle as human person, see Jordan, Through New Eyes, pp. 216-217.
30
See Jordan, Through New Eyes, pp. 158f., 163, for a discussion of the human person as Holy Mountain, and then by extension the

241
If this is correct, then the two-fold application of blood in the Holy of Holies for first-class transgressions
would have the same meaning (Lev. 16:14). The blood put on the east side of the mercy seat would cover
the more central aspect of the sin, while the blood sprinkled on the ground in front of it would cover the
outer aspects of the sin.31

If we are not to eat idolatrous food, then neither are we to "touch" it, for touching is the first step to eating.
Eve was right, then, to infer from God's prohibition of eating the forbidden fruit, that He intended that they
not touch it either (Genesis 2: 3). Being tricked into adulterous idolatry with the serpent, however, Eve first
touched the fruit, then seized (handled) it in order to pick it and hold it. Then she ate it. She was deceived,
but Adam knew all along what was going on. She was acting as his proxy, and thus the acts being
committed by her in ignorance were being committed by him with full knowledge. 32

It is conceivable (though in reality impossible) that Adam could have stopped after touching it. He would
only have had to "wash himself," by apologizing to the King. Having eaten, however, he defiled his inward
parts. His sin spread to his "garments," in this case all the world around them, which was united to him as
his environment. Even so, it is conceivable (though actually impossible) that he might have stopped at this
point. Then he would have had to "wash his garments" by admitting to a profounder sin. When, however,
he blamed God rather than own his sin, his transgression became highhanded, a first-class transgression.
Thus his headship was defiled, and defilement went to all the generations proceeding from him. 33 It
corrupted the extent of his garment, clear to its corners (wings), so that in a few generations all the world
was corrupt, and had to be destroyed.

As we shall see below, even the most minor sin of "touching the apple" would have required sacrifice for
payment. "Unclean until evening" means "unclean until the evening sacrifice." since God is infinite, every
sin against Him is infinitely dishonoring to Him and calls forth His wrath, which being His is therefore
infinite.34 Thus I am not trying to say that if Adam had apologized after eating the forbidden fruit, there
would have been no need for blood sacrifice. Rather, I am pointing out that the degrees of sin and sacrifice
in Leviticus correspond to the degrees of sin in Genesis 3. From a psychological standpoint, once Adam
had put Eve up to touch the fruit, he was committed, and the rest followed inevitably.

This was what the laws of cleansing in Leviticus pointed to, then. Minor sins corrupted the individual, but
major ones corrupted society at large. Minor sins required personal repentance, but major ones required the
individual to seek out all those he had defiled, and seek to restore them as well.

Washing with Water

Altar as Holy Mountain and therefore as the human person. The three zones of the Holy Mountain are replicated in the zones of the
Altar. Thus, the three zones of the Altar correlate with the three zones of the Tabernacle, and with the head/heart, senses, and actions
of the human person.
31
But notice, no blood is put on the top of the Mercy Seat. If the Altars have three dimensions, then we notice a contrast: The Bronze
Altar has blood on top and bottom, and by extension the middle is covered. The same thing is true by implication of the Golden Altar,
since the veil has to do with the outer man. In the case of the Mercy Seat, though, only the middle and bottom are covered. This
indicates to me that the ultimate heart of human depravity, which would be symbolized by the top of the mercy seat, was not dealt
with in the Old Covenant, and awaited the blood of Jesus Christ. Revelation 4-5 shows that the blood of Jesus Christ was taken all the
way in.
32
It is clear that Adam was with Eve during the temptation (Gen. 3:6}. As her priest-guardian, he should have prevented her
seduction. That he chose to stand silent can only mean that he intended all along to let her do the deed, and then excuse himself by
blaming her. Bear in mind that Eve was not present when God prohibited the forbidden tree, but that she was present when God
assured them both that eventually they would eat of all the trees (cp. Gen. 2:16-17 and 1:29). Her source of information on the
forbidden tree was Adam, her priest-guardian. As he stood by silent, she had reason to become confused. The Bible tells us that she
was indeed deceived --as much by Adam as by Satan --and she was not shifting blame when she said "the serpent beguiled me" (cf. 1
Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14).
33
To Eve first of all, who after all had been generated from Adam via his side. Eve did not commit Original Sin. Adam did. Eve's sin-
nature came about from her union with Adam.
34
Yet there are degrees in hell. This is like the "full bucket difficulty" in theology: If God is all-glorious, how can we glorify Him? If
God is fully revealed in creation, how can He become more revealed? Similarly, if God's wrath against sin is always infinite, how can
it be visited more severely on some than on others? Yet this is the case.

242
Why was washing with water required? In the Bible, water has to do with boundary, and crossing over
water has to do with crossing boundaries. 35 By extension, being sprinkled with water symbolizes
crossing a boundary.

The Ten Commandments open with the statement that God had brought Israel out of Egypt. This was
accomplished by a baptismal crossing of the Red Sea, whose judgment-waters spared Israel while
destroying the Egyptians. As they passed through the Red Sea, God rained water on them from His holy
Cloud (Ps. 77:16-20). Similarly, they crossed through the waters of Jordan as they came into the land. Just
so, around God's throne, as a boundary, is the mist of His cloud, forming a rainbow (Rev. 4:3).

Passage through water, then, is a sign of entrance into the Kingdom. It is thus also a sign of transition from
wrath to grace, from death to life -- a sign of resurrection.

The origin of this symbolic construct can be found in Genesis 1:6-9. There we find two environments
bordered by water. The first is the firmament heaven, which is bounded by the waters above and the waters
below. Insofar as God's people are portrayed as a heavenly people, they are encircled by water. The second
environment is the land, which was revealed when the waters were gathered below it. It is a fact that in this
world land stands out of water. The earth is not mainly land, with bodies of water in it. Rather, the earth is
mainly water, with large islands of land in it. Thus, all land is encircled with water.

Accordingly, transition into God's special kingdom of Israel was by water. It was this water baptism that
made Israel clean in the first place, so that they could have access to the Tabernacle courtyard. Thus, it was
applications of water that were needed to sustain that access in the face of uncleanness.

The purgative force of water is alluded to a number of times in the Old Testament. Bearing in mind that the
land was encircled by water, we can see that the streams in the land drained off impurities out of the land.
This is an important feature in the land-cleansing rite of Deuteronomy 21:1-9. Water thus signifies the
removal of death and the bestowal of life.

Recalling that the altar is a symbol of the Holy Mountain, we expect to see it encircled with water. This is
pictured in 1 Kings 18:30-35, where Elijah built a trench filled with water around his altar. Answering to
this, the defiled idolatrous corpses of the Baal-priests were thrown into the dry gully (trench) of the Kishon
at the base of Mount Carmel (altar), which filled with water once Elijah's rains came and flushed the
corpses out of the land, cleansing it (1 Ki. 18:40ff.).

Where, then, was the water-boundary around the Tabernacle altar? It was in the water-cleansing rites.
Before an unclean person could bring blood sacrifice to the altar, he had to be washed clean. Such washings
gave him access to the forecourt of the Tabernacle.36

There is a significant relationship between washing and clothing. The water around God's throne causes
Him to be enthroned within a rainbow, as we have seen. Just so, water on our bodies or in our garments
would cause us also to be clothed in a rainbow. God only permits glorious people into His presence, whose
rainbow-garments match His own. The Israelite was re-rainbowed by water before he could draw near. He
became once again a member of God's rainbow-warbow people.37

It is important to note that water did not itself cleanse. It was after Passover had removed their sins that

35
The boundaries are usually not literal but symbolic. The four rivers of Genesis 2 marked out four lands not by encircling them but
by running down the middle of them. To enter the Promised Land symbolically and legally, you had to cross the Jordan, even though
the land existed on both sides. Thus, passing through water is passing through a legal or symbolic boundary, even when the water is
not located at the geographical boundary.
36
The priests, who had access to the "mountain-top" of the Bronze Altar itself, and to the Holy Place, had to wash in the laver of
cleansing. The position of the laver, between the Bronze Altar and the Tabernacle itself, associates it with the "waters above, " rather
than with the "waters below." Thus, a more radical form of cleansing was needed for the priests, since they came closer to God's
holiness.
37
On the rainbow as God's host, see Jordan, Through New Eyes, pp. 76f. More generally, on the relationship between baptism and
clothing, see Galatians 3:27, Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 2:24; and the studies by Ray R. Sutton on this subject: Sutton, "Studies in
Baptism," Nos. 9-12, The Geneva Papers 1:9, 11, 12, 13 (Sep., Nov., Dec., 1982; Jan., 1983).

243
Israel passed through the Red Sea. It was after his "leprosy" had departed that the "leper" went through his
sacrificial cleansing rites. Even after a person had washed, he was still unclean until evening -- that is, until
the evening sacrifice (Lev. 11:25, 28, 40, etc.). It is always the sacrifice that removes uncleanness. Water
baptism was and is a sign of passage into the Kingdom, but it does not and did not affect the passage. The
passage was, and is, effected by the sacrifice.38

Unclean until Evening

By way of drawing this chapter to a close, we note that in almost all cases, and in all cases involving
unclean animals, the person was unclean until evening. Why?

First of all, the evening began a new day. This is clear from the "evening and morning" phrase in Genesis
One, and it is reiterated in Leviticus 23: 32. The importance of the latter verse is that it concerns the annual
Day of Atonement, which dealt with cleansing, "It is a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall
humble your soul; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your
sabbath." Passover also began at evening (Ex. 12:18; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3, 5, 11; Dt. 16:4, 6).

Second, once the Tabernacle was set up, there was a mandatory morning and evening sacrifice of Whole
Burnt Offering (Ex. 29:38-42)
The primacy of the evening sacrifice can be seen from the fact that the day began then (and, Jesus died at
the time of the evening, not the morning, sacrifice). In view of the fact that men were "unclean until
evening, " it seems reasonable to believe that the evening sacrifice removed the defilements of the day,
ushering in a new, clean day.

Third and finally, this suggestion is rendered much more likely by the fact that God judged Adam and Eve
at evening (Gen. 3:8), and sacrificed for them at that point (Gen. 3:21). Their sin made them monumentally
unclean. They were cut off, and only a blood sacrifice could bring them back. The evening sacrifice made
on that occasion temporarily rolled back the judgment of death that was upon them, and gave them a new
day. As we have seen, it is precisely the judgments of Genesis 3 that lie behind the clean/unclean paradigm
in Leviticus. Accordingly, it is fitting that the Levitical evening sacrifice correlates with God's evening
sacrifice in Genesis 3.

Conclusion

Uncleanness was a symbol of the judgment (death) for original sin. When a person came in contact with
uncleanness, he came in contact with that judgment. Since death is separation from God, the unclean person
was temporarily separated from the sanctuary, until cleansed by the evening sacrifice.

Moderate uncleanness meant moderate judgment, and was taken care of by simple bathing. More serious
uncleanness, resulting from more prolonged contact with an unclean person or thing {"handling"), meant
more serious judgment, and required laundering as well as bathing. Laundering of garments was required
because the uncleanness had spread from the person to his clothes, and this represented the society around
him.

Most serious uncleanness, caused by "leprosy" or by a Nazirite's coming in contact with a human corpse,
required most serious cleansing. The threatened judgment was nothing less than the crushing of
the head (Gen. 3:15), and thus the head had to be shaved, in addition to bathing and laundering. This was
true in the case of defilements over which the individual had no control.

As we saw in paper No.11, however, eating forbidden flesh is one of only two forms of defilement over
which a person had control, the other being willful sexual relations during menstruation. Simply eating

38
We notice that in some cases, water baptism came after cleansing, while in other cases it came before. The same is true today, which
is why most of the Church has seen no problem with baptizing infants.

244
forbidden flesh required bathing and laundering, but if a man failed to take advantage of this provision, he
compounded his sin and it became highhanded. In these cases, the defilement was not merely symbolic, it
entailed actual and highhanded sin. No merely symbolic act, such as shaving, could suffice. The penalty
was excommunication, and sacrifice was required for restoration (along with bathing and washing).

245
Chapter 7 - Housebreakers

29. And this is for you unclean among the swarmers that swarm on the earth: the weasel; and the
rat; and the great lizard, any kind of him;

30. And the gecko; and the monitor lizard; and the wall lizard; and the skink; and the chameleon.

31. These are unclean for you from among all the swarmers. Anyone touching them when they are
dead will be unclean until the evening.

There are eight animals listed here, two rodents and six lizards. Since all swarming things are unclean, why
are these animals listed? It seems that these eight and these alone cause the kinds of domestic uncleanness
that will be the concern of verses 32-38. The carcasses of these eight cause defilements on implements of
work and cooking, and on food stored in the home.

It might be argued, of course, that this is a representative list, and that carcasses of all swarming things
cause these defilements. I believe that this is not the case for two reasons. First, exegetically, this gives no
explanation for why these eight large swarmers are listed. Second, practically, if dead insects cause such
defilements, the home would be almost continually defiled. Thus, I believe that only these eight larger
swarmers are in view.

It is clear from Leviticus 11:41-45 that all swarming creatures except locusts are not to be eaten, and it
follows that all of their carcasses cause a person to be unclean if he touches them directly. Thus, if a man
picked up a dead roach, he would be unclean until evening. Only these eight swarmers, however, caused
defilements on household implements if they were found dead in contact with them.

How about a dead cat or dog? It seems to me that the corpses of cats, dogs, and other large animals and
birds would also cause defilement to implements. Exodus 8:3 (see below) indicates that this rule applies to
frogs.1 It seems reasonable to assume, however, that these large swarming things (rodents and lizards)
represent the downside limit of things that cause household defilement. Anything larger could fall under the
same rule. Smaller swarming things (insects) would not.

There is a difference between a cat and a mouse, though: The cat is welcome, while the mouse is not. Thus,
perhaps all large animal carcasses caused defilement to home implements; or perhaps only the carcasses of
unwelcome animals did so.

Not all the words in this list are clear. Here is a comparison list:

Diagram 13.9

NIV NKJV NASV UBS2

weasel mole mole weasel (p. 55)

rat mouse mouse mouse (p. 57)
great lizard large lizard great lizard not discussed
gecko gecko gecko gecko (pp. 34-35)
monitor lizard monitor lizard crocodile monitor lizard (p. 52)*
wall lizard sand reptile lizard lizard (p. 52)*
skink sand lizard sand reptile skink (p. 52)*
chameleon chameleon chameleon chameleon (p. 15)
*or unidentifiable

1
Is a frog a swarming thing or a beast of the field? Since frogs really do not swarm around, it seems to me that frogs, and crocodiles,
would have been regarded as beasts, not swarmers.
2
Fauna and Flora of the Bible, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980).

246
 Swarming and Crawling

As we saw in paper No.6, "Animals and the Bible," the Hebrew term sherets is used for animals that teem
or swarm. The word carries with it the idea of reproduction as well as locomotion. It is used in connection
with ‘erets, the word for a place. By way of contrast, the word remesh is used for animals that crawl
around. The word carries with it the idea of staying in close proximity to environment. It is used in
connection with ‘adamah, the word for soil. Both of these words are used in Leviticus 11, and with precise
meaning.

Sherets is used for the swarming and multiplying of fish in Genesis 1:20 and 21. It appears in Genesis 8:17
and 9:7 in connection with God's command to both animals and human beings to multiply and move out
over the earth. Another such general reference is Ezekiel 47:9, though this may only refer to fishes. It is
used in Exodus 1:7 to refer to the swarming multiplication of the Hebrews in Egypt. It is used of winged
insects in Leviticus 11:20-23 and Deuteronomy 14:19.

Most significantly it appears in Exodus 8:3 and Psalm 105:30 to refer to the swarming multiplication of
frogs in Egypt. Frogs in this passage are clearly unclean and revolting, and they are specifically identified
with the demonic realm in Revelation 16:13-14. The precise judgment is that these frogs will become
boundary transgressors, "which will come up and go into your house and into your bedroom and on your
bed, and into the houses o f your servants and on your people, and into your ovens and into your kneading
bowls" (Ex. 8:3). In my opinion, this is significant background for what is found in Leviticus 11, for verses
29-38 deal with sherets animals as boundary transgressors. This is regarded as a preeminent form of
uncleanness, as the seven-fold repetition of the term in the summary verses (41-45) indicates. The reason
for this is that the sherets transgression into the Israelite house is parallel to the unclean person's
transgression into God's house, which is prohibited.

Diagram 13.10 - Sherets

Fishes Gen. 1:20, 21; Lev. 11:10; Ezk. 47:9

Winged Swarmers Lev. 11:20-24; Dt. 14:19
Ground Swarmers Ex. 8:3; Lev. 5:2; 11:31-46; 22:5; Ps. 105:30
Human Swarmers Gen. 9:7; Ex. 1:7
Animals in general Gen. 7:21; 8:17

It should be noted that the fact of swarming does not render all fish unclean, nor does it render all winged
swarmers unclean. As regards ground swarmers, however, all are unclean. The reason seems to be that
these are the swarmers that are guilty of boundary transgression into the human domestic garden.

The term remesh is used for animals that in some sense "crawl." It is used for fish in Genesis 1:21, Psalm
69:34, and Psalm 104:25, and in association with fish in Habakkuk 1:14. Larger land beasts are said to
crawl on the ground in Psalm 104:20, a reference to their nocturnal prowling, which entails a slinking
motion low to the earth. It is used with reference to all flesh in Genesis 7:21. All other references have to
do with small, crawling land animals: rodents, insects, and lizards.

Diagram 13.11 - Remesh

Fishes Gen. 1:21; Lev. 11:46; Psalm 69:34; 104:25 (Hab. 1:14)
Winged Crawlers non-existent category; no references
Land Crawlers Gen. 1:24-30; 6:7, 20; 7:14, 23; 8:17, 19; 9:2; Lev. 11:44; 20:25; Dt. 4:18; 1 Ki.
4:33; Ps. 148:10; Ezk 8:10; 38:20; Hos. 2:18; Hab. 1:14
Human Crawlers no references
Animals in general Gen. 7:21

247
Remesh is used in a general way with ‘erets to refer to animals that crawl around in a given place (Gen.
1:26-30; 7:14,21; 8:17, 19; Lev. 11:44). The idea of boundary transgression is not present in this usage. The
more important associations are with the term 'adamah, which refers to the soil. In some passages, in order
to specify the environment of the remesh creatures in contrast to others, they are said to be animals that
crawl with reference to the soil. This is the case in Genesis 1:25; 6:20; 9:2; and Deuteronomy 4:18.

Crawl upon (‘al) the ‘erets: Gen. 1:26, 28, 30; 7:14, 21; 8:17, 19; Lev. 11:44.
Crawl upon (‘al) the ‘adamah: Ezk. 38:20. Crawl in (2) the ‘adamah: Dt. 4:18.
Crawler of the ‘adamah: Gen. 1:25; 6:20; 9:2; Lev. 20:25; Hos. 2:18.

As we noted in Chapter 1, it seems that the first half of Leviticus 11 deals with the problem of crawling,
while the second half focuses on swarming. Leviticus 11:1-23 separates clean from unclean animals in
terms of their locomotion, in terms of where and how they walk and rest. This seems to be associated with
the idea of crawling in the curse-prosecuting soil. Clean animals do not do so. Leviticus 11:24-45 concerns
contact with the corpses of unclean things, and focuses pointedly on swarming things as boundary
transgressors.

Boundary Transgression

It appears that the first boundary transgressor was the serpent in the garden. We are told explicitly that the
serpent was craftier than any beast of the field (Gen. 3:1), and as a beast of the field he was not a domestic
animal. In Genesis 2:19 God had to bring the beasts of the field to Adam to name, for unlike the cattle (v.
20) they were not already present with him. Thus, while it is not stated that the serpent had no business
visiting the garden, at the very least Eve and Adam should have been alerted by his abnormal presence
there. In view of the Satan's intention to bring death and defilement, we can and must view him as the
prototype of all other defiling transgressors.

The Israelite home was to be a small domestic tabernacle, analogous to God's Tabernacle. At the Feast of
Tabernacles, all Israel was to live in tents around God’s Tent, picturing the analogy (Lev. 23:42). On the
sabbath day, the domestic hearth fire was not to be stoked up, lest human fire compete with God's hearth
fire, which was stoked up in a special way on the sabbath (Ex. 35:3).3 At Passover, the domestic house was
to be searched and all the corrupt leaven of the old year was to be removed from it (Ex. 12:15). New
righteous leaven for the new Year of the Lord would replace it. Moreover, the domestic house was subject
to Decay (Lev. 14:33-53), and the mere presence of a corpse in the house caused the house to be defiled
(Num. 19:14-15).

In all these ways, then, the Israelite was to see that the fundamental principles of holiness that received
special attention in God's house were to be employed in a more general way in his own. Thus, just as God's
house was not to be defiled by the presence of unclean persons, so the individual's domicile was not to be
defiled by the presence of unclean corpses. Keeping one's own house clean reminded the Israelite of the
need to keep God's house clean.

Also, since God's house was a symbol of the holy Israelite person and of the body politic, then the domestic
house was also such a symbol. Keeping one's house clean of dead things symbolized keeping one's person
clean of curse-bringing sin, and keeping one's household clean of evil persons. A man was to cut sin out of
his own life just as he was to cut dead bodies out of his home. A man was to deal with curse-bringing sinful
behavior on the part of his servants and children just as he was to deal with uncleanness in his house.

A man who became unclean was "out of bounds" as far as the Tabernacle was concerned until he had
washed. Just so, there were a variety of things that could become "out of bounds" in the home, and a variety
of rituals needed to bring these unclean objects back across the boundary into the home.

3
See James B. Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty: A Theological Investigation (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986).

248
 An Overview of Leviticus 11:32-38

Before turning our attention to the details that follow, let us take an overview. In Leviticus 11, the
following items are said to be defiled by swarming boundary transgressors:

Wooden implements (v. 32)

Clothing (v. 32) Skins (v. 32)
Goat hair (v. 32)
Vessels (v. 33)
Food and drink (v. 34)
Stoves (v. 35)
Water (v. 36)
Seeds (vv. 37-38)

Essentially these items are found in the Garden of Eden, man's original home that he was originally to
guard. We can see this if we allow for the fact that the Garden, being pre-cultural, did not contain every
item.

Wooden implements -- trees

Clothing -- nakedness, then fig leaves, then skins
Skins -- what God put on Adam and Eve
Food and drink -- on the trees of the Garden, and in the springs
Water --the springs and rivers
Seeds --the other kind of food besides fruit (cp. Gen. 1:11, 29)

Recognizing that the Tabernacle was the current form of the Garden for Israel, and that in the Tabernacle
we see the culturally-developed form of the Garden apropos to this stage in history, we see the same list
again:

Wooden implements --boards and pillars, and tools

Clothing --garments of priests and High Priest
Skins --priests kept the skins of the sacrifices
Goat hair --Tabernacle was covered with goat-hair tent
Vessels --Tabernacle used many vessels
Food and drink --sacrifices; showbread; drink offering
Stoves --altar Water --laver
Seeds --cereal offerings; contributions of grain

From all this it emerges that the "cleanliness" of the Israelite home was parallel to the "Godliness" of the
Tabernacle. The woman basically ran this domestic garden, as God's Bride ran His Kingdom. Notice that
virtually everything listed here is "woman's work": clothing, skins, vessels, food, cooking, water, seeds.
The man was to guard his wife by keeping evil out of the domestic garden, as the High Priest was to guard
God's Bride.

249
Chapter 8 - The Spread of Death

32. And anything upon which one of them falls when he dies will be unclean, whether an article of
wood or of cloth or of hide or of sackcloth, any article with which work may be done. Into water it
must be put, and it will be unclean until the evening, and then it will be clean.

Contaminated Articles

The first question before us is this: What kinds of articles are spoken of here? The Mishnah and traditional
Jewish opinion says that all of these are containers, vessels, and thus only vessels can be contaminated
under this law.1 The Hebrew term k-li, however, can also mean jewels, weapons, armor, musical
instruments, furniture, and implements or tools in general. Moreover, here in verse 32 the swarmer carcass
is found upon the article, while in verse 33 the carcass is found inside the clay pot. Thus, commentators not
willing simply to accept the Jewish tradition have argued that any kind of article "with which work may be
done" is in view.2

The articles must be small enough to be immersed, so large pieces of furniture and large containers are not
in view. In Leviticus 15, such larger items as saddles, beds, and chairs became contaminated when used by
an unclean person, but there is no rule for cleansing these large items. It seems they reverted to clean status
at sundown.

Thus, what seems to be special about the items in Leviticus 11:32 is that work is done with them. The word
for work here is the same used in Genesis 2:2-3 for God's work of creation, and in Exodus 20:9-10 for
man's normal daily work. The idea is that sin and the curse defile man's work, and anything man uses in his
work.

Such work implements, or tools, are simply extensions of the man himself. Whether a plow or a computer,
a tool is never more than an extension of the man. Thus, the defilement of these tools is a sign of the
defilement of the man.

Four kinds of implements are mentioned. Articles of wood would include baskets woven of reeds as well as
any relatively small wooden tool or container. Symbolically, the reference is to people. People are God's
grove (Psalm 1), and God's trees are cut down by the Carpenter of Nazareth to be planed into the boards of
the Tabernacle and walls of the Temple. Thus, articles of wood in the house can symbolize people in the
house.

The word for "cloth" almost always means "garment," and as we have seen a man's clothing is an extension
of himself. Other articles of cloth cannot be excluded from consideration, however. As Chapter 6 pointed
out, clothing represents the society of people gathered around a man, and thus the personnel of the
household are again symbolized here.

The word for "hide" is the word for human skin, and occurs thirty-three times in Leviticus 13 with
reference to Decay on the skin of a man. It is also used for clothing made of skin, most importantly in
Genesis 3: 21, where God clothed Adam and Eve in hide, and also in Leviticus 13:49-59, and other
passages. Articles of hide, thus, would easily symbolize humanity and extensions of man, and would
include clothing as well as water and wine skins and other items of leather. Skins naturally symbolize
human persons, of course.

1
See the discussion in Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch Translated and Explained, trans. Isaac Levy. Vol. 3: Leviticus, 2d ed.
(London: Honig and Sons, 1962), pp. 285-287.
2
Thus for instance, Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 179; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 2: Exodus and
Leviticus, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint from 19th c.), p. 370; David Pearson Wright, The Disposal of
Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
101 (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1987), p. 94. Hirsch argues that the "work" is portage; that is, the vessel is small enough to be carried.
This again is based on tradition, and is not clear from the text.

250
"Sackcloth" also most often refers to clothing, which again correlates it with humanity, but can also refer to
other kinds of sacks as well, as in Genesis 44:1-2. A parallel verse, Numbers 31:20, reads, "And you shall
purify for yourselves every garment, and every article of skin, and all work of goat hair, and all articles of
wood. " On the basis of this it is generally assumed that "sackcloth" was made of goat hair. The "cloth" or
"garment" in the list would, then, refer to items made of other materials. Since goat hair is itself in no need
of purification, "sackcloth" must again here refer symbolically to persons.

If we look at God's house, the Tabernacle, we find that its innermost part consisted of walls of wood
overlaid with gold. Spread over this was a cloth. Spread over this was a tent of goat hair. Spread over this
were two shields of leather, one of ram skin dyed red and the other of dolphin. Given the parallel between
the citizen's house and God's house, which underlies these laws, it is hard to avoid seeing a parallel in these
four items. Of course, in the Tabernacle these four things were not implements of work, and not really k=li
at all, but the parallel at the level of material is still striking. These may be seen as four basic components
of home and work.

Perhaps this is why metal objects and vessels are not mentioned here. According to Leviticus 6:21, metal
vessels were scoured to remove uncleanness, and according to Numbers 31:22-23 other metal objects were
cleansed by fire, "but whatever cannot stand the fire you shall pass through the water" (Num. 31:23).

The word k-li is used for the miscellaneous vessels and implements of the Tabernacle and Temple, most of
which were made of gold or bronze (cf. Ex. 35:13, 16; 37:16, 24; 38:3, 30; 39:36-40; Lev. 6:28; 8:11; Num.
1:50; 3:8, 31, 36; 4:9-16; 1 Kings 7:45-48; 2 Kings 24:13; 25:14-16). These are called "articles of service"
(Ex. 39:40; Num. 4:26; 1 Chron. 9:28; 23:26; 28:13-14; 2 Chron. 24:14). The fact that these things were
sprinkled with blood and oil indicates that they were being redeemed and dedicated, but since the creation
has no need of redemption and dedication, these items must symbolize the Israelite citizen in his capacity
as God's servant (Ex. 29:36-37; 40:9-11; Lev. 8:10-11, 15; Lev. 4:6-7, etc.).3

Domestically, the implements of work, being extensions of the man's labor, are also "articles of service. "
They symbolize the servants of the household, whose labor is an extension of the master's. Galatians 4:1
says that the child is in the same category as the servant. Thus, the defilement of serving utensils signifies
the contamination of servants and children.

Immersion

Any defiled article of wood, cloth, leather, or goat hair was to be immersed in water until evening. In the
previous chapter we have looked at water as boundary. Here we need to consider some further dimensions
of this, as it relates to the immersion of these objects.

God's house had a laver of cleansing. Here water was taken to wash the hands of the priests (Ex. 30:19-21;
Lev. 1:9), to wash the sacrifice, and to scour unclean pots and wash unclean garments. This is indicated by
Leviticus 6:26-28, which says that the cleansing is to be done in a holy place, further specified as the
courtyard of the Tabernacle. What other water would have been used except that of the laver?

Positioned between the top of the holy mountain (the altar) and the firmament veil into heaven (the holy
place), the laver of cleansing represents the waters above, not the waters below, of Genesis 1. It is heavenly
water, water from God's throne, water from His glory cloud, that is needed to cleanse the sinner. The water
of the first creation can only drown, as in the Flood and at the Red Sea. For this reason, most cleansings in
the Bible are by sprinkling, as the water falls from above.

The water used for domestic cleansing was water from God's holy land. We are expressly told that the
water in the holy land was heavenly water, not earthly water. Even the water that bubbled out of springs or
was dug from wells was heavenly water: "For the land, into which you are entering to possess it, is not like

3
See further James B. Jordan, "Thoughts on Jachin and Boaz" (available from Biblical Horizons).

251
the land of Egypt from which you came, where you used to sow your seed and water it with your foot like a
vegetable garden. But the land into which you are about to cross to possess it, a land of hills and valleys,
drinks water from the rain of heaven" (Dt. 11:10-11; cf. Gen. 13:10),

Thus, though the implement was immersed, it was immersed into heavenly water. Immersion speaks of
drowning and death, as at the Flood and at the Red Sea (Pharaoh's army). Yet, since the immersion is into
heavenly water, it is not a death unto judgment, but a death unto life. If we are immersed and die in
heavenly water, we are dying in Christ, immersed in Him, and thus sure to rise again. This was pictured by
the immersion of the defiled implements into heavenly water. The implement had to die, but it was a death
into heaven, and at sundown there was resurrection.

The Spread of Death

Biblically speaking, man is fallen, not the world. Men sin, not implements. Men are judged, not physical
objects. Thus, when we see objects being consecrated, as when the Tabernacle furniture and vessels were
consecrated, or when we see objects defiled and cleansed, this can only be symbolic of human beings and
human society. Ultimately, in themselves, objects are not subject to defilement, cleansing, or consecration.
These things are really only true of human beings and human societies.

It is for this reason that God told Israel that He ultimately cared nothing for their animal sacrifices (Ps.
40:6; Is. 1:11; Jer. 7:22-23). It is for this reason that the author of Hebrews says that it is impossible for the
blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (Heb. 10:4). It is for this reason that David says that the true
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart (Ps. 51:17).

Thus, clean and unclean animals really only symbolize clean and unclean persons. The defilement caused
by the dead bodies of unclean animals only symbolizes the defilement that sinful persons spread to other
persons. Thus, all these spreading defilements only symbolized what the book of Romans says: "Therefore,
just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death [uncleanness] through sin, and so death
[uncleanness] spread to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12). Expositors generally focus on the genetic
spread of original sin and of literal death from Adam to his posterity, which surely is in view in this verse.
When we realize, however, that uncleanness is a symbolic form of death, then the spread of uncleanness
can be seen as a symbol for the spread of sin and death.

Reading further, "For until law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of
Adam's offense" (Rom. 5:13-14). Since death, the punishment for sin, operated before the giving of the
law, and since sin is not imputed apart from law, it therefore follows that the law was operative before
Sinai. This was certainly true as regards what we usually term the moral law. With the giving of the law at
Sinai, however, the death-consequence of imputed sin came to be symbolized by the whole system of
uncleanness and cleansing. Even unconscious sin, which was hardly "in the likeness of Adam's [self-
conscious] offense,” caused uncleanness and had to be removed through the Mosaic system of cleansing
and sacrifice.

Thus, the spread of sin, and of death, was signified by the spreading of uncleanness. Since cleansing from
death was by means of water, it makes sense for Paul to follow up his discussion with a reference to
baptism. We find this in Romans 6:1-11. Baptism is into Christ's death (Rom. 6:3). We have seen this
figured in the fact that things were immersed or sprinkled with heavenly, not earthly water. While New
Covenant baptism is by sprinkling,4 yet it signifies immersion and burial into Christ, for it is identification
with the heavenly ocean (Rom. 6:4-5). Such a burial has a guaranteed resurrection as its issue.

Implements of work are extensions of the man. Agreeable to this concept, Paul continues by writing, "do
not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present
yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God"

4
For proof see Duane Spencer, Holy Baptism (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1984).

252
(Rom. 6:13). "For just as you presented your members as slaves to uncleanness and to lawlessness, unto
lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, unto sanctification" (Rom. 6:19).

Conclusion

Just as Adam was to guard the Garden, and the Levites were to guard the sanctuary, and the judge and king
were to guard the land, so the master and mistress were to guard the home. They were to purge out old
leaven, as we have seen, and they were to prevent deadly influences from corrupting the home. Adam was
to keep the boundary transgressor from corrupting the Garden. Just so, the master and mistress surely desire
to keep mice and lizards out of their house. In the ancient world this was simply impossible, however.
Housebreakers were sure to get in, and occasionally die. When this happened there was a lesson to be
learned: If the master and mistress did not guard the moral environment of the home, corruption would get
in and defile the servants and children.

The carcasses of unclean animals signified evil people. Bad company corrupts good morals. To allow such
rotten people into one's fellowship, as Solomon warns in Proverbs, will result in corruption. This can
happen both through personal influence and via such media as magazines and television. Death spreads to
the members of one's body, so that his actions in minor ways become impure even if his heart is regenerate.
Death also spreads to the members of one's body politic, so that one's servants and children become
corrupt. These are the lessons to be learned from this verse.

Eternal vigilance is the price of holiness.

253
Chapter 9 - Clay Pots and stoves

33. And any clay pot into which one of them falls, everything that is inside it will be unclean and
you shall break it.

34. Any of the food that can be eaten on which water comes is unclean, and any liquid that can be
drunk in any vessel is unclean.

35. And everything on which part of their carcass may fall becomes unclean; an oven or a hearth
shall be broken up; they are unclean and shall continue as unclean to you.

In our previous chapter, we saw that contact with the dead bodies of unclean creatures causes
contamination. Just as death passed to all men after Adam, so uncleanness passes from man to man, from
the corpses of men to objects, and from the corpses of unclean animals to men or objects. Only in the New
Covenant, with the cleansing of the world, is this process reversed.

The question before us now concerns objects made of clay. Unlike everything else, clay pots and stoves
cannot be cleansed by washing. They must be broken up. Why this is so, and what it means, is the subject
of this chapter.

What if a carcass is found lying up against a clay vessel, or lying on its lid? The text does not say, but the
general rule from the previous verse indicates that such a clay vessel might be immersed and thereby
cleansed. It is only if the defilement reaches the enclosed space that the pot is to be smashed.

An object inside the clay pot becomes unclean and must be dealt with accordingly. An implement of wood,
for instance, would be immersed. Food is a different matter. Dry grain stored in a pot would not all become
unclean, but only the part in immediate contact with the carcass. That part would be removed, the pot
smashed, and the remainder put in another pot. Only if the food had become wet would it all become
unclean. It seems that water transmits the impurity.

A clay pot is broken, but the oven or hearth is dismantled. At least that is Hirsch's argument, based on the
fact that a different Hebrew verb is used. "[Natats] is always used in connection with the breaking up of
immobile objects, such as a house (Lev. 14:45)."1

Let us turn now to the larger questions surrounding these verses.

The Porosity Interpretation

The traditional Rabbinic interpretation is this: Clay pots and stoves are porous. The residue of unclean
foods and dead bodies will be absorbed into the clay, rendering it unclean. Since this cannot be removed by
scouring, in contrast to bronze vessels (Lev. 6:28), the clay vessel must be broken. This is the view also of
many evangelical commentators, whether of the hygienic or symbolic school of thought. 2

Gordon Wenham has pointed out the problem with the porosity interpretation:

It is difficult to be sure why a polluted wooden vessel is treated differently from a polluted
earthenware vessel (vv. 32-33). Why does one only require washing but the other must be

1
Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch Translated and Explained, trans. Isaac Levy. Vol. 3: Leviticus, 2d ed. (London: Honig and
Sons, 1962), p. 292.
2
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 2: Exodus and Leviticus, trans. James Martin (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 19th c.), pp. 322, 370f.; A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. Ed van der Maas. Bible Student's Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, [?] 1982), pp. 79, 128; R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), p. 131; C. D. Ginsburg, Leviticus, in Ellicott's Commentary on the
Whole Bible, ed. Charles J. Ellicott, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [?] 1981) 1:360.

254
 destroyed? A similar rule is enunciated in 6:21 [Eng. 28] with regard to the Purification Offering.
It is usually explained by saying that impurity soaks into an earthenware vessel and is hard to
remove by washing, whereas in the case of a wooden vessel it only remains on the surface. This
would be true if the pottery were not glazed, and the wood were highly polished. But since glazed
pottery was indeed made in Palestine, this explanation does not seem entirely convincing. If this
was the thinking, would not impurity have sunk into garments and sacking and be equally difficult
to remove (v. 32)?3

Wright raises the question pointedly: "If pottery must be disposed of because of its porosity, should not
wood, leather, and cloth items likewise be discarded? Surely other materials, especially wood, are porous
and would retain the physical impurity." 4 Wright examines similar ceremonial rules in Hittite culture, and
finds that "in Hittite literature, both wood and earthenware items are discarded, while in the Bible, only
earthenware is."5 The same is true in the Vedic literature of India: "earthenware and wooden vessels
that bear serious impurities cannot be purified for reuse." 6 Thus, Wright summarizes, "viewed against the
comparative backdrop of the Hittite and Indian literatures, it appears that the Bible has deliberately made an
exception in the case of wood and other porous items...: wood versus earthenware (Lev. 15:12) ; wood,
cloth, leather, sacking versus earthenware (Lev. 11:32-33); bronze versus earthenware (Lev. 6:21 [28])." 7

Wright suggests that "the reason for such a distinction between the treatment of various porous materials
which have become impure appears to be economic." 8 He points out that clay objects were easily replaced,
while other objects could not be. Moreover, the law allowed poor people to bring cheaper sacrifices (Lev.
5:1-13; 12:6-8; 14:10-11, 21-22). On analogy with this, he argues that God was being merciful in requiring
the breakage of only clay items.

The problem with this interpretation is that there is no support for it anywhere in Scripture. Of course, if we
cannot find any alternative explanation, the economic one may have to do, but there should be something
about clay vessels and stoves that sets them apart and that accounts for their different treatment.

Wenham suggests that it was not any clay object that had to be broken, but only those associated with
cooking: "It seems possible that the distinction is between vessels and implements used for ordinary work
and cooking vessels. Impurity in food would be more serious than on clothes."9 This certainly makes sense
in context (vv. 34, 37-38, and the chapter as a whole). It leaves a loose end, however, in that bronze
cooking vessels are not mentioned here, yet we know from Leviticus 6:28 that they were not broken but
scoured when defiled. Moreover, surely some food-containing vessels were wooden. Why were they not
also to be broken? Also, verse 33 seems to be speaking of non-food items that might be put in a clay pot,
which become unclean, in contrast to food items discussed separately in verse 34. Yet the pot is still
broken, regardless of its contents, even if it is empty.

Having raised the difficulties, let me propose another approach. 10 Vessels and stoves signify human beings,
as containers and platforms for truth or sin. This is the case with Temple and altar, as well as with domestic
items. It is true of objects made of any material, but especially of items made of clay since man was made
of earth. Cooking has to do with making our lives acceptable to God, as a sweet savor to Him. The breaking
of clay cooking implements, whether vessels or altars, signifies the judgment due for sin. Judgment is also
pictured, though differently, in the scouring of bronze vessels, the immersion of wooden vessels, and the
anointing with blood of the Temple, altar, and their various vessels. This, in brief, is the thesis I propose to
advocate in this chapter, and to it we must now turn.

3
Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979),
p. 179.
4
David Pearson Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Society
of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 101 (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1987), p. 99.
5
Ibid., p. 107.
6
Ibid., p. 108.
7
Ibid., p. 111.
8
Ibid., p. 112.
9
Wenham, p. 179.
10
In some ways, my approach was anticipated by A. A. Bonar, A Commentary on Leviticus (London: Banner of Truth, [1861] 1966),
p. 229f.

255
 Man: Made of Clay

Genesis 2:7 tells us that man was shaped or formed of the dust of the ground. While this implies that man
was formed from dry dust, to which he would return (Gen. 3:19), it can easily form the basis of imagery in
which man is seen to be made of clay. Wenham points out concerning the verb "formed" or "shaped" in
Genesis 2: 7, "The present participle of this verb means 'potter' (e.g., Jer. 18:2), and it may well be that the
image of a potter shaping his clay lies behind this description of man's creation, even though 'dust of the
land' is not the normal material a potter works with.” 11

The common word for clay is homer, and it is not infrequently used with reference to the human person.

Remember now, that Thou hast made me as clay;

And wouldst Thou turn me into dust again? 12
Job 10:9

Behold, I belong to God like you;

I too have been cut out of the clay.
Job 33:6

He puts no trust even in His servants;

And against His angels He charges error.
How much more those who dwell in houses of clay,
Whose foundation is in the dust....
Job 4:18-19

Should the potter be considered equal with the clay,

That what is made should say to its maker, "He did not make me";
Or what is formed say to him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
Isaiah 29:16

But now, O Lord, Thou art our Father,

We are the clay, and Thou our potter;
And all of us are the work of Thy hand.
Isaiah 64:8

If men are made of clay, then clay bricks may well be used to symbolize men, especially when built into a
house. We know that the Temple symbolized God's people gathered around him, as the Apostle Peter
wrote, "You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:5).
Similarly Paul, speaking of the church as God's new Temple, says that believers are like precious stones
being built as God's house (1 Cor. 3:9-17; Paul's image of a Temple made of jewels comes from Isaiah
54:11-12 and finds fuller expression in Revelation 21:18-21).

With this conception in mind, a look at the Tower of Babel is revealing. The Tower symbolized, in part,
humanity's unwillingness to spread abroad. The building was an image of their remaining compacted
together. It seems clear, then, that the bricks of which it was built carried symbolic freight as emblems of
that compacted humanity. "They used brick for stone, and they used tar for clay" (Gen. 11:3). God acted to
scatter and destroy this unity built in unbelief, and against it began building His own compacted House of
living stones, which are the faithful.

The Hebrew word for objects of various sorts made of clay -- in other words, earthenware -- is heres. This
11
Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. 59.
12
The implication is that man is clay, made of dust. Genesis 2 speaks of the Spirit's breathing into the dust to make man. Since water
is a common emblem of the life-giving Spirit, however, the joining of water to dust to make clay becomes an image of the creation of
man -- and in baptism it is an image of re-creation from the dead. On water, see Chapter 10.

256
is the word used in Leviticus 11:33, the passage we are considering. It is also pointedly used as a symbol
for human beings:

Woe to the one who quarrels with his Fashioner --

An earthenware object among the objects [made] of earth!
Will the clay say to the fashioner, "What are you doing?"
Or the thing you are making say, "He has no hands"?
Isaiah 45:9

"Earth" here is ‘adamah, the word used in Genesis 2 to describe the ground out of which Adam was made.
Thus, this verse clearly establishes that "clay" and "ground" were associated symbolically by the Hebrews.
Earthenware utensils, made out of the ground, were like men.

A creative use of this imagery is found in Proverbs 26:23:

Like a coating of silver dross on earthenware

Are burning lips and a wicked heart.

Along these same lines, if men are like clay pots, then dead men are like potsherds:

My strength is dried up like a potsherd,

And my tongue cleaves to my jaws;

And Thou does lay mine inward parts in the dust of death
Psalm 22:15

The human jewels with which God's Temple and city were built are contrasted with clay pitchers in the
following symbolically intense passage:

How dark the gold has become,

How the pure gold has changed!
The sacred stones are poured out
At the head of every street.
The precious sons of Zion
Weighed against fine gold,
How they are regarded as earthen pitchers,
The work of potter's hands!
Lamentations 4:1-2

If men are like gold and precious stones, then the pouring out of these items probably refers to bloodshed.
This passage is particularly important for our study of Leviticus 11, because it shows a fulfillment of the
message symbolized there. If corruption gets into an earthenware vessel, it must be shattered. Just so, the
corruption permitted into Jerusalem through the failure of the people to guard their hearts has led to God's
shattering of them as clay pitchers.

If the individual human being is symbolized sometimes as a clay pot, so is the body politic.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord saying, "Arise and go down to the potter's house,
and there I shall announce My words to you. " Then I went down to the potter's house, and there
he was, making something on the wheel. But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in
the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.

Then the word of the lord came to me saying, "Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this
potter does?" declare the lord. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O
house of Israel."
Jeremiah 18:1-6

257
This survey has not been exhaustive (cf. e.g., Is. 30:14; Rom. 9:20-23), but it is sufficient to establish the
point that objects made of clay often symbolize human beings.

Vessels of Clay

It does not take a great deal of imagination to realize that if clay objects can symbolize human beings, then
clay vessels can do the same. The human person is like a vessel that contains either truth or iniquity. The
New Testament refers to people as vessels in several familiar passages. Ananias was told to visit Saul of
Tarsus and return his sight to him, because "he is a chosen vessel of Mine, to carry My name before the
Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel" (Acts 9:15). Other general references to men as vessels include
Romans 9:21-23, 1 Thessalonians 4:4, 2 Timothy 2:20-21, and 1 Peter 3:7.

A particularly important passage is the following:

For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to
give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure
in earthenware vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from
ourselves.
2 Corinthians 4:6-7

Here men are compared to earthenware vessels that contain something. What the vessel contains is the
heart. The heart of the believer is renewed. Moreover, he carries inside himself the indwelling Christ, for
the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). Thus, to use the language of Leviticus 11, his
vessel is not defiled. The wicked, by way of contrast, have dead hearts, and thus are defiled vessels. They
can only expect to be shattered (Rev. 2:27; Ps. 2:9).

What is true of the individual is also true of society. Jeremiah was told to act out a parable with a clay pot,
which represented the whole body politic of Judah and Jerusalem.

Thus says the Lord, "Go and buy a potter's earthenware jar, and take some of the elders of the
people and some of the elders of the priests. Then go out to valley of Ben-Hinnom, which is by the
entrance of the Potsherd Gate; and proclaim there the words that I shall tell you."
Jeremiah 19:1-2

After making the proclamation, Jeremiah was told,

"Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who accompany you and say to them, ‘Thus
says the Lord of hosts: "Just so shall I break this people and this city, even as one breaks a potter's
vessel, which cannot again be repaired; and they will bury in Topheth until there is no place left to
bury.""'
Jeremiah 19:10-11

The oracle Jeremiah was to tell the people explained that Jerusalem and Judah were like a vessel that had
become defiled by idolatry (v. 13). Idolatry and child sacrifice were the dead animals inside the Israelite
clay vessel, and in accordance with the law of Leviticus 11, they would be shattered.

The dead animal inside the clay pot is like the unclean animal in the stomach of the person. A person
became unclean if he ate unclean food, and the clay pot became unclean if it harbored a dead animal.
In both cases, what is pointed to is idolatry in the heart. It is a fitting punishment that those who defile
themselves by eating idols ("table of demons") should themselves be destroyed by being eaten by their
idols. Since idols do not exist, however, the wild animals who represent them will have to do. Thus, says
God to Jeremiah, "I shall cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who
seek their life; and I shall give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the
earth" (Jer. 19:7).

258
 House and Vessel

Clay vessels, and other vessels as well, represent men. The dead animal inside the vessel represents idolatry
in the heart. When a man harbors idolatry in his heart, he will be judged by God. One picture of that
judgment is that the clay pot is shattered. Another complementary picture of that judgment is that the
brazen pot is scoured. A third picture is that the wooden container is washed. Each of these pictures
provides a perspective on Divine judgment.

The vessel is a container, but it is positioned inside another "container," the house. The vessel corresponds
to a person within the house. If a member of the household becomes an idolater, he must be judged. What is
here symbolized is set out in plainer language in Deuteronomy 17:

If there is found in your midst, in any of your gates, 13 which the Lord your God is giving you, a
man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, by transgressing His
covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any
of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded; and if it is told you and you have heard of it,
they you shall inquire thoroughly. And behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this
abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who
has done this evil deed, to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to
death....So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

What Deuteronomy prescribes is a civil matter. Most cases of idolatry in Israel were secret, hidden in the
privacy of the home. The clay-pot law that we are considering was designed to teach that homes must be
kept pure. Not all idolatry was pronounced enough or visible enough to be a civil crime, but the head of the
household was to take action to purge it from his house, by exile and disinheritance if need be.

Moreover, this law carried with it the implication that God would act to shatter any idolatrous "clay pots" in
Israel. This broader implication becomes evident when we realize that the Israelite house corresponded to
God’s house, the Tabernacle, and this in turn corresponded to the body politic of Israel. I have dealt with
the correspondence between man's house and God's house elsewhere. 14 We have noted above that God's
dwelling place is really His people, in their midst and in their hearts. Accordingly, the architectural
structures that were built or envisioned (Ezk. 40-48) in the Old Covenant were symbols both of the
individual human being (John 2:21; 1 Cor. 6:19) and of the body politic (1 Cor. 3:10-17). Indeed, when
David wanted to build a palace for the Lord, the Lord told him that His true house would consist of His
people planted and growing around the person of the Son (2 Sam. 7:10, 13-14). It is because of the
symbolic parallel between the body politic and the Tabernacle that sins committed by the people put
defiling marks on the Tabernacle, requiring it to be cleansed on the Day of Atonement.

The Tabernacle was filled with "vessels." The Hebrew word used for "vessel" or "pot" in Leviticus 11:33
(k-li) is used for all the vessels and implements of the Tabernacle, as we have seen. This word is not used
for the big pieces of furniture in the Tabernacle, such as the altars, table, and lampstand. It is used for the
working utensils, especially vessels of oil, flour, and the like.

So, the Tabernacle represents the body politic, and the vessels of the Tabernacle represent citizens. If such
citizens become defiled by idolatry, they must be washed (wood), scoured (brass), or shattered (clay).
Similarly, the Israelite house parallels the Tabernacle, and can be defiled by leprosy, in which case it is torn
down. Agreeably, the vessels of the house can be defiled, and must be dealt with.

Family members must be careful to avoid the influence of sin and death. This is seen in Numbers 19:14-15,
"This is the law when a man dies in a tent: everyone who comes into the tent and everything that is in the
tent shall be unclean for seven days. And every open vessel, which has no covering tied down on it, shall be
13
The law is particularly phrased in terms of the city because that is the place where non-Israelite refugees lived. Thus, seduction to
idolatry was most likely to take place there. Cp. Deuteronomy 13:12ff.; 23:15-16.
14
See James B. Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty: A Theological Investigation (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986),
pp. 57ff.

259
unclean." A vessel with a tight covering, however, was undefiled. Just so, if a man guards his heart, he will
not be defiled in the presence of evil, deadly influences.

An interesting additional use of this provision is seen in Jeremiah 32:6-15. After Jeremiah redeemed his
family property at Anathoth, he put the deed of purchase in an earthenware jar, "that they mal last a long
time" (v. 14). It is presumed that the jar was sealed. 15 Such a seal prevented any "defilement" of the
document, though the land itself was defiled and under judgment. In this way, the promise was preserved.
The earthenware jar told the people that just so were they to preserve God's promise in their hearts.

Stoves and Altars

When the boundary transgressors get into your house, they may get into vessels and die, and they may also
die on top of other items. Items of wood, skin, or cloth must be "ceremonially" inm1ersed, as we saw in
Chapter 8. Clay pots must be shattered. Clay ovens and hearths must be broken down. Leviticus 11:35
speaks of the dead carcass as lying QD rather than inside. The idea is that of an altar rather than a vessel.

The word translated "oven" here is used for furnaces and ovens several places in Scripture (Gen. 15:17; Ex.
8:3; Lev. 2:4; etc.). Since the oven here is made of clay, we realize that it can serve as a symbol for the
human person, and this is made explicit in Hosea:

They are all adulterers

Like an oven heated by the baker, ….
For their hearts are 1ike an oven
As they approach their ambush;
Their baker sleeps all night,
[So that] in the morning it [the oven] burns like a flaming fire.
All of them are hot like an oven,
And they consume their rulers;
Hosea 7:4-6

This is a picture of a defiled oven. The food it cooks is also, accordingly, defiled. Such food is
unacceptable. So it is with men. Men are like ovens. When contaminated by idolatry, men cannot cook
anything acceptable to God, and must be cleansed or broken.

The word translated "hearth" in Leviticus 11:35 refers to a "platform which held pots over the cooking
fire." It is associated with words meaning furnace, pan, hearth, or scaffold. 16 Because the word is in the
"dual" form (neither singular nor plural, but two- fold), it is assumed that this kind of "hearth" could hold
two pots over the fire. At any rate, it is clear enough that a clay stove or hearth is in view. The dead body of
a boundary transgressor renders it unclean, and it must be broken apart.

I have discussed the relationship between the domestic hearth and God's altar elsewhere.17 Symbolically,
the altar represented the human person, just as the Tabernacle did. The Tabernacle and Temple contemplate
the human person, and the body politic, as a vessel. The altar contemplates the human person, and the body
politic, as a platform.18 The altar stands in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, before God, and God sees what
is placed on it. Just so, men stand before God, and God sees what they offer to Him on the al tar of their
lives.

The verb used for breaking down the hearth and oven is the verb used for dismantling altars. Such altars,

15
R. K. Harrison, Jeremiah and Lamentations (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), p. 142.
16
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1980) #967; 1:434f.
17
Jordan, Sabbath Breaking, p. 61f.
18
Altars must be made of earth, as men are (Ex. 20:24). They are anointed with blood, as men are (Lev. 4:7, 25; 8:22-24; 14:14,17;
16:18; Ezk. 43:20). 1 Kings 18:30-32 makes explicit the correlation between the altar and the human person and body politic. On
Christ as altar, see Arthur w. Pink, Gleanings in Exodus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), pp. 242ff.

260
made of stones, would not be smashed to powder but torn apart (Ex. 43:13; Dt. 7:5; 12:3; Jud. 2:2; 6:30-32;
2 Chron 33:3; 34:4, 7). The verb is also used for tearing down houses and walls. Hirsch argues that the
oven and hearth had to be dismantled, but that the pieces could continue to be used for unclean purposes.
That, he believes, is why verse 35 says "they are unclean and shall continue as unclean to You." That is,
you may continue to use them for unclean purposes. He follows this by making a significant observation:
The ability to receive uncleanness and the continuation of the state of uncleanness is dependent on the
"designation, " the purpose for which the vessel was designed. 19

It is not hard at all to imagine what such purposes might be. Before the days of flush toilets, people had to
use outhouses, but at night they had to use pots. Both urine and feces were considered the equivalent of
unclean in the Old Covenant (Dt. 23:12-14). What Hirsch says is exactly what Paul says in Romans 9:21,
"Or does the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and
another for dishonor?"

Thus, the pieces of the oven or hearth might be used for any unclean purpose. They might be used for the
purposes mentioned above, or kept around to carry unclean things out of the house with (such as dead
mice).

Symbolically, this shows yet one other consequence of sin. The defiled sinner might be washed and
cleansed (wooden implements), or scoured and cleansed (bronze vessels), or put in the fire and cleansed
(metal objects), or he might be broken to pieces and killed (clay pots), or he might be allowed to remain in
the community but in a state of separation from the religious assembly (the broken down home altar).

In sum, idolatry defiles men. The symbolism of vessel and al tar contemplates the human person, and the
body politic, as both a vessel containing something and as a platform exalting something. If what is
contained and exalted is holiness, truth, and righteousness, then the vessel/altar is clean. If what is
contained is wicked and idolatrous, then the vessel/altar is defiled and must be cleansed.

Food

The clay items spoken of in Leviticus 11:33-35 are also associated with food and cooking. The oven and
hearth are used for cooking. When they are defiled, anything that might be cooked using them would also
be defiled. Such food is not acceptable to the righteous Israelite, because such persons are not acceptable to
God.

As regards the clay pot, the food in the vessel correlates to the human heart. The dead animal figures
idolatry. The dead animal in the vessel figures Satan inside the person. The corruption of the vessel's
contents figures the corruption of the person's innermost being. Such a person will not be "eaten" by God,
not be incorporated into His fellowship. Rather, such a person will be regarded as "detestable" by God, and
spat out of His kingdom.

Leviticus 11:34 states that all the food in the container is defiled if it is wet. Ordinarily, if a mouse died in a
jar containing flour, you would remove the mouse, and scoop out all the flour that the mouse carcass had
contacted. Then you would pour the rest of the flour into another jar, and break the original jar. If the flour
had gotten wet, however, then the entire contents were regarded as defiled. Why?

I believe it is because water is a sign of life in Scripture (see Chapter 10). Water is seen to quicken what it
comes in contact with. The uncleanness is "quickened" and spread by the water. It is because water is
associated with life that running water ("living water") is used for cleansing: It washes away "death" as
well as dirt. Still water, however, has no place to go. Thus, still water simply spreads the "death"
throughout the vessel.

To eat such defiled food would be symbolically equivalent to fellowshipping at the table of demons. Thus,

19
Hirsch, Leviticus, pp. 292-293

261
it was forbidden under the symbolic system of the Mosaic era.

Conclusion

If we have absorbed the Biblical perspective on clay pots and hearths, we can re-read Leviticus 11:33-35
and see what the ancient Israelite would have seen.

33. And any clay pot into which one of them falls, everything that is inside it will be unclean and
you shall break it.
33. As for any citizen who harbors Satan in his heart, his innermost being is defiled and
unacceptable to God, and his body will be destroyed.

34. Any of the food that can be eaten on which water comes is unclean, and any liquid that can be
drunk in any vessel is unclean.
34. God will not accept idolatry, and if idolatry has spread throughout his own being, then the
entirety of his person is unacceptable to God.

35. And everything on which part of their carcass may fall becomes unclean; an oven or a hearth
shall be broken up; they are unclean and shall continue as unclean to you.
35. If a man sets up idolatry visibly on the platform of his life, then he is to be dismantled and
separated from the community of clean persons.

262
Chapter 10 - Clean Water, New Life

36. Nevertheless a spring or a cistern collecting water remains clean, though the one who touches
their carcass shall be unclean.

37. And if a part of their carcass falls on any seed for sowing that is to be sown, it is clean.

38. But if water is put on the seed, and a part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.

These verses speak more fully of the action of water. On the one hand, water cleanses from defilement, but
on the other hand, water spreads defilement. Defiled utensils are cleansed by water (v. 32}, and a natural
spring of water, even though relatively still, cannot be defiled (v. 36). Yet, defilement spreads to food if it
becomes wet while a carcass is in contact with it, and water also conveys uncleanness to seeds set aside for
planting. A carcass does not, however, defile dry seeds not set aside for eating.

Water did not cleanse a carcass, and if a man fished out the carcass from the spring by hand, the carcass
would defile him the same way any other carcass would.

Water

Water in the Bible is a frequent symbol for the life of God, as communicated to us by the Holy Spirit, the
Lord and Giver of life. Thus, water is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Such power from the Spirit is cleansing
and resurrecting in its nature, when grounded in the atoning sacrifice. Thus, we may say that water
quickens what it comes in contact with. This is particularly obvious in the case of seeds, which sprout when
wet.

The Bible shows us that this quickening work of the Spirit can sometimes be a quickening in sin. There is a
certain "neutrality" to the power of the Spirit, considered in this way. Thus the scent of the gospel is
objectively positive, but sometimes has subjectively negative effects: "For we are a fragrance of Christ to
God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to the one an aroma from death
to death, to the other an aroma from life to life" (2 Cor. 2:15-16). Similarly, the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, while always active, sometimes promotes death instead of life (1 Cor. 11:27-30). Thus the Bible
can speak of God's giving Pharaoh the energy with which to harden his heart (Ex. 9:12). Objectively, the
Spirit gives life, but when men reject the gift, they are quickened into more radical sin.

To put it another way, the quickening power of the Spirit brings life when tied with the atoning sacrifice,
but quickens in death when separated there from. As we saw above in Chapter 6, it is the sacrifice, not
simply the water by itself, that brings cleansing. Thus, implements are to "be put in the water and be
unclean until evening" (Lev. 11:32), that is, until the evening sacrifice.

The quickening power of water is met with other place in the law besides Leviticus 11. When the people
committed idolatry and adultery with the golden calf, God had Moses grind it up. The gold power was then
quickened with water, and the people drank it. Those who were guilty were revealed (Ex. 32:20-28).
Similarly, in the inspection of adultery of Numbers 5, water was added to the dust of the Tabernacle floor
and the suspected adulteress drank it. The ashes of the red heifer were quickened by water, which enabled
them to communicate the cleansing properties of the sacrifice made months or years earlier (Num. 19).

With this in mind the symbolism of Leviticus 11 is not so strange. Water quickens and communicates both
the cleansing properties of the heifer ashes and the defiling properties of a carcass.

Why is it that water in a vessel could be contaminated while water in a spring could not be? The answer
seems to be that the water in springs is continually renewed, however slowly, with water from heaven (Dt.
11:10-11). The same is true of a cistern, which is a container for collecting rain water. Thus, springs and
wells cleanse themselves, just as do rivers. This is not the case with water in a container. Such water has no
access to the renewing power of heavenly water.

263
Water did not cleanse a carcass, but did cleanse the person touched by the carcass. The difference is that the
carcass was considered a source of uncleanness, while what contacted it was not a source of uncleanness,
but only defiled by that which was unclean. The source of uncleanness is called in Jewish tradition a "father
of uncleanness." A spot of Decay on a person was a father of uncleanness, which made the whole person
defiled and thus secondarily unclean. An issue of blood was a father of uncleanness, which defiled the
person and whatever he sat upon or slept upon. Just so, the carcass of an unclean animal was a father of
uncleanness.

Fathers of uncleanness were never cleansed. Rather, they were healed. When the Decay went away, the
plagued person had to be cleansed. When the issue of blood went away, the formerly afflicted person had to
be cleansed. The carcass of an unclean animal could not be cleansed, only removed and buried, but
whatever had been defiled by it could be cleansed.

Thus, the law of Moses was weak. It could only cleanse daughters of uncleanness, never fathers. It could
not cleanse unclean animals, or their carcasses, or parturients, or menstruants, or lepers. It could not raise
dead people from the grave, to prevent them from defiling others (Num. 19).

The fathers of uncleanness were forms of "flesh. " Leviticus 15 speaks of issues of blood and seed from the
"flesh," a reference to the privates. The parturient had an issue from her flesh. The Plague of Decay came
on the skin, but true Decay had to be evident below the "hide" and in the "flesh." Dead bodies of human
beings, and animal carcasses, were flesh. A man who ate the flesh of an unclean animal was consuming a
father of uncleanness. It seems that "flesh" is what makes manifest the deadness of the "inward parts."
Thus, to be "in the flesh" is to exist in a situation controlled by the radical depravity of the dead inward
parts.

Is it possible that this is part of the background to Paul's statement in Romans 8:1-4? It is interesting to read
these verses in the light of the laws of uncleanness, the spread and triumph of death in the Mosaic law, and
the fact that the law could not cleanse fathers of uncleanness.

1. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.

3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son
in the likeness of flesh-of-sin and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

4. In order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to
the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Verse 2 contrasts the transfigured law in Christ, which gives life through the Spirit, the Lord and Giver of
life, with the old law in Adam, which gave sin and death. Under the Adamic-Mosaic system, death
(uncleanness) spread constantly. There was no possible relief, because there was no way to deal with the
fathers of uncleanness.

But what the weak old law could not do, Christ did (v. 3). He came in a body that was fully human, but was
not under the Adamic flesh-curse. He was thus not subject to the fathers of uncleanness, and when a
woman with an issue of blood touched Him, He was not defiled (Mark 5:25-34). But God put the sin of
Adam on Him anyway. Though He was not legally subject to the defilement of Adam's sin, yet He
voluntarily took that defilement upon Himself, subjecting Himself to Adam, the ultimate Father of
Uncleanness. In His death, He removed all uncleanness, fathers and daughters, once and for all.

As a result of verse 4, New Covenant believers no longer walk in the sphere of the flesh, in the sphere of
fathers and daughters of uncleanness. The world and all within it has been cleansed once and for all. Death
has no more power over us. Even the strongest of all fathers of uncleanness, the human corpse, has been
cleansed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

264
Thus, unlike the water of the Old Covenant, the new water of holy baptism, in the fullness of the Spirit,
cleanses not only daughters but also fathers of uncleanness.

Water and Men

Like all the other aspects of the Tabernacle system, water also was ultimately a symbol for persons. The
Biblical worldview is exhaustively personalistic. Thus, though the Bible writers speak sometimes of
abstract qualities like "righteousness" and "sin," there is never any idea that these things exist apart from
persons. "Righteousness" is a quality of a person, the "righteous man."1

Just so, water is not a symbol of "life," but of "living persons." Since the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver
of Life, water becomes a fitting symbol for the Person of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in New Covenant baptism
the water simply represents (symbolizes) the Holy Spirit's descend upon a person, and the regenerating
effect of coming into personal contact with His Person. Regeneration is not an impersonal force that
transforms a person. Rather, regeneration is the effect of a positive personal encounter between God and
man. In lesser ways, we see this in daily life. People quicken one another. Such quickening may be painful,
as in a rebuke, but the fact remains that as " iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another" (Prov. 27:17).
In this way, people act as "trees of life" to one another (Prov. 11:30). Thus, life is not an impersonal force,
but is a result of inter-personal relationships, and ultimately the result of an inter-personal relationship with
the Lord and Giver of life, the Holy Spirit of God.

We see then, that while the Bible often uses the language of abstraction and the language of symbolism, it
uses such language within the horizons of its worldview. Persons are always in view, either human persons,
angelic persons, or Divine Persons.

Not only can water be a symbol for the Holy Spirit, it can also be a symbol for the wicked; for while water
in small amounts gives life, too much water brings death. For examples, see Psalm 18:4, 16; 69:1- 4, 13-15;
124:2-6; Isaiah 8:5-8; Jeremiah 46:7-9; 47:2-3. In several of these passages, a flood of water is explicitly a
symbol for a rushing army of men. In Isaiah 59:19, it is God who is the rushing water.

The laver in the Tabernacle was a symbol for persons. This is evident from the fact of its consecration,
since consecration only applies directly to persons (Ex. 40:11; Heb. 9:21). The consecration of the laver
symbolized the consecration of persons. In terms of the system of thought in the Tabernacle, the laver
represented both the individual person and the whole body politic of Israel, in a certain capacity.

This is background to what Jesus said in John 7:38, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. '” The laver represented human beings, and thus the water
that came out of the inside of the laver was water coming from human beings. But the water itself
represented people, and so John 7: 39 says that the Water of which Jesus spoke was the Holy Spirit. Jesus is
the Ultimate Laver, and from Him comes the Spirit. As small lavers, we also minister the Spirit (life) to one
another.2

1
Notice the particularly pregnant personalism of 2 Corinthians 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we
might become the righteousness of God in Him." Paul does not say that we have the righteousness of God, but that we are God's
righteousness, because we are "in Christ," who is the fullest in-personation (enhypostatization) of God's righteousness. The concept
that God's righteousness is a Person as well as an attribute should probably color our understanding of such passages as Romans 1:17
and 3:21.
Please note that I am not contending that the Bible eschews all "abstract" language, but rather that the Biblical concept of "abstraction"
is not the same as the Greek. Seemingly abstract nouns in the Bible are not to be reified, but frequently are indeed to be personalized.
All "abstractions" are qualities of persons.
2
The secondary procession of the Spirit from the innermost parts of Christians arises from their union with Christ, since the Spirit
proceeds (primarily) from the Father and also (both primarily and secondarily) from the Son. Since the Son is the Son-of-the-Father,
the Son's sending of the Spirit is qualified by that fact; but since the Son is Himself autotheos, He is also a true Sender of the Spirit.
Protestant ecclesiology needs to ingest the fact that there are three, not just two, means of grace in the Church: the Word, the
Sacraments, and the People. Compare in this regard the use of the expression “one another” in the New Testament.

265
An additional dimension of this is seen in Ezekiel 47, where the laver is replaced by a mighty river that
runs out of the Temple. This is a symbol of God's army of saints carrying out their evangelistic mission in
the world as they flow from His throne. 3 We can contrast this with the Satanic water-army of Revelation
12:15-16.4

With this background in mind the symbolic dimensions of Leviticus 11:36-38 emerge more clearly:

1. A carcass defiled still water. Idolatrous and otherwise wicked persons defile people who are not
renewing their lives. If a Christian leaves off his daily walk with the Lord, the world will corrupt him.

2. A carcass did not defile water that was being replenished, either directly by heavenly water, or indirectly
as heavenly water moved from the skies to the ground and into a spring or well. Idolatrous and otherwise
wicked persons cannot defile people who are being daily renewed by the heavenly Holy Spirit of God.

Seeds

As we saw in the Chapter 9, Leviticus 11:34 implies that a carcass defiled food that it came in contact with,
though it only defiled all the food in a given container if water were mixed with it. Thus, a dead mouse
would contaminate the flour around its body. By way of contrast, verse 37 says that carcasses did not defile
seeds that were set aside for sowing. If, however, water came on the seeds, then the contamination would
spread to the seeds.

Why is it that seeds for planting were not defiled by a carcass, while grain set aside for eating was? In part,
this is a matter of intention, as we discussed it in Chapter 9. If the seed had been set apart for planting
rather than from eating, it was under a different rule.

There is another aspect to this, however. Bonar writes, "The husk or skin of the seed was between it and the
polluting object. But if the seed was not in a sowing state, i.e., if it was bruised or ground, then pollution
entered. So, if water fell on it, then the water's insinuating qualities, working its way through the pores,
would rot the heart. Israel was taught the danger of coming in contact with sin. You must be shielded from
its touch: the husk taught this."5

This interpretation assumes that any seed that had not begun to be processed into food by grinding was still
in a sowable condition.6 It was protected by its husk. In other words, it was shod. This squares very nicely
with the concern with shoes that is found in the first half of Leviticus 11.

All this is once again symbolic. The seeds represent people, again in a certain capacity. The idea in
Leviticus 11:37-38 is not eating but sprouting. Seed shod in husks would sprout if put into water or if
planted (and watered). If the water were clean, the sprouting would be acceptable. If the water had been
carcass- defiled, then the sprouting would be unacceptable. 7

I believe that the primary concern here is with children. Children are our sprouts (Ps. 128:3; 144:12). If we
bring them in contact with clean water -- good people -- they will grow and be acceptable to God. If,
however, we bring them in contact with defiled water -- wicked people -- they will grow up wrong, and be

3
In particular it is a picture of the evangelistic work done by the Jews during the Restoration Period, the centuries after the Exile and
before the New Covenant. For a discussion, see James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World
(Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), pp. 249, 310.
4
It is my opinion that the water-army is the Gentile army of Rome, sent by Satan to destroy the Church (Woman). The Land (apostate
Israel), however, so provoked the Romans that they wound up being the recipients of Roman wrath, while the Christians escaped. See
the remarks in David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1987),
pp. 321-322.
5
A. A. Bonar, A Commentary on Leviticus (London: Banner of Truth, [1861] 1966), p. 231. This was also the view of Maimonides,
who spoke of the husk as a protector. See Moses Maimonides, The Code of Maimonides, Book 10: The Book of Cleanness, trans.
Herbert Danby. Yale Judaica Series 8 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954) 6:5:1, 4; pp. 348-49.
6
Thus it is not a matter of intention, but a matter of the condition of the seed.
7
It should be obvious that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hygiene!

266
unacceptable to God.

Moving away from the domestic concerns of this part of Leviticus 11, we can see another extended
implication of the symbolism here. The sprouting of a seed is also a metaphor for death and regeneration
(John 12:24; 1 Cor. 15:36-38). The man who lives in the context of Spiritual Water will sprout forth
righteously, while he who lives in the context of wicked persons -- defiled water -- will sprout forth
wickedly.

Daniel’s Seeds

This passage also provides a possible explanation to a curiosity in Daniel 1. The story of Daniel's refusal to
defile himself with the king's food is well known, but upon close inspection it does not seem to be related
to the Mosaic dietary laws at all. Daniel refused the king's "royal food" and "wine" (Dan. 1:8), and asked to
be given "vegetables," or literally "seeds" (Dan. 1:12). The term "seeds" seems to refer to any fruit or
vegetable in an unprocessed condition --still shod, as it were.8 This decision was not evidently based on the
Mosaic laws of diet, and commentators have conjectured --not without reason --that the king's food was all
sacrificial in character, and had to be rejected for that reason (Dt. 32:28). Some have suggested that Daniel
and his friends were acting as Nazirites in rejecting the wine. Joyce G. Baldwin rejects all cultic or
ceremonial approaches and holds that Daniel was simply rejecting the covenant-forming character of table
fellowship with the king and his kingdom. 9

Whatever the reason, the four young men asked for "seeds, " on the evident assumption that these would
not cause defilement. Also, while Baldwin may be generally right in her approach, the language of Daniel 1
does speak of "defilement" (Dan. 1:8), and the context for it is the expressed fact that Nebuchadnezzar had
transported the Temple to Babylon (Dan. 1:2).10 Moreover, Daniel did not always reject Gentile food, as
Daniel 10: 3 makes clear. Another piece of ceremonial language is found in verse 4, where the youths are
said to have had no defect, a requirement of the priests of Israel (Lev. 21:21).Thus, the context militates
against a "social covenant fellowship" view, and points in a more sacral direction.

Possibly the fact that the Temple articles were in Nebuchadnezzar's palace is more important than has been
recognized, especially since they come up again at Belshazzar's feast (Dan. 5). When we read in Daniel
10:3 that Daniel was eating Gentile food, this was after the Temple implements had been taken back to
Jerusalem. Perhaps Daniel and his friends saw themselves as priests of the Temple in some sense. That
would account for the statement that they were without defect.

In such a context, what food was appropriate? The priests normally ate the sacrifices, which were
unblemished as well as clean. No such food existed in this situation. Perhaps the logic of the situation is
this: The only food that may be eaten in the Temple environments is sacrificial food, including processed
grain in the form of cereal offerings. Since no such food was available in the "Temple" of
Nebuchadnezzar's palace, the only food the young men might eat was unprocessed vegetables. Since the
priests were not allowed to drink wine in the Temple, Daniel did not drink wine in the palace. More
reflection on this matter will be required before this interpretation can be any more than a suggestion.

Daniel's request for "seeds" may also reflect the concerns of Leviticus 11. The seeds, shod with husk, were
preserved from whatever idolatrous uncleanness pervaded the rest of the palace, and thus were clean for
Israelites to eat. Because God's house was present in the palace complex, though dismantled, the laws of
uncleanness were in force.

Beyond this, being young men themselves, at a time in their lives when they were developing their
potential, it was appropriate for them to live for a while on a diet of undefiled "seeds."

8
The word in Daniel is a variant of the normal word for seed. "Although the word occurs only here, a somewhat similar word appears
in Is. 61:11 which means 'the things that are sown."' E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), p. 46.
9
Joyce Baldwin, Daniel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), p. 83.
10
Thanks to Ray R. Sutton for calling attention to the relevance of this fact.

267
Chapter 11 - A Summary of the Domestic Symbolism of Leviticus 11:32-38

Most of the book of Leviticus concerns the Sanctuary of God, His House, the center of the universe. Much
of the remainder of the book concerns the land of God. We have seen that the term "detestable" concerns
the Sanctuary, and the term "abominable" concerns the land. In terms of this, the term "unclean" focuses
closely on the Home. Notice the following general direction in the discussion of Leviticus:

Diagram 13.12
Leviticus 1 Sanctuary concerns: holy versus detestable Man before God
Leviticus 11 Domestic concerns: clean versus unclean The "middle life" of man
Leviticus 17 Land concerns: holy versus abominable Man in relationship with man

In terms of Leviticus' pattern of organization, the parallel between God's House-Sanctuary and man's
domestic sanctuary serves to unify Leviticus 1-16. Indeed, as we have seen in papers Nos. 9-11of the
present study, the only reason the domestic house needs to be kept "clean" is because it lies under the
shadow of, and exists in the context of, God's House, which must be "clean." Similarly, the parallel
between God's House and God's land serves to unite Leviticus 1-16 with 17-22. Thus, each section ends
with sanctuary provisions:

Diagram 13.13

Leviticus 1-7 Duties of citizens and priests at God's Sanctuary

Leviticus 8-16 Provisions for keeping clean God's Sanctuary and man's house

Leviticus 8-10 The Fathers of God's Sanctuary

Leviticus 11-15 Cleansing man's house
Leviticus 16 Cleansing God's house (and by extension the human houses in Israel)

Leviticus 17-22 Provisions for keeping clean God's Land

Leviticus 17-20 Obedience in the Land: Laws for citizens 1

Leviticus 21-22 Obedience in the Sanctuary as the center of the Land: Laws for priests

We should also note the following associations with God's commandments: 2

Diagram 13.14

Leviticus 1-7 The Integrity of God (First Commandment) and the integrity of man (Sixth
Commandment) -- sanctuary concerns

Leviticus 8-16 Access to God (Second Commandment) and the integrity of the household
(Seventh Commandment) -- domestic concerns

Leviticus 17-22 Living under the Name of God (Third Commandment) and integrity in the land
(Eighth Commandment) -- land concerns

In terms of this, we notice the focus on domestic concerns in Leviticus 11-15:

1
Although Leviticus 18 and 20 largely concern sexual matters, it is expulsion from the land that is the overriding threat. It was not the
home or household implements that were defiled by incest, but the land.
2
See also James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989),
chap. 2.

268
 Diagram 13.15

Leviticus 11 Keeping the personal house clean from forbidden foods, and keeping the
domestic house clean from defiling carcasses

Leviticus 12 Childbirth

Leviticus 13-14 Keeping the personal house clean from Decay, and keeping the domestic house
(garments and house) clean from Decay

Leviticus 15 Keeping the person and household clean from defilements cause by issues from
the "flesh"

Leviticus 11:32-38 thus concerns the Home, the domestic household. The symbolism employed in this
passage is to be understood as correlative to the symbolism of the Sanctuary. Just as God has a House that
must be kept holy, so man has a home that must be kept clean. Just as God's House is really His people, so
a man's home is really his wife, children, servants, and employees. Just as the items of furniture and the
rites of cleansing of God's House spoke of the relationship of God's people to Him, so the items of furniture
and the rites of cleansing of a man's home spoke of the activities of the members of the domestic
household.

The preceding three chapters of our study (8-10) have developed this at length. Our purpose here is simply
to pull all of this material together into a coherent picture.

Dead swarming things defiled a variety of specific objects in the household. These objects speak of human
domestic life in a variety of aspects. Man can be defiled, and needs to be cleansed, in all these aspects of
his life.

Implements (v. 32) of work could be defiled. Implements speak of man as worker, as laborer. It speaks
specifically of a man's servants and employees, but it speaks also of the work-aspect of the life of every
man and woman. Sin defiles man's work, but redemption restores it.

Clothing (v. 32) could be defiled. Clothing speaks of the society of people gathered around a man, in this
case his household. Sin defiles that society, but redemption restores it.

Skins (v. 32) could be defiled. Skin speaks of the outer life of man. Man's flesh, his essential being, has
been defiled by sin and this defilement flows out to his skin, but redemption resurrects him.

Goat hair (v. 32) could be defiled. Because of its association with the Tabernacle, I believe goat hair speaks
of man as part of the society gathered around God's throne. Man's religious life has been defiled by sin, and
this of course extends into his domestic life as it corrupts family devotions, but redemption restores it.

Vessels (v. 33) could be defiled. Vessels speak of man as a temple, a house for something. Man is supposed
to be a vessel of the Holy Spirit, but because of sin has become a vessel of Satan. Redemption, however,
transforms man into a fit vessel, by breaking him as a vessel of clay, cleansing him as a vessel of wood by
water, and scouring him as a vessel of bronze. Such renewed vessels are not only fit for God's house, but
also for man's.

Food and drink (v. 34) could be defiled. These speak of man as food and drink for God. Just as God "eats"
us into His body politic, so people "eat" each other into covenant relationships. sin has defiled the persons
in the home, so that their mutual "eating" of one another is dangerous. Some members of the household
may have to be "spat out" as defiled, but redemption can restore them.

269
Stoves (v. 35) could be defiled. Stoves speak of man as an altar. They point to man as a platform that holds
up and exposes things in his life. Sin has defiled that platform, and thus the members of the household offer
evil things to one another on the altars of their lives -- but redemption restores them.

Water (v. 36) could be defiled. Water speaks of man as an influencer of others. Because of sin, men
influence each other wrongly, passing death instead of life to one another. The renewing heavenly waters of
the Spirit, however, restore man's influence. In the home, good influences must prevail.

Finally, seeds (vv. 37-38) could be defiled. Seed speaks of man's potential, and in the home this means
parenting. God encourages us to wear the shoes of Spiritual armament (Eph. 6:13-18), for such husks will
protect us against the fiery darts of the wicked. We must provide the husks of self-discipline for our
children. The clean water of the Holy Spirit and of righteous persons will cause us, and our children, to
sprout in Godliness, but the defiled water of the wicked will have the opposite effect.

We could continue this survey by looking at the various items of furniture that are defiled and cleansed in
Leviticus 15, but that would range beyond the scope of the present study. Suffice it to say here that
Leviticus 11 focuses our attention on defilements caused by swarmer carcasses, which represent other
people, while Leviticus 15 focuses on the more potent defilement caused by the evil that flows out of
ourselves into our homes.

270
Chapter 12 - Swarming Things

41. And any swarmer that swarms upon the earth is detestable: It may not be eaten.

42. And anything moving on its belly, and anything moving on all fours, even 1 anything having
many feet, of any of the swarmers that swarm on the earth, you may not eat them for they are
detestable.

43. You shall not render yourselves detestable by any of the swarmers that swarm, and you shall
not make yourselves unclean by them or let yourselves be made unclean by them.

44.For I am YHWH your God, and so you are to make yourselves holy and be holy ones, for I am
holy, and you shall not make yourselves unclean by any of the swarmers that crawl on the earth.

45. For I am YHWH, the one bringing you from the land [earth] of Egypt to be your God, and you
are to be holy ones for I am holy.

This paragraph summarizes the second half of Leviticus 11. In Chapter 1, we pointed out that this chapter
can profitably be broken into two parts, the first having to do with what may and may not be eaten out of
the four categories of animal life, and the second half (vv. 24-45) dealing with the pollutions caused by the
carcasses of unclean animals. This second half centrally focuses on the pollutions caused by swarming
creatures, and especially the eight house-breakers. These housebreakers defile man's work implements, and
more particularly assault the woman's kitchen environment. As swarmers, they are boundary transgressors,
invading the God-given domestic garden. They symbolize the unclean man invading God's sanctuary.

These swarmers only signify all unclean animals, for as we have seen, all unclean animals are satanic in
their walk. Large land animals were unclean if unshod. Fish were unclean if unarmored. Birds were unclean
if they frequented unclean places. Swarmers were unclean unless they both flew and hopped. Also, as we
saw in Chapter 7, "swarmer" is used on occasion for every kind of animal.

Swarming versus holiness is the theme of this climactic paragraph. The word "swarm" occurs seven times.
This is no accident, and when Biblical authors do this, it is significant. 2 The expression "swarmer that
swarms" occurs three times, but the fourth time (v. 44) we read "swarmer that crawls." This literary
cadence does two things. First, as noted, it leaves us with a seven-fold reiteration of "swarm." Second, by
changing the rhythm in the fourth occurrence of the phrase, the word “crawl" is highlighted.

Verse 41 says that all swarmers were detestable, explaining that this means they were not to be eaten. In
view of the fact that winged hoppers were an exception to this rule, verse 42 elaborates by giving us two
kinds of detestable swarmers. The first kind is "anything moving on its belly." This specifically answers to
the serpent of Genesis 3, but by extension, as we have seen, any unshod animal whose flesh contacts the
cursed soil. The second kind is "anything moving on all fours," which is explained appositionally as
"anything that has many feet. " "All fours" means any creature that seems to walk, whether four-legged or
six-legged. "Many feet" refers to caterpillars and the like. Many-footed swarmers travel in the soil.

Verse 43 summarizes the three prohibitions of the chapter. First, they were not to render themselves
detestable. This would happen if they ate detestable flesh. If they became detestable, God would spit them
out. As we saw in Chapter 6, this is the most serious form of uncleanness.

1
Hebrew, ‘ad, normally an adverb of time, but sometimes used of degree, "even unto." Such seems to be the meaning here, giving an
appositional force to the phrase. See Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), p.
724.
2
See the discussion of this phenomenon in the opening paragraphs of Exodus, see Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of
Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, [1951] 1967), pp. 9, 12, 15, 21, 24, 27.

271
Second, they were not to render themselves unclean. This would happen if they deliberately contacted the
carcass of an unclean creature. They were to avoid doing this as much as possible. If it happened, they had
to both bathe and launder.

Third, they were not to let themselves be made unclean. This would happen if they accidentally contacted
the carcass of an unclean creature. They were to avoid doing this as much as possible. If it happened, they
had to bathe.

Verse 44 explains the consequences. God is holy, and thus His house is holy. They were to be holy, so that
they could have access to God's sanctuary. In other words, they were to be "saints," for a saint is someone
who has sanctuary-access. They had to be holy in order to draw near, even though in the Old Covenant they
were only permitted into the first quarter of the Tabernacle area, the forecourt between the altar and the
gate. If they became unclean, they would not have this access until they became clean again.

This sets up the relationship between swarming and access. It is somewhat paradoxical. Those who do not
respect boundaries will be cast out. Those who do respect boundaries will be invited in. Or more pointedly,
those who do not respect boundaries will not be permitted to cross them, while those who do show respect
for boundaries will be permitted to cross. The paradox is resolved by the difference between presumption
and permission. The man who presumes to seize access to the sanctuary will be cast out. The man who
humbly awaits God's invitation will be drawn near.

Just so, when Adam seized the temporarily forbidden fruit, he was cut off from the kingdom. Had he waited
humbly, respecting God's moral boundaries, he would have been granted access to it. 3

The word "crawl" is used where we would expect to find "swarm," here in verse 44. Via this literary
device, the text reminds us that swarmers are crawlers. Satan, who transgressed into the garden sinfully
(with sinful intent), became a crawler. The problem of swarming, discussed in the second half of Leviticus
11, is linked with the problem of crawling, discussed in the first half.

Finally, verse 45 contrasts God's holy land with the land of Egypt. God had delivered them from the earth
of Egypt, where they had crawled in the mud, making bricks, and where they had swarmed and multiplied
(Ex. 1:7, 12), and had put them into a new earth. God's new earth was ordered and structured (Ex. 18:21;
Ex. 20-24; etc.). Ultimately, it was His sanctuary. They were not to live like Egyptians, in an estate of
uncleanness, but live as those who have sanctuary access: holy men and women.

3
James B. Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis," in Gary North, ed., Tactics of Christian Resistance.
Christianity & Civilization 3 (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1983).

272
Chapter 13 - The Dietary Laws in Deuteronomy 14

The Book of Deuteronomy is a covenant renewal document. 1 It sets forth the second covenant renewal of
the Sinaitic Covenant. The first renewal came after the incident of the Golden Calf, when Moses shattered
the tables of the covenant, and then God wrote them again. 2 The second renewal was rendered necessary by
Israel's refusal to obey God and enter Canaan, which apostasy resulted in the wilderness wanderings. With
the dying off of the apostate generation, God was ready to lead Israel into Canaan once again.

I have argued elsewhere that the dietary laws of Deuteronomy 14 come in the section of Moses' sermon on
the law dealing with the third cornrnandrnent. 3 As I wrote there, the boundaries of the third commandment
have been a puzzle to exegetes who have wrestled with the question. For reasons I set forth in my other
discussion and in paper No.3 of the present series, "On Boiling Meat in Milk," the fourth commandment
should be seen to begin with 21b. Moreover, Deuteronomy 13 has to do with false mediators, not with
wearing God's name emptily.

The third commandment has to do with the character of God's people, those who take up (bear) His Name.
They are not to do so in vanity, in the sphere of death and impotence. The third commandment is the
general concern of Leviticus 17-22.4

By way of contrast, in Leviticus, the dietary laws are put in the section concerning the second
commandment, which concerns liturgical or ceremonial idolatry, and within that section (Lev. 8-16) they
signify fidelity to the first commandment (no covenantal idolatry). 5 Leviticus 8-16 deal with cleansing and
mediation. The clean man who has access (second commandment) must not be an idolater (first
commandment). Here in Deuteronomy, however, cleansing and access are not in view. Rather, the
character of the person is in view, which is in the third commandment’s zone of concern.

There are only two stipulations in this section, and each has the same form, a form not found in the laws
preceding or following them. Unfortunately, the versification obscures this structure. An outline of
Deuteronomy 14:1-21a will illuminate the matter:

14:1-2a -- Wholeness in Self as God's Image:

Who you are: Sons of God.
Stipulation: Do not deface God's image, for the sake of the dead.
Closure: You are a holy people to God.

14:2b-21a -- Wholeness in Relations:

Who you are: Separated from the peoples.
Stipulation: Do not eat detestable food, or anything dead.
Closure: You are a holy people to God.

In Leviticus 11, the dietary laws are set forth as symbolic foci for covenantal loyalty in terms of the notion
of transcendence and the first commandment. Loyalty to God means not incorporating into oneself the idols
of the nations, not joining with the representatives of those idols through marriage or alliances, but rather
destroying such dead idols -- such is the message of Leviticus 11.

In the wider context of Leviticus 8-16, the dietary laws are related to the second commandment, concerning
mediation and access. Those who are unclean are not allowed to draw near to God. Accordingly, the flesh

1
See Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), esp. chap. 11:2, "Dynastic
Covenant."
2
Moses reviews this in his sermon on the First Commandment (Dt. 6-11), especially 7:17-26 with 9:7- 10:11. Moses states that the
covenant breakdown and renewal carried with it the replacement of the firstborn with the Levites as priests, of Aaron with Eleazar
(eventually), and of the open tablets of stone with new tablets hidden in an ark. The renewed covenant put God at a greater distance
from the people (separated by Levites and by the ark-box), but this served for the people's protection as well -- protection from the
wrath of God.
3
James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), chap. 4.
4
Ibid., chap. 2.
5
Ibid.

273
of unclean animals is called "detestable," and as we saw in paper No.11, "The Meaning of the Mosaic
Dietary Laws," this means it is to be rejected, spat out. If they make themselves detestable by eating such
flesh, then God will spit them out. Thus, mediation and access are the zone of concern in Leviticus 11.

Here in Deuteronomy 14, however, neither of these concerns is paramount. Rather, it is the third
commandment that is in view, having to do with the holy and righteous character of the covenant person,
who bears God's name. As a result, the flesh of unclean animals is not called "detestable" but "abominable."
As I pointed out in paper No.11, I am using "abominable" to translate a different Hebrew term, one that
connotes loathsomeness. Hirsch points out that in Deuteronomy 14, "the dietary laws are given from the
point of view of the godly dignity and value which his calling gives to each individual.”6 The context is
godly life in the everyday situation, not the qualifications for sanctuary access.

The character in view, however, is unique to Israel as a nation of priests. A Gentile believer was also not to
carry God's name in vain, but for him this did not imply refraining from the flesh of unclean animals.
Israelites, however, bore God's name in a special way, and thus were required to abstain. Perhaps this
should be seen as a difference in the names of God revealed to each. The name God gave to Noahic
believers seems to have been "God Most High, Possessor of Heaven and Earth, " while the name peculiarly
given Israel at the inception of the Mosaic Covenant was "I AM THAT I AM, " or Yahweh (Jehovah; the
LORD). See Genesis 14:18-22, especially verse 22, where Abraham identifies his God, the LORD, with the
Gentile God Most High.

There was nothing innately defiling about eating any of the flesh forbidden here, and this is made plain by
the fact that it could be sold to the Gentile (Dt. 14:21). Israel as a priest to the nations was obviously not to
lead them into sin, and so if it had been sinful or in any way unfitting for a Gentile to eat such meat, God
would not have permitted Israel to sell it to them. Perhaps in the fact that Israel could sell such things to
Gentiles there is an analogy to the "crumbs that fall from the table" (Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28).

To bear God's name, I AM THAT I AM, means identifying with life as against death. Accordingly, this is
Moses' theme in his remarks on the third commandment. The first half of this section of his sermon (Dt. 14:
1-2a) commences with the statement that the Israelites were sons of God. For this reason they were not to
defile their persons and deface God's image -- the image of their Father -- when mourning for the dead.
Such defilements, cutting and shaving, were designed to identify the mourner symbolically and radically
with the corpse. The Israelites were limited in how far they might go in making this identification. They
might rend their garments, but not their flesh; they might unbind their hair, but not shave it. The High
Priest, however, was forbidden to make any outward expression of mourning at all (Lev. 21:10). Thus, all
Israelites were to maintain life in the face of death. This is what it meant for them to be a holy people to
God. Holiness means identification with God's own life. It means preserving the integrity of one's person,
just as a sacrifice had to be unblemished.

The second half of Moses' sermon draws from God's own comments on the dietary laws in Leviticus 20:
24-25, "I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the people. You are therefore to make a
distinction between the clean animal and the unclean. ..."

Accordingly, Moses says, "the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His special treasure out of all the
people who are on the face of the earth. You shall not eat any abominable thing" (Dt. 14:2b-3). Life in the
face of death is the basic idea here as well, for Moses closes by saying "You shall not eat anything that
dies...for you are a holy people to the LORD your God" (Dt. 14:21).

The first half of the section deals with individual life and purity, the second half with social life and purity.
As sons of God they were not to make their bodies symbolically dead while mourning. As the people of
God they were not to join themselves to those who were symbolically dead. Unconverted Gentiles, being
dead, could eat dead flesh. The Israelite, being alive, was not to do so. And just so, avoiding dead flesh also
entailed not joining with those who ate dead flesh.

6
Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch Translated and Explained, trans. Isaac Levy. Vol. 5: Deuteronomy, 2d ed. (London: Honig
and Sons, 1966), p. 247.

274
To expand on this, we notice the following "hierarchy" or order of covenant engagement. The High Priest
was permitted only to marry an Israelite woman (Lev. 21:14), and by extension I believe this law applied to
any priest. The Israelite citizen was permitted to marry a converted Gentile. Based on Genesis 6:1-2, the
sinful intermarriages before the Flood, I believe converted Gentiles were not to marry unconverted ones.
7
Similarly, the priests primarily ate sacrificial animals, though they are not expressly forbidden to eat deer
and chicken. The Israelite citizen was free to eat any clean animal, including those that were associated
with converted Gentiles (deer, etc.). The converted Gentile might eat anything except blood.

Moses' remarks on food can be outlined as follows:

I. You shall not eat any abominable thing.

A. These are the animals you may eat.
B. These you may eat of all that are in the water.
C. You may eat any clean bird.
II. You shall not eat anything that dies.

As can be seen, the second part of Moses' remarks on the third commandment has itself two sections: First,
the flesh of unclean animals is to be regarded as abominable, and second, anything found dead and thus not
properly slaughtered is not to be eaten.

Land Animals: Deuteronomy 14:4-8

God in Leviticus 11 did not give a list of clean animals, but only gave the rule. Moses, however, begins
with a list. There are ten animals listed, ten being the number of completeness. The first three are clean
domestic animals: ox, sheep, goat. The remaining seven are clean wild animals (beasts of the field): deer,
gazelle, roebuck, wild goat, ibex, antelope, and mountain sheep.8 The reason for this list here is that Moses
speaks with a view to Israel's entrance into the land. In the wilderness, such animals were seldom if ever
encountered, but in the land there would be much game. Such animals signified the converted but
uncircumcised Gentile.

Moses then gives the rule, from Leviticus 11, that clean animals divide the hoof and chew the cud. He goes
on to mention three animals that chew the cud but do not divide the hoof, the camel, the rabbit, and the rock
hyrax, the same animals mentioned in Leviticus 11. He follows up with the pig, which divides the hoof but
does not chew cud, again following the order of presentation of Leviticus 11. He closes, as does the parallel
in Leviticus 11, by saying that these are not to be eaten, nor are their carcasses to be touched.

Water Animals: Deuteronomy 14:9-10

As regards "fish," Moses adds nothing to what is found in Leviticus 11, only condensing the phrasing of the
rule.

Flying Creatures: Deuteronomy 14:11-20

Moses alters the phrasing of Leviticus 11 in this section. Leviticus 11:13 begins, "These, moreover, you
shall detest among birds." Moses begins, "You may eat any clean bird," and he repeats this phrase at the
end of his section.

Moses then lists unclean birds, without giving a rule. The list is almost identical to what is found in
Leviticus 11.

7
On Genesis 6 see my remarks in James B. Jordan, Primeval Saints: Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis (available from Biblical
Horizons), chap. 3.
8
Translation from NASV; for a discussion, see Chapter 2 above.

275
 Diagram 13.16

Leviticus 11 Deuteronomy 14

griffon vulture/golden eagle griffon vulture/golden eagle

black vulture black vulture
bearded vulture bearded vulture
black kite red kite
falcon/buzzard *falcon/buzzard
kite
raven *raven

eagle owl *eagle owl

short-eared owl *short-eared owl
long-eared owl *long-eared owl
kestrel/sparrow hawk *kestrel/sparrow hawk
tawny owl *tawny owl
fisher owl *screech owl
screech owl little owl
little owl scops owl
scops owl
*osprey
osprey *fisher owl
stork/heron stork/heron
cormorant cormorant

hoopoe hoopoe
bat bat

*in the Deuteronomy list indicates the presence of ‘et.

Two more varieties of kites are mentioned by Moses in group one, perhaps because these would be more
prominent in Canaan.9 Also, Moses chooses to move the fisher-owl from its original place in the list of
owls and group it with the other water birds.

An additional curiosity about Moses' bird list is the presence of the particle ‘et before ten of the birds in the
list. Usually an indicator of the accusative case, ‘et can be used with the nominative on occasion. 10 The
nouns in the bird list are nominative, as also in the animal list of verses 4-5, where, however, no instances
of ‘et are found.11 W. L. Moran has suggested that the reason for this is literary, to provide a list of ten birds
to balance the ten animals of verses 4-5.12 If this be correct, then there are ten (completeness) unclean birds
9
It is also suggested that one of the two kinds of kites in Deuteronomy 14:13 may be the same as the "black kite" of Leviticus 11:14.
This is because the Hebrew "black kite" is da’ah, and the "kite" in Deuteronomy 14:13 is dayah, perhaps another way of writing the
same word. Or, it is also pointed out that "red kite" in Deuteronomy 14: 13 is ra’ah, and since "d" and "r" in Hebrew are almost
identical, there may be a copyist's error here. While both of these suggestions are plausible, then cannot simultaneously be true. I am
in no position to make a judgment here.
10
According to P. P. Saydon, "Meanings and Uses of the Particle ‘t," Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964) :192-210; and J. MacDonald,
"The Particle ‘t in Classical Hebrew: Some New Data on Its Use with the Nominative," Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964) :264-275; as
noted by W. L. Moran (see footnote 12 below). See also the discussion in Bruce K. Waltke, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).
11
In Leviticus 11:13-19, the nouns are in the accusative, and are preceded by ‘et in every case save one: stork/heron and cormorant are
not separated by any grammatical marker (Lev. 11:19a). In Deuteronomy there is an "and" between stork/heron and cormorant
(14:18a).
12
W. L. Moran, "The Literary Connection between Lev. 11:13-19 and Dt. 14:12-18," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966) :271-277.
Moran explains the matter via a documentary hypothesis, which is not acceptable to me. He contends that there were originally ten
unclean birds in the list, ten of those without the particle ‘et. A later editor, with an eye to Leviticus 11, added ten more, using ‘et to
indicate his second set of ten, and thereby preserving the symbolism of completeness (ten) in the pericope. (Since Deuteronomy
14:12-18 lists twenty-one birds, Moran is assuming some resolution to the "kite" problem of verse 13.) Moran assumes that the later
editor was careful to follow the list order of Leviticus 11, and this is why his additions, indicated by ‘et, are sprinkled through
Deuteronomy 14:12- 18, and not grouped as a second list. Apart from the fact that the documentary hypothesis has no foundation

276
marked by ‘et to match the ten clean animals.

Moses then repeats the prohibition of Leviticus 11:20, that all swarming things with wings are forbidden as
food. He does not list the four exceptions found in Leviticus, which might indicate a change in covenant
stipulations except that later we find John the Baptist eating locusts (Mark 1:6). Apparently Moses took it
for granted that the Israelite hearer would know the exceptions to the rule.

Carcasses: Deuteronomy 14:21a

Moses concludes by saying that the Israelite is not to incorporate into himself the flesh of any animal found
dead. This is found already in Leviticus 11:39-40.

Conclusion

In preaching the law, Moses discusses the dietary laws in connection with the third commandment. Unlike
Leviticus 11, which is concerned with sanctuary access, Deuteronomy 14 focuses on the character of the
Israelite believer-priest. He is to avoid becoming allied with unbelievers, and to avoid eating the flesh of
unclean animals that symbolize such persons. This was true for them while they lived in the wilderness
camp, close to the Tabernacle. It would continue to be true for them once they spread out allover the land,
because it was a sign of their calling as priests to the nations.

In Leviticus, the laws of clean and unclean are directly tied to Tabernacle access. There would come a time
in Israel's history, however, when the Tabernacle would be taken down, and the Ark of the Covenant
removed from it (1 Sam. 3-7). Once this happened, there was no longer any central sanctuary in Israel, and
worship reverted, properly, to the use of multiple "high places" for sacrifice (1 Sam. 9:12-24; 1 Kings 3:2-
3). Only when Solomon's Temple was built was it possible to reunite the Ark with the rest of the House,
and at that point the high places were no longer acceptable as places of worship.

During the century when the Ark was separated from the House, people legitimately offered sacrifices at
many places, a reversion to the pre-Mosaic pattern of worship. Of course, they only offered burnt and peace
sacrifices, not purification and compensation sacrifices. At any rate, the question that then naturally would
arise was this: Are the laws of clean and unclean in effect, since they pertain to the Tabernacle and its
boundaries? Are we free to eat the flesh of unclean animals, like Noah and Abraham, because the
Tabernacle is not functioning? In other words, does the temporary collapse of the Mosaic liturgical system
entail temporary freedom from the prohibition on eating the flesh of unclean animals?

The answer is no, according to Deuteronomy 14. In Deuteronomy 14, Moses dislodges the dietary laws
from any exclusive connection with the Tabernacle (or later, Temple) and its boundaries. It is, he says, part
and parcel of Israel's calling to be a holy people, a nation of (second-class) priests claimed by Passover.
Eating the flesh of unclean animals would render them detestable, and result in their being expelled from
God's sanctuary, but even under such circumstances, they were still to avoid becoming abominable before
God. As long as Israel had this calling to be a nation of special priests, they were to keep the dietary laws,
even in exile (Dan. 1).13

anyway, another problem with this explanation is that the fisher owl is listed out of its Leviticus 11 order, something Moran's
hypothetical editor would have been careful not to do.
13
On the problem of Elijah and the ravens, see my remarks at the end of Chapter 4.

277