I. The Purity Regulations of Leviticus: Key Concepts
Morality & Ritual - there is a difference between morality and ritual in the thinking of Leviticus. But they're not wholly separate categories. Confused? Let's try to sort this out.
To begin with, the words "pure" and "impure" carry moral connotations for most of us when we use them to refer to anything other than food. Think about what we mean when we say, "a pure heart," "her motives are pure," "impure thoughts," - there are definite moral implications. To understand how these terms are used in Leviticus however, it might be helpful to think about what we mean when we refer to water as pure or impure - if water is "impure," we don't mean to say that it is morally objectionable, but that the material circumstances of the water make it something we probably ought not drink. In the same way, the priestly tradition categorizes purity according to the material circumstances of an act to determine whether something is ritually pure or impure. The question is not a moral judgment, but simply what your standing is in the physical realm in relation to the holy - quite simply, "Are you safe to be in the presence of God?" For example,
- Things classified as pollutants do not carry punishment, unlike actions which violate the moral order.
- They do not pose a danger to the person (unless he/she comes into contact with holy objects, people, or space).
- They are considered contagious, which cannot be said of immorality or sin, and therefore require separation (from either the sanctuary or camp) for a defined length of time, and/or washing (water is understood as a purifying agent)
Yet even those things which are not morally objectionable or sinful require ritual purification. Leviticus sometimes distinguishes and sometimes blurs morality and ritual, such as in chapters 7.3-7 and 19.17-19 - is it a moral issue or a ritual issue to fail to slay a sacrificial animal in the appropriate place? How are acting lovingly toward your neighbor and sowing your fields with only one kind of seed related? Apparently Leviticus sees no distinction between these things - the outcome is the same, regardless of intent or associations of "morality." An example of this blurring of ritual and morality from our own context might be found in the way that some traditions handle and dispose of the consecrated Eucharist, either ingesting it or returning it to the earth. Is it sinful to pour the wine down the drain? Probably not. Does it indicate appropriate respect for the particular material circumstances of what would otherwise be common substances of bread and wine? Probably not. These are the kinds of issues Leviticus addresses here.
Boundary Keeping - we've frequently alluded to the importance of boundary keeping in the Levitical symbol system, keeping distinct the categories of creation. In chapters 11-17 it becomes clear that this distinctiveness also somehow exemplifies holiness - Douglas points out that "Holiness requires that individuals shall conform (fully, or completely) to the class to which they belong. And holiness requires that different classes of things should not be confused" (Douglas, Purity and Danger). 11.46-47 concludes by reminding us that all of these instructions are so that there may-be-separation between the tamei and the pure (read, "the holy and the common"), distinguishing between the ritually clean and the ritually unclean in three areas of separations:
- What goes into the body - dietary regulations.
- Life and death - what comes out of the body, what may be eaten, what may be offered.
- Outer surfaces - skin diseases, clothing, houses.
So these two concepts - Morality & Ritual and Boundary Keeping - underly and inform the concepts of Purity and Pollution that we will be exploring in this section.
II. Chapter 11: Permitted and Forbidden Foods
Did you know that chapter 11, detailing what the Israelites could and could not eat, is at the dead center of Torah? (I realize that the fact that it's not the middle chapter of the book is a bit dissatisfying, but stay with me.) I'm not going to fill in all the possible significance of that fact for you, but keep it in mind as we move on. We've talked about how Leviticus is at the center of Torah, apart from which the Old Testament is unintelligible, etc., etc. We've mentioned the "concentric" structure of much of Leviticus - working from the most clearly defined and limited out through several expanding rings of boundaries and meaning. And we've also observed that the central concern of Leviticus is maintaining and embodying holiness in every part of life, so that the holiness of YHWH can be both welcomed and respected. All of these things lead me to suspect that placing the dietary regulations right here, right in the middle, is no coincidence - what is more central to life than eating and all that the production and preparation of food entails? What consumes most of our time, energy, and resources? What is the centerpiece of community formation in all cultures, at all times in history?
Because it is such a common assumption, we need to begin with the admission that associating the Levitical dietary laws with simple health concerns is a deeply inadequate way of understanding them - we all know it's possible to eat shrimp and bacon and live long, healthy lives, and that there are plenty of other "unhealthy" things Leviticus simply ignores. Ancient limitations on food preparation and storage aren't going to cut it either - I think the Israelites probably could have figured out that meat only lasts so long before it shouldn't be eaten. If health and history is all we're looking for in these regulations, I'm afraid we're going to be sorely disappointed and have a lot of defending to do of what we've cast as an embarrassingly primitive health code. In keeping with what we've learned about the complexity and associational structure of Leviticus however, Mary Douglas instead finds here "a sermon on God's pattern of the universe. In this reading, covenant and fertility are two contrasted principles" (Leviticus as Literature, 174). These two contrasts point to an emphasis on boundaries and order between humans and other living beings in the following ways:
Covenant
The laws given to Israel through Moses at Sinai outline what is required for Israel's covenant relationship with YHWH, thereby expressing God's ownership and his justice. These laws, as we have heard over and over again, are for life, for protection, for keeping covenant relationship. In the same manner, the purity rules of Leviticus hedge Israel's covenant relationship with YHWH to express his ownership and justice in the relationship between humans and other living beings. Consider which land animals are classed as "clean" - acceptable for sacrifice and consumption: only the flocks and herds which belong to the Israelites. All other land animals are "unclean." This makes perfect sense when we remember that for a covenant to mean anything, some territorial principle is necessary, or at least ownership. Israel's flocks and herds are the only animals that are on loan to them; all other living things belong to God already and therefore cannot be sacrificed to him, as the Psalmist reminds us - "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine" (Psalm 50.11).
And just as surely as God is the owner of all other living things, he is the creator that has pronounced them "good." Why should YHWH now declare "detestable" what he pronounced "good" at creation? Perhaps it is that the words translated variously as "abominable" and "unclean" call for a little more exploration:
II. Chapter 11: Permitted and Forbidden Foods
Did you know that chapter 11, detailing what the Israelites could and could not eat, is at the dead center of Torah? (I realize that the fact that it's not the middle chapter of the book is a bit dissatisfying, but stay with me.) I'm not going to fill in all the possible significance of that fact for you, but keep it in mind as we move on. We've talked about how Leviticus is at the center of Torah, apart from which the Old Testament is unintelligible, etc., etc. We've mentioned the "concentric" structure of much of Leviticus - working from the most clearly defined and limited out through several expanding rings of boundaries and meaning. And we've also observed that the central concern of Leviticus is maintaining and embodying holiness in every part of life, so that the holiness of YHWH can be both welcomed and respected. All of these things lead me to suspect that placing the dietary regulations right here, right in the middle, is no coincidence - what is more central to life than eating and all that the production and preparation of food entails? What consumes most of our time, energy, and resources? What is the centerpiece of community formation in all cultures, at all times in history?
Because it is such a common assumption, we need to begin with the admission that associating the Levitical dietary laws with simple health concerns is a deeply inadequate way of understanding them - we all know it's possible to eat shrimp and bacon and live long, healthy lives, and that there are plenty of other "unhealthy" things Leviticus simply ignores. Ancient limitations on food preparation and storage aren't going to cut it either - I think the Israelites probably could have figured out that meat only lasts so long before it shouldn't be eaten. If health and history is all we're looking for in these regulations, I'm afraid we're going to be sorely disappointed and have a lot of defending to do of what we've cast as an embarrassingly primitive health code. In keeping with what we've learned about the complexity and associational structure of Leviticus however, Mary Douglas instead finds here "a sermon on God's pattern of the universe. In this reading, covenant and fertility are two contrasted principles" (Leviticus as Literature, 174). These two contrasts point to an emphasis on boundaries and order between humans and other living beings in the following ways:
Covenant
The laws given to Israel through Moses at Sinai outline what is required for Israel's covenant relationship with YHWH, thereby expressing God's ownership and his justice. These laws, as we have heard over and over again, are for life, for protection, for keeping covenant relationship. In the same manner, the purity rules of Leviticus hedge Israel's covenant relationship with YHWH to express his ownership and justice in the relationship between humans and other living beings. Consider which land animals are classed as "clean" - acceptable for sacrifice and consumption: only the flocks and herds which belong to the Israelites. All other land animals are "unclean." This makes perfect sense when we remember that for a covenant to mean anything, some territorial principle is necessary, or at least ownership. Israel's flocks and herds are the only animals that are on loan to them; all other living things belong to God already and therefore cannot be sacrificed to him, as the Psalmist reminds us - "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine" (Psalm 50.11).
And just as surely as God is the owner of all other living things, he is the creator that has pronounced them "good." Why should YHWH now declare "detestable" what he pronounced "good" at creation? Perhaps it is that the words translated variously as "abominable" and "unclean" call for a little more exploration:
- "Abominable" or "detestable" distinguishes swarming air and water creatures, and is a Hebrew word that is very rare outside of Leviticus, seemingly chosen specifically for this context to avoid pejorative association. Because of what "abominable" now means to our modern ears, a better translation might be to "shun" or "stay away from" - God is telling his people to avoid certain things, to keep out of their way, not to harm - much less eat - them. And read carefully - according to 11.43, what is "abominable" is not the thing itself, but the action of eating them or profiting by their deaths; "It is an abomination to you." The Israelites are in danger of making themselves detestable through their actions.
- "Unclean" delineates only those living things that do not conform fully to their class - pigs which have cloven hooves but do not chew the cud, rabbits which chew cud but do not have cloven hooves. Only what is safely within its category may be considered ritually clean, and only what is ritually clean may be sacrificed or eaten.
The second primary feature of delineating what may or may not be eaten, further demonstrating God's compassion and justice, is kindness toward "teeming" or "swarming" things. What if we were to read these laws from the other direction - what if rather than protecting the Israelites, these laws are designed to protect the other living beings from the Israelites? Compare these two passages:
"Swarming," "crawling," "teeming" - it's all the same word, and Leviticus uses it in the same way as Genesis (1.20-21, 9.7): a positive sense of abundance, not a threatening, encroaching sense. If teeming is fulfilling God's command to multiply, exemplifying abundant life, and the holy of holies represents life and God's blessings of life through fertility, then teeming things do not need to be offered because they already exemplify life. Why can't you put honey on your grain offerings? Because it is something that works in the natural mode of generation. Why unleavened bread? Because leaven - the process of fermentation - is a living bacteria, generating on its own. Offering these things on the altar is antithetical. Besides that, they belong to God already, remember? Exclusion from the covenant is not a derogatory exclusion from God's protection, but rather indicates a different mode of God's ownership than that of Israel's covenant.
The protective laws that tell humans to avoid teeming creatures therefore demonstrate God's compassion through protecting life, and the reward of covenanted obedience and loyalty, which is life - "In order that YHWH may turn from the flaming of his anger and show compassion to you, having-compassion on you and making you many, as he swore to your fathers ... you are to hearken to the voice of YHWH your God, by keeping all his commandments ... doing what is right in the eyes of YHWH your God" (Deut. 13.18-19).
So delineating what Israel may and may not eat is yet another way of demonstrating God's covenant justice and compassionate blessing and protection of life. As Douglas summarizes, "In this elegant helical twist, covenanted justice is balanced by divine compassion." What we eat speaks to who our God is, and he is a covenant God of justice and compassion, provision and protection - of all living things. What goes into our bodies matters.
For next time, read Chapters 12-15: what comes out of the body.
Genesis 1.24-25
God said: Let the
earth bring forth living beings after their kind, herd-animals, crawling
things, and the wildlife of the earth after their kind!
It was so.
God made the
wildlife of the earth after their kind, and the heard-animals after their kind,
and all crawling things of the soil after their kind.
God saw that it was
good.
|
Leviticus 11.46-47
This is the
Instruction for animals, fowl and all living beings that stir in the water,
all beings that swarm upon the earth, that there may-be-separation between
the tamei and the pure, between the living-creatures that may be eaten and
the living-creatures that you are not to eat.
|
"Swarming," "crawling," "teeming" - it's all the same word, and Leviticus uses it in the same way as Genesis (1.20-21, 9.7): a positive sense of abundance, not a threatening, encroaching sense. If teeming is fulfilling God's command to multiply, exemplifying abundant life, and the holy of holies represents life and God's blessings of life through fertility, then teeming things do not need to be offered because they already exemplify life. Why can't you put honey on your grain offerings? Because it is something that works in the natural mode of generation. Why unleavened bread? Because leaven - the process of fermentation - is a living bacteria, generating on its own. Offering these things on the altar is antithetical. Besides that, they belong to God already, remember? Exclusion from the covenant is not a derogatory exclusion from God's protection, but rather indicates a different mode of God's ownership than that of Israel's covenant.
The protective laws that tell humans to avoid teeming creatures therefore demonstrate God's compassion through protecting life, and the reward of covenanted obedience and loyalty, which is life - "In order that YHWH may turn from the flaming of his anger and show compassion to you, having-compassion on you and making you many, as he swore to your fathers ... you are to hearken to the voice of YHWH your God, by keeping all his commandments ... doing what is right in the eyes of YHWH your God" (Deut. 13.18-19).
So delineating what Israel may and may not eat is yet another way of demonstrating God's covenant justice and compassionate blessing and protection of life. As Douglas summarizes, "In this elegant helical twist, covenanted justice is balanced by divine compassion." What we eat speaks to who our God is, and he is a covenant God of justice and compassion, provision and protection - of all living things. What goes into our bodies matters.
For next time, read Chapters 12-15: what comes out of the body.
No comments:
Post a Comment