Holiness, Identity, and Food

THE LEVITICAL FOOD LAWS

The Levitical food laws have long puzzled the modern mind. These laws are not difficult to understand, but the reasonbehind their distinctions seems lost to history. The clear rationale behind these food laws is one of sanctity.^[1] God’s intention was for these laws to shape His people into a reflection of His holiness (Lev 11:45) resulting in a distinct identity among the Israelite people (Deut 14:2). Yet, the deeper and more pressing question remains: how did these strange distinctions among animals accomplish such a thing? This is the challenging question that scholars have pursued for centuries. The challenge lies in the fact that the biblical text itself never offers a clear explanation, but this has not stopped interpreters from proposing an ever-growing list of theories.

            This paper does not attempt to introduce a new theory to that list. Instead, this paper aims to highlight five theories set forth by scholars and to assess which of these theories best accounts for the biblical data.^[2] The five major views to be considered are the arbitrary view, the cultic view, the moral view, the hygienic view, and the symbolic view. The following pages will be organized as follows: first, there will be an exegetical analysis of the two biblical texts that contain the food laws; second, the five major theories will be presented and evaluated in light of the biblical data; and finally, the paper will conclude by arguing which theory most comprehensively explains the biblical data.

Exegetical Analysis

The book of Leviticus lies at the heart of the Torah. The narrative surrounding Leviticus provides insight into what the book is about. Some have noticed how the narrative flows from the forming of Israel (Genesis), through the wilderness to Mt. Sinai (Exodus), making its way into the tabernacle of God’s presence (Leviticus), then leaving Mt. Sinai and returning to another wilderness journey (Numbers), and finally concluding with a reminder of their identity as Israelites (Deuteronomy).^[3] At the heart of this seemingly chiastic narrative is the book of Leviticus. There are a few key texts that reveal its place in the narrative. Exodus 40:34 shows Moses unable to enter the tabernacle because the glory of the Lord had filled it. In Leviticus 1:1, God speaks to Moses from inside the tabernacle while Moses stands outside. In Numbers 1:1, Moses is finally standing inside the tabernacle listening to God in His presence. This flow of thought that runs through the Torah reveals the purpose of Leviticus: Yahweh is opening a way for humanity to enter into the divine presence.^[4] The content of Leviticus contributes to gaining access to that divine presence.

            Within Leviticus itself, the food laws find their place in a section on purity (Leviticus 11-15). Purity had to be maintained among God’s people because the sacred space God dwelt in needed to remain pure, and if the people were to enter into God's presence, they needed to be pure. As Elizabeth Backfish and Cynthia Shafer-Elliot said, “If the dwelling place of God is to remain sacred and free from pollution, anyone or anything that took part in the maintenance of order at the sanctuary must also be free from pollution.”^[5] This is where the food laws play a significant role—they were designed to keep the people pure so that they could enter the presence of God.

            Reading through Leviticus 11, many structural and comparative elements emerge in the landscape of the text itself. One of the clearest structural components is that the animals are organized by kinds mirroring the kinds of the creation account in Genesis 1—beasts of the earth (Lev 11:2-8), creatures of the water (Lev 11:9-12), and birds of the air (Lev 11:13-23).^[6] Another element that arises in the text is that there is something about the actions and function of these animals that seems to be more appropriate for holiness than others (cud-chewing and split hooves, fins and scales, legs and wings, etc.).

Furthermore, the text provides a clear purpose statement at the conclusion of the food laws. Leviticus 11:44-45 says  “…Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy…For I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus, you shall be holy, for I am holy.”^[7] The rationale given by God for the dietary restrictions is that they were a means for the people to reflect the holiness of their God.

The text of Deuteronomy 14 will not be explored in as much detail because it mirrors the text of Leviticus in many of the ways mentioned above. While the texts are similar, there is one noteworthy distinction. While Leviticus 11 emphasizes the holiness of the people, Deuteronomy 14 emphasizes the identity of the people. This is likely due to the narrative flow of the Torah mentioned above. As a new generation of Israelites were preparing to enter the land, they needed to understand what set them apart from those living in the land. In Deuteronomy 14:2, just before the food laws are recited, Moses says, “You are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Then again, after the food laws are stated, he says, “…You are a holy people to the Lord your God” (Deut 14:21). An interesting note that further proves this point is in Deuteronomy 14:21. Here, the texts demonstrates that an Israelite was not permitted to eat anything that dies on its own. However, they were permitted to give the dead animal to the foreigner in their town. It is then stated, “for you are a holy people to the Lord your God” (Dt 14:21). The claim in the text of Deuteronomy 14 is that these food laws were a means of creating a unique Israelite identity that distinguished them from the other nations.

These biblical emphases on accessing God’s presence, reflecting His holiness, and creating identity are fundamental to understanding the food laws. These are not mere dietary restrictions; they are a means to reflect the holiness of God and create a unique identity as the people of God so that they can find life in the divine presence of God. These biblical texts are crying out to the readers to demonstrate what it is about certain foods that accomplishes this for the nation of Israel. There is something about the organization by kinds, the actions of cud chewing or flying, and the function of hooves, fins, and scales that all are trying to show the reader something important. As Jacob Milgrom notes, “the Bible takes greater pains to offer a rationale for these laws than for any other commandment.”^[8] It is at this point that the paper will turn towards various interpretations that have been offered to explain these distinctions.

Five Major Theories for the Rationale Behind the Food Laws

The five major views on why certain animals were considered clean and others unclean will be discussed here. The five views in question are the arbitrary view, the cultic view, the moral view, the hygienic view, and the symbolic view. Each of these will be presented in the words of a scholar who promotes that view and then analyzed according to biblical data.

The Arbitrary View

This view claims precisely what the title says: the distinctions between clean and unclean animals are arbitrary and serve only to drive the people to obedience. This view claims that the rationale for the distinctions in the food laws is known only to God.^[9]

Roy Gane argues that these distinctions were given to inspire “radical obedience.” He continues by saying, “Leviticus 11 reminds us that he [God] does not always provide detailed explanations for his commands. The motivation to observe the Lord’s dietary distinctions is to be a holy people that eschews impurity…Beyond this, they are simply expected to obey.”^[10] Similarly, Mark F. Rooker claims that the ultimate reason for these food laws is “simply that God commanded them.” He asserts that Israel’s obedience to these commands lay at the heart of what would distinguish them from their Gentile neighbors because it demonstrated their supreme commitment to their covenant with God.^[11] What both of these authors assert is that the rationale behind these food laws is one of “radical obedience” and “supreme commitment” to Yahweh without really understanding why He made these distinctions.

While the arbitrary view is not a commonly held interpretation of the Levitical distinctions, most commentators consider it prevalent enough for consideration in their writings. These same commentators quickly set this view aside in favor of other interpretations.^[12]

            There are some challenges with this view. First, it makes no attempt to explain what the text of Leviticus reveals. Milgrom claims that there do seem to be some clearly discernible rationales that lie behind these laws, and therefore they should be explored and considered.^[13] Likewise, Wenham argues that the arbitrary view is negative and should be adopted only if there are no other ascertainable reasons for the distinctions.^[14] This approach to treating the distinctions as arbitrary should be considered only as a last resort for understanding them. Therefore, other views must be considered before adopting this one, and if a more explicit rationale emerges, this one ought to be set aside.

The Cultic View

The cultic view has been widely discussed by scholars. The cultic view states that certain animals were considered unclean due to their use in pagan worship or their association with particular non-Israelite deities.^[15] This view gets much attention due to its direct link to creating a unique identity for the nation of Israel.

This view was held by Origen, who claimed that certain animals were deemed unclean because of their associations with Egypt or their connection with demonic powers.^[16] Although Origen makes his case differently, many of the arguments for this view center on the pig as a primary example of this reality.^[17] There does seem to be some biblical evidence supporting the pig and its connection to pagan cultic practices (Isa 65:4). Furthermore, Herodotus indicates that the Egyptians, although they viewed the pig as an “unclean beast,” still considered it an appropriate sacrificial animal to the god Dionysus.^[18] Jonathan A. Goldstein mentions that Antiochus, in an attempt to restore these same Dionysiac rituals of pig sacrifice, forcibly attacked the Jewish ban on pigs because of their “unreasonable prejudice against pork.”^[19] 

While there does seem to be a correlation between the pig, the nations, and pagan deities, this view faces several major complications. The clearest challenge this view faces is that the pig was not the only sacrificial animal used in the pagan cults. In fact, Herodotus seems to paint it as an oddity for Egypt to use the pig because they deemed it an “unclean beast.”^[20] What was more common in the pagan cult was the use of cattle, sheep, and goats in sacrifices—the very same animals deemed clean by Yahweh.^[21] If the cultic view is to be adopted, these animals should have been deemed unclean just as the pig was. Because the cultic view leaves seemingly everything but the pig unscathed, further considerations must be given to other perspectives.

The Moral View^[22]

The moral view states that an animal’s behavior symbolically represents a moral code that is either good or evil.^[23]Wenham says that the clean animals were to serve as “living illustrations” of how Israel ought to behave, while the unclean represent sinful men.^[24] In this view, the distinctions between the clean and unclean animals served as symbols of moral qualities.

            This view is first explicitly seen in the Letter of Aristeas (likely 2nd century BC), where it is claimed that the distinctions were “enacted with the object of teaching us a moral lesson” (Let. Aris. 150). The letter goes on to provide examples, stating that the separation of the claws was intended to teach that Israel must discriminate between their actions, and that chewing the cud was intended to remind Israel to meditate on the law (Let. Aris. 154-158). A similar approach is taken by Andrew A. Bonar, who claims, “to imbue the mind of Israel with moral distinctions was the grand and primary use of this arrangement.”^[25] Bonar goes on to provide examples, stating that the sheep was deemed clean and therefore stood as a reminder to Israel that the Lord was their shepherd. The wild goat, which ventured among the rocks and hills, stood to remind Israel that the Lord would sustain them through His providence. The hart which panted and drank from the streams stood to remind them that the saints panted after their God. The gazelle with its beautiful horns arrayed stood to remind Israel to dwell on the majesty and glory of God.^[26] The view draws on animal behavior to convey imagery designed to teach the nation of Israel about the higher level of morality to which they were called.

            Modern scholars have not been satisfied with this view, calling it a “whimsical and capricious” approach with no foundation in the biblical data.^[27] Houston argues that the moral view seems to be derived from a later Jewish reading of these laws rather than from the rationale for giving them.^[28] This view comes with a wide array of subjectivity when it comes to interpreting the moral lesson within each animal. Therefore, other views must still be considered.

The Hygienic View

The hygienic view is one of the most frequently discussed views. This view holds that the clean and unclean distinctions were barriers intended to protect the Israelites from diseases carried by those unclean animals. This view claims that the ancient understanding of the unclean animal was that it was a known carrier of disease, and that modern science has now proven this to be true.^[29] There are several examples given by those who hold this view: pork can be a source of trichinosis; the coney and hare can be carriers of tularemia; fish without fins and scales typically burrow in the mud and become sources of dangerous bacteria; and predatory birds typically pick up disease from feeding on carrion.^[30]

            Moses Maimonides argued for this view, saying, “I maintain that the food forbidden by the law is unwholesome.” He went on to cite the pig as a major example of this claim.^[31] Likewise, William Foxwell Albright set forth a lengthy case in favor of this view. After citing several examples of bottom-dwelling fish, disease-carrying birds, and undercooked pork, he stated his case plainly: “In the case of hygienic regulations, it is perfectly obvious that their ultimate basis rests on the observed facts of contagion and infection.”^[32] This idea has only grown with more rapid interest in the twenty-first century, where the Western mind is obsessed with health and medical science.

            Although Albright and Maimonides were confident in their assertions, this view faces significant challenges. Baruch A. Levine notes that the Torah as a whole never lends itself to the kind of reading concerned with health and nutrition, rather it is primarily concerned with a socio-religious conversation.^[33] John Calvin was much more aggressive in his comments on this view, citing health concerns as perverted, imaginative, and nothing more than “vain speculation.”^[34] One of the primary reasons this view fails is found in the New Testament release from these restrictions (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15; 1 Timothy 4:1-5). If the purpose of the restrictions was health and wellness, the mere turning of the religious page does not change the animal’s hygiene.^[35]

Furthermore, the camel was considered a delicacy yet deemed unclean by God. Milgrom argues that if health were the rationale, why deem the camel unclean, yet leave poisonous plants unmentioned?^[36] Houston makes a case based on modern science, demonstrating that all food animals, clean and unclean, pose dangers when consumed. He further notes that if the ancients were bright enough to notice that these animals were a health concern, they would also be bright enough to notice that thorough cooking alleviated many of those concerns.^[37]

As mentioned earlier, this is one of the more popular views of the distinctions. However, when pressed, it does not bear up well under scrutiny. The hygienic view fails in several ways: it is inconsistent in addressing the animals; it fails to account for the New Testament transition; and it fails to withstand modern scientific scrutiny, even though it claims to be proven true by modern science. Therefore, one last view must be considered.

The Symbolic View

The symbolic view holds that the distinctions in the food laws are theological symbols: the clean animals represent life, wholeness, and order, while the unclean animals represent death, mixture, and chaos.^[38] There are several offshoots of this view, but it is worth noting that each one builds on the work of anthropologist Mary Douglas.^[39] Douglas claims, “Holiness [in the Levitical food laws] means keeping distinct the categories of creation.”^[40]Douglas’ work argues that when animals exhibit characteristics that deviate from the normative patterns of created kinds, they are deemed unclean. Douglas divides the animal world into three areas based on Genesis 1: water, air, and earth. Each area has a normative mode of motion and digestion associated with it. For the air, birds need two wings to fly, two legs to walk, and must not be carnivorous. On the earth, animals need four legs, split hooves, and to chew the cud. In the water, fish need fins and scales to swim with. Insects that fly but have four or more legs are prohibited, but if they have two legs to hop with they are edible. Creatures that cross these boundaries are considered anomalies and are thus deemed unclean.^[41]

What Douglas established was a system rooted in creation by which to understand the distinctions between clean and unclean animals. She argued that this system was designed as a symbol for Israel’s participation in God’s ordered creation.^[42] In response to the groundbreaking work of Mary Douglas, Jonathan Klawans said, “There is a great need to come to terms with the likelihood of a symbolic basis to the system.”^[43]

Michael Morales argues that the animals that demonstrate some abnormality within their class (like a fish without scales) are considered “further from the wholeness of the ordered cosmos” and thus are representative of disorder and death.^[44] Wenham argues, alongside Mary Douglas, that “Holiness requires that individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong.” He stresses that this system was a symbol of the distinction between Israel and the nations, and that every meal reminded Israel of their conformity to the unique identity that God had given them.^[45]

This view advocates for an ordered system of kinds established from creation, and when animals break the boundaries or blur the lines of that system, they are deemed unclean. This view sees the unclean animals as representing death, mixture, and disorder because they deviate from normality. In contrast, the clean animals represent life, wholeness, and order because they conform to normality. Hartley summarizes this view plainly:

Clean and unclean also have symbolic force. Unclean animals symbolize disorder, mixture, untruth. Clean animals symbolize order, wholeness, integrity; these symbols point to God’s holiness. Observance of the ritual purity laws internalizes these values deep in the national consciousness. It especially develops the people’s awareness of the holiness of God.^[46]

This view seems to account for the biblical data most comprehensively. Despite that, some have still rejected this view. Rooker argues that it is a fallacy to claim that certain animals created by God’s perfect design would be considered anomalies.^[47] Jay Sklar is largely in favor of this view but admits that it is difficult to apply to the birds.^[48] Roy Gane appreciates some of the insights from this view, but argues that it does not explain why it is normative for animals to have split hooves.^[49] Even with some rejection, many still appreciate her seemingly comprehensive work in developing this system.

Understanding the Food Laws

Scholars have wrestled with this question for centuries, with no great answers emerging. As Jay Sklar concludes, “there is no single explanation that accounts for all the data.”^[50] While that may be true, there is a view that seems to fit most comprehensively with the biblical narrative.

The most comprehensive of these theories is the symbolic view put forth by Mary Douglas and others. It accounts for a legitimate system rooted in God’s created order and reveals the normative patterns of these created kinds. The text of Leviticus seems to shed light on what was considered normative for created classes of earth, water, and air. It also demonstrates that variations from that system are symbols of disorder, mixture, and death, which have no place in the presence of a God characterized by life, order, and wholeness.

These symbols served to remind Israel, with every meal, that they were called to holiness by eating animals that represented wholeness and order. These symbols were a reminder to Israel of their unique identity, as they ate animals that did not cross boundaries. These symbols stood to remind Israel that they were called into the life-filled presence of Yahweh and thus needed to stay away from animals associated with death. If Israel were to remain pure before God, they could not be associated with things contrary to their holy God.

            One of the most convincing elements for this view is through the lens of Christ. Through the life, work, and death of Jesus, chaos is conquered, distinctions between Jew and Gentile are eradicated, and death is rendered powerless once and for all. Thus, these symbolic distinctions, which stood to demonstrate those very things to Israel, were now done away with through the cross.

The meaning behind the food laws is seen in the cosmic battle between order and chaos,^[51] life and death, and Israel and the nations. This cosmic battle is brought to a decisive victory through the conquering of Christ, and thus, the food laws are rendered unnecessary under the new covenant. By looking at the end of the story, readers can gain insight into its beginning.

The rationale for the Levitical food laws outlined in the introduction was that they serve the people of Israel as a means to reflect the holiness of God, to create a unique identity as the people of God, and to enable them to find life in the divine presence of God. If that is true, then this symbolic meaning seems to be the most straightforward way to understand how these distinctions in animals contributed to the holiness and identity of the nation of Israel.

Footnotes

^[1] Gene Schramm, “Meal Customs: Jewish Dietary Laws,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, volume 4 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 650.

^[2] This is not an all-inclusive list of theories. These are just the ones that repeatedly appeared in various writings.

^[3] Michael L. Morales, Who shall ascend the mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus. New Studies in Biblical Theology, edited by D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 24-38.

^[4] Ibid., 38.

^[5] Elizabeth Backfish and Cynthia Shafer-Elliot, Grounded Theology in the Hebrew Bible: Exploring the Cultural Context that Formed Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2025), 81.

^[6] Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), 69-70.

^[7] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references are from the New American Standard Bible, (NASB) (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995).

^[8] Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible, volume 3 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), 729.

^[9] Gordan J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, volume 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 166.

^[10] Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004),208.

^[11] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, The New American Commentary, volume 3A (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 173-174.

^[12] For comments on the arbitrary view from those who dismiss it, see Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 166; and Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 718.

^[13] Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 718.

^[14] Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 166.

^[15] Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 166.

^[16] Origen, Against Celsus, 4.93.

^[17] Martin Noth. The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, translated by D.R. AP-Thomas (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), 56-58.

^[18] Herodotus, The Histories 2.47-48

^[19] Jonathan A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, The Anchor Yale Bible, volume 41 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974), 158.

^[20] Herodotus, The Histories 2.47-48

^[21] Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, supplemental series 140 (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 72-74.  

^[22] This view is more commonly referred to as the “moral-symbolic view.” I have changed it in this paper to the “moral view” to help distinguish it from the “symbolic view” that will be discussed later.

^[23] Jay Sklar, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, volume 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 167.

^[24] Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 168.

^[25] Andrew A. Bonar, “A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus: Expository and Practical with Critical Notes (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), 214.

^[26] Bonar, A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus, 218.

^[27] Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 168. ; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 719.

^[28] Houston, Purity and Monotheism, 78.  

^[29] Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 719.

^[30] Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 167.

^[31] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, 3.48.

^[32] William Foxwell Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1968), 175-180.

^[33] Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 248.

^[34] John Calvin, Commentary on The Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of A Harmony, translated by Charles William Bingham, volume 2, 60.

^[35] Rooker, Leviticus, 172.

^[36] Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 719.

^[37] Houston, Purity and Monotheism, 78.  

^[38] John E. Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 4 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1992), 163-164.

^[39] For an extensive example of this claim, see Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000),7-20.

^[40] Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), 67.

^[41] Douglas, Purity and Danger, 68-69.

^[42] Mary Douglas, Leviticus As Literature (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), 137.

^[43] Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism 9.

^[44] Morales, Who shall ascend the mountain of the Lord?, 158.

^[45] Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 169-171.

^[46] Hartley, Leviticus, 163-164.

^[47] Rooker, Leviticus, 173.

^[48] Sklar, Leviticus, 167.

^[49] Gane, The NIV Application Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers, 207.

^[50] Sklar, Leviticus, 168.

^[51] For a short summary of the ancient Near Eastern view on the cosmic battle between order and chaos, see John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, second edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 151-154; For a concise understanding of how the ancients saw purity contributing to this cosmic battle, see Backfish and Shafer-Elliot, Grounded Theology in the Hebrew Bible, 72-81.