1

Chapter 1 Deuteronomy as Narrative-Law

This series of essays will address the food laws in Deuteronomy 14:1-21.

To some, this may seem like a work of supererogation. After all, why should a Christian be interested in outdated “laws” from the book of Deuteronomy? I hope to show that meditation on this portion of Scripture is profoundly edifying, both for its own teaching and for the help it offers in understanding the law of Moses as a whole.

By way of introduction, I need to say a word about the word “Torah.” Or, rather, I need to let Gordon Wenham say a word.

The English term ‘law’ covers a much narrower range of literature than the Hebrew term torah, or the Greek nomos, which are conventionally translated ‘law.’ Hebrew torah would be better translated ‘instruction’, and the torah comprises the whole of the Pentateuch, Genesis to Deuteronomy, despite the fact that these books contain a fair amount of narrative. Psalm 1:2, inviting the reader to meditate on the torah day and night, seems to envisage the book of Psalms as well as the Pentateuch being the torah.1

Perhaps David saw the Psalms also as included in Torah. However that

may be, it is certain that Torah included the whole of the Pentateuch, a considerably large portion of which is not at all what modern Christians would regard as “law.” What I argue here is that the commandments and statutes given to Israel are given in the context of the story, as the many allusions to the covenant narrative make clear. Meditation on the Torah, therefore, also means considering the relationship between the narrative and the commandments.

As our study of Deuteronomy 14:1-21 will make clear, there is a fundamental narrative thread in the Torah — the story of the gift of the covenant. This is the story of Yahweh as Father redeeming His son, Israel, as part of Yahweh the Creator’s project of redeeming His world. The Father/son relationship of love and grace is the basic framework for the whole of the Pentateuch and therefore for the whole Old Testament. There is nothing in 1 Gordon Wenham, “Law in the Old Testament” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, ed. by J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 351.

2

the Torah that smacks of “law” in the way most modern Christians think of “law” in contrast with grace. Loving Fatherly instruction in righteousness and wisdom included commandments and rules for life in the land, but obedience to Yahweh’s ordinances was never put in the context of a merit system. Yahweh loved His son and called for His son to respond to His love with love. Of course, as the Creator of the world, Yahweh “imposes” His love on His son, Israel. Israel does not really have the choice to say yes or no to Yahweh’s gift.

However, as the story of the fall and its consequences shows, when men reject the love of God, they reject all love and create for themselves a world of bondage and oppression, a world dominated by fear, hatred, and revenge. Cain, Lamech and others who rejected God’s love and grace made a choice that was murderous and oppressive precisely because it was self-destructive. They ruined themselves spiritually and psychologically by turning away from their Creator and His love. As a result, they marred all around them. Thus, Israel did not have a choice between Yahweh’s love and some other love, for apart from the Creator, there is no other. Israel had a choice between the way of Abel and the way of Cain.

The story of creation and fall, the story of the flood, the story of Babel, and especially the stories of the Patriarchs and the Exodus underly the instruction in Deuteronomy, which constantly alludes to the covenant narrative. To repeat, then, I will argue that through abundant allusions, the food-law passage in Deuteronomy 14:1-21 gives commandments in the context of a covenant story about Yahweh’s love for His son Israel.

Not only is the narrative flow of the books of Genesis through Numbers essential to our understanding of Deuteronomy, we must remember that the book of Deuteronomy itself is a sort of narrative as well. We may think of it as a book of laws, but in itself it constitutes a kind of story, as its very first verse shows.

These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab. (Deu. 1:1)

Just as Jacob gathered his sons around him to speak a final word of

blessing to them (Gen. 49), Moses gathers the people of Israel so that he can offer them his last words of instruction and blessing. In other words, within the context of the larger stories of the Creator’s love for mankind and Yahweh’s love for His chosen son, Israel, we also have the story of Moses’

3

love for the people of Israel. Deuteronomy is his last gift to the people he sacrificed his life for.

Within Deuteronomy also, there are many stories connected to the instruction. Moses retells stories of events that were already recorded in different words with different nuance or emphasis. Perhaps most prominently, the story of the gift of the Ten Commandments, or, more properly, the Ten Words repeats the basic emphasis, though the narrative itself is different.

Consider: beyond the allusion to the Exodus story in the preface (Exo. 20:2; Deu. 5:6), both Exodus and Deuteronomy provide a specific narrative context for the giving of the commands. In the book of Exodus, the most immediate context is provided by the story of the Israelites arriving at Sinai in Exodus 19. The narrative is continued in Exodus 20:18-21, before the detailed laws are given in Exodus 20:22-23:33, and then is completed in Exodus 24. The structure of the story of the gift of the Ten Words in Exodus shows that the law is grounded in the covenant narrative.2

A. Narrative: The Covenant Offered (Exodus 19:3-25) B. Laws (general): The Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-17) C. Narrative: The people’s fear (Exodus 20:18-21) B* Laws (specific): The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:33) A* Narrative: The Covenant Accepted (Exodus 24:1-11)

In Deuteronomy, the Ten Words are introduced by a narrative reminding

the children of Israel of Horeb and their fear of the great fire and mountain (5:2-5). Then, after the giving of the commandments, Moses recounts the fear of the children of Israel at the mountain (5:22-33), essentially the same story as recorded in Exodus 20:18-26, but with modifications and additions. In both cases, there is emphasis on the Israelites fear of Yahweh. In Deuteronomy, Yahweh even expresses His wish that they would truly fear Him (Deu. 5:28-29).

A. Narrative: Introduction to the Ten Words (5:1-5) (people’s fear, vs. 5) B. Law: the Ten Words (5:6-21)

2 The simple outline above is from Joe M. Sprinkle in Biblical Law and its Relevance: A Christian Understanding and Ethical Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulations (Landham, MD: University Press of America, 2006), p. 57.

4

A* Narrative: Conclusion to the Ten Words (5:22-33) (people’s fear, vs. 24-29)

Finally, as I emphasized previously, the Ten Words — which expresses

the heart of all of Israel’s laws — can only be understood in the light of the whole covenant story, beginning with Genesis 1:1. The most superficial reading of the Second Word makes this clear, though, of course, creation is relevant for all ten. In Exodus, the Fourth Word specifically alludes to the creation story, which is the source of the whole idea of Sabbath (Exo. 20:8-11). Obviously, too, no explanation of the Sixth Word would be adequate if it neglected the story of creation. It is because man is God’s image that his life is sacred. Without taking the time to discuss each one, suffice it to say that the rest of the Ten Words rest equally on the creation story. The conclusion of the matter is that in the Bible there is a world-story that puts Deuteronomy in the context of creation by a personal God who loves the world He created and His image, mankind. Torah is an expression of His character and a revelation of His name no less than instruction in His will.

5

Chapter 2 The Third Word in Deuteronomy 5:11

In this chapter, I argue that Moses’ reworking of the Ten Words in

Deuteronomy 5 includes adding nuance to the Third Word. This prepares the way for his sermonic application of the Third Word in Deuteronomy 14:1-21. The approach I take here was introduced by James Jordan in his brief introduction to the structure of Deuteronomy,3 though my argument and explanation do not come directly from him.

Contrary to many interpreters, Jordan interprets the Third Word — “Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” — as if the Hebrew word translated “take” referred to something more than a verbal act. Though he does not defend his interpretation in detail, he seems to understand the word “take” in its meaning of “carry” or “bear,”4 rather than the more restricted sense of “lift up” as a verbal act.

The Third Word has to do with the character of God’s people, those who take up (wear) His Name. They are not to do so in vanity, in the sphere of death and impotence.5

The question, then, is: does the Third Word address the broader issue of

how the Israelites bear God’s name in their lifestyle, as well as how they “lift up” His name in speech acts, such as oaths, prayers, and songs of praise? Does Moses intend that we read the word “take” as if the command suggests a fuller meaning — both the narrow notion of a speech act and the broader idea of “wearing” the name of God in daily life?

Let’s begin by considering the Third Word in Deuteronomy. The Hebrew of the Third Word in Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 is exactly the same.

Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain; for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

3 Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989). 4 This verb is used, for example, in Exodus 19:4 where Yahweh says that He “carried” Israel to Himself on eagles’ wings. 5 Covenant Sequence, p. 62. He does not explain his interpretation of “vanity” as the “sphere of death and impotence” either.

6

However, there is something new in Deuteronomy. Even if we restrict our investigation to the text of Ten Words (Deu. 5:6-21), we discover that Moses adds nuance to the Third Word in Deuteronomy in two ways. First, in Deuteronomy Moses revises the first five commandments so that the expression “Yahweh your God” appears nine times. Then, he also uses “Yahweh” alone once and “God” alone once, resulting in 10 occurrences of “Yahweh” and 10 of “God” in the first five commandments.6 The exact use of 10 times each for “Yahweh” and “Elohim” is, no doubt, intentional and suggestive. However, the last five commands (6-10) — and this is true both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy — never mention the name of God. In both books, this lines up the Ten Words in two sets of five commands that can be seen as parallel to each other, though in Deuteronomy the parallel is perhaps more emphatic because of the special use of the name of God. In either case, we are invited to compare each parallel command. For the present consideration, that would be the Third and the Eighth Words.

What would this imply? It would mean that understanding the Eighth Word would be aided by comparison to the Third and vice versa, just as understanding the Sixth Word would be aided by comparison with the First and so on. Exactly how would this work? Let’s consider the First and the Sixth Words since the relationship is clear and not as likely to be disputed. The Bible forbids murder because man is created in the image of God. To kill a man is to commit an act which defies God Himself, because it is an act which blatantly defiles His image. On the other hand, showing respect to other men because we believe they are created in the image of God is a way of honoring God as our God.

In the case of the First and the Sixth Words, it is not difficult to see how the two commands “exegete” one another. The structure of the Ten Words in Deuteronomy and the example of the First and Sixth Words should persuade us that similar comparisons with the rest of the commandments will bear fruit. There is well known Biblical precedence for this, since the prophets commonly associate the Second Word and the Seventh Word when Israel’s idolatry is referred to as spiritual adultery. Discovering the exact meaning for the relationship between the Third Word and the Eighth may not be as direct or clear, but I believe we can assume that a relationship is suggested, though it is beside the point to pursue that details of that now. What we see here is that in Deuteronomy, the division between the first five and last five

6 Actually, the word elohim occurs 11 times in the first five commands, but once (Deu. 5:7) it refers to false gods, so I have not counted it. In Exodus 20:2-12, the name “Yahweh your God” occurs 5 times, the name “Yahweh” alone occurs 3 times, and the name “God” alone occurs 1 time.

7

commands is even more emphatically stressed, so that the invitation to compare the two sets of five commands also receives greater emphasis.

The second way Moses adds nuance to the Third Word in Deuteronomy is by changing the last word in the Hebrew of the Ninth Word so that he associates the Third and the Ninth Words. In Exodus 20:16, the last word of the command in Hebrew is the word translated “false.” But in Deuteronomy, Moses changes this to another word, which is also translated into English as “false” in the Ninth Word. The word “false” in Exodus is the Hebrew word often translated “lie,” whereas the Hebrew word in Deuteronomy is often translated “vain.” In Deuteronomy Moses takes the Hebrew word usually translated in the Third Word as “vain” and uses it again in the Ninth Word, which then becomes, literally, “You shall not bear ‘vain’ witness against your neighbor.”

In so doing, Moses is in fact editing the Ninth Word in a manner suggested by Exodus 23:1.

Thou shalt not take up a false (vain) report: put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

In Exodus 23:1, it is clear that the “vain report” in the first half of the verse is explained as being an “unrighteous witness” in the parallel section in the second half of the verse. This is obviously an application of the Ninth Word. Thus, in Exodus 23:1, the Ninth Word is reiterated in somewhat different language, referring to the false witness as a “vain report.”

Since the Hebrew word translated “vain” is only used four times in the Pentateuch and only one other time in Exodus (20:7), its use in Exodus 23:1 stands out and links this verse with the previous use in Exodus 20:7 in the Third Word. The only other two uses of this Hebrew word in the Pentateuch are in Deuteronomy 5:11 and 5:20, the Third and Ninth Words. In other words, in Exodus, the detailed laws in chapters 21-23, which expound the Ten Words, specifically associate the Third and Ninth Words. Moses took note of the association in the book of Exodus and repeated it in Deuteronomy by changing the word “false” in the Ninth Word to make it the same as “vain” in the Third Word — bringing the Third and Ninth Word together in a new way.

To restate this again, when Moses repeats the Ten Words in Deuteronomy, he follows the instruction of the laws in Exodus to slightly change the wording of the Ninth Word and thereby emphasize the link between the Third Word and the Ninth. This obviously implies that bearing false witness against one’s neighbor is taking the name of Yahweh in vain, since witnesses would take an oath in court. A false witness would be

8

dishonoring the name of Yahweh whose name he called upon in his oath. But there is an additional significance here. Moses is also suggesting that to take the name of Yahweh in vain is to bear false or vain witness against Yahweh Himself. The notion of using Yahweh’s name in vain includes uses of His name which misrepresent who He is — a sin Israel frequently committed in the wilderness when the Israelites repeatedly claimed Yahweh brought them out of Egypt to kill them in the wilderness.

We see by this that in its narrowest meaning, the Third Word has to do with how one uses the name of Yahweh in one’s speech. This is borne out by further references in the Old Testament.

He that hath clean hands and a pure heart, Who hath not lifted up his soul to falsehood And hath not sworn deceitfully. (Psa. 24:4)7 For they speak against thee wickedly, And thine enemies take [thy name] in vain. (Psa. 139:20)8

However, we should not conclude from this that the concern of the Third Word may be limited to Israel’s use of the name of God in speech acts, for the use in a speech act necessarily implies a broader meaning. The logic of the connection would be something like the following. In speech acts, an Israelite “lifts up” or “takes” the name of Yahweh rightly when he takes righteous oaths in His name, prays to Him, worships Him, praises Him. Such proper uses of the name of Yahweh are the opposite of taking His name in vain. But the righteous use of God’s name in a speech act such as an oath would necessarily imply that the oath must be kept. Not keeping what would otherwise have been a righteous oath would be taking Yahweh’s name in vain. The broken oath would be rendered unrighteous by the behavior that followed it. Praying to Him, worshipping Him, and praising Him, while at the same time disobeying His commandments would also constitute misuse of His name. In this way, the narrow meaning explicit in the command necessarily implies a broader meaning. An Israelite’s speech act in using the name of Yahweh must be consistent with a lifestyle that honors Him. 7 If we compare the Hebrew of Psalm 24:4 with that of Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11, it becomes quite clear that the Psalm is referring to the Third Word. The exact Hebrew from the Third Word translated “not take” appears in Psalm 24:4 as “not lifted up” and the Hebrew word translated “in vain” in the Third Word appears in Psalm 24:4 as “to falsehood.” 8 The allusion to the Third Word here is also undeniably obvious. What the Third Word forbids — taking the Name in vain — is what God’s enemies are said to do. Note that in the original the expression “thy name” is implied rather than being stated.

9

As we might expect, the logic implicit in the command is expressed relatively clearly in the law. Consider, for example, the following pair of laws, specifically tied together by the Hebrew expressions.

Thou shalt not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. Thou shalt not swear falsely by my name, so as to profane the name of thy God; I am Yahweh. (Lev. 19:11-12)

The juxtaposition of these laws implies that stealing, deceiving, and lying to one another would be forms of dishonoring the name of Yahweh. Similarly, Leviticus 18:21 includes idolatry as parallel to profaning Yahweh’s name.

And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am Yahweh. (Lev. 18:21)

A clearer and more remarkable example of the Third Word being

associated with the behavior of the people of Israel is found in Deuteronomy 28, where Moses pronounces the blessings that accompany obedience to God’s commandments. Here Moses specifically alludes to Exodus 19:1-6, where Yahweh first brought the people of Israel to Himself at Sinai and offered them the grace of His covenant. In this promise, Moses indicates that obedience to the law would mean that Israel was fulfilling her calling to be Yahweh’s holy people. What is especially notable is that Moses says that keeping the commandments of God will testify to all the peoples of the earth that Israel is “called by the name of Yahweh.”

Yahweh will establish thee for a holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee; if thou shalt keep the commandments of Yahweh thy God, and walk in his ways. And all the peoples of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of Yahweh; and they shall be afraid of thee. (Deu. 28:9-10)

10

Plainly, if Israel is the people who are called by the name of Yahweh, then disobedience to His covenant would constitute breaking the Third Word because they would be bearing/wearing His name in a vain manner.

It is because the people of Israel were to be called by the name of Yahweh their God that they were commanded to be holy, for it was imperative that they be like the God they represent.

For I am Yahweh your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that moveth upon the earth. (Lev. 11:44) Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy; for I Yahweh your God am holy. (Lev. 19:2) Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am Yahweh your God. (Lev. 20:7)

Leviticus repeats a characteristic refrain, though the language varies

slightly (Lev 11:44–45; 18:2, 4–6, 21, 30; 19:3–4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30–32, 34, 36–37; 20:7–8, 24; 21:12, 15, 23; 22:2–3, 8–9, 16, 30–33; 23:22, 43; 24:22; 25:17, 38, 55–26:2; 26:13, 44–45). In some cases, a command is followed by the simple expression, “I am Yahweh.” In other cases, the fuller expression appears, “I am Yahweh your God.” In Leviticus 18:4-5, the two expressions follow one another in consecutive verses.

Mine ordinances shall ye do, and my statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein: I am Yahweh your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and mine ordinances; which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am Yahweh. (Lev. 18:4-5)

11

What is clearly implied here is sometimes stated more fully with the

expression “for I am Yahweh” (cf. Lev 11:44–45; 20:7; 21:15, 23; 22:16; 24:22; 25:17; 26:1, 44). However, even when the declaration of God’s name is not prefaced by “because,” we cannot miss the point. Israel is to obey God’s commandments because Yahweh is their God and they are His people. They represent Him in the world and are called by His name — the name that is manifested in the commandments that He gives to His people. His holiness is revealed in the law itself and through His people when they walk in His ways.

With this larger context of the law of Moses in mind, James Jordan’s interpretation of the Third Word in Deuteronomy seems justified. Though the command especially addresses speech acts, the verb used seems to suggest the broader meaning which the laws of Moses spell out. In other words, if I understanding Jordan correctly, he is suggesting that though Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 could have employed different verbs, they both use the verb often translated “carry” to refer to speech acts because this verb also has a broader use. This particular verb was chosen in order to imply the broader meaning. Given the evidence I have pointed to in this chapter, it seems to me that an ancient Israelite meditating on the law could think both of “lifting up” the name of God in an oath or prayer and also of “carrying” (being called by, or wearing) His name in everyday life.

12

Chapter 3 Introducing Deuteronomy 14:1-21

In 1979 Stephen Kaufman penned a groundbreaking essay on

Deuteronomy, arguing that it was a meticulously structured and carefully composed book. In his view, chapters 12 to 26 in particular follow the order of the Ten Words, expounding and applying those laws to ancient Israelite society.9 The evangelical Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser and Reformed Old Testament scholar James Jordan both followed Kaufmann’s basic approach, though Kaiser follows Kaufmann’s outline almost exactly, while Jordan has revised it considerably. I am persuaded that Jordan’s analysis is superior, especially when it comes to understanding Deuteronomy 14:1-21. In this chapter, I attempt to explain why Deuteronomy 14:1-21 should be understood as a sermonic meditation on the Third Word.

Deuteronomy 13 in the Laws of Moses

Kaiser, following Kaufman, understands the laws of Deuteronomy 13 to

be included under the Third Word, continuing the section to Deuteronomy 14:27. But he regards this pericope as especially difficult to analyze.

Deuteronomy 13:1 to 14:27 are expansions of the injunction not to take the name of the LORD God in vain. Of all the sections in Deuteronomy 12-25, this one is the most difficult to associate with the Decalogue. Kaufman’s rejoinder to this problem is to acknowledge that on the surface there is some validity to this complaint. But, he argues, instead of regarding Deuteronomic law as a direct commentary or sermon on each commandment in the Decalogue, the case presented here is that Deuteronomy contains “statutes” and “judgments” “designed to provide divine authority for the religious and social reforms it proclaims.”10

9 Stephen A. Kaufman, ‘The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,’ Maarav 1979, vol. 1: 105–58 10 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), p. 132.

13

Kaufman’s attempted justification for beginning the laws applying the Third Word with chapter 13 is forced at best.11 Chapter 13 is evidently concerned with problems of pagan idolatry, the domain of the First and Second Words.12 Of course, in so far as idolatry constitutes blasphemy against Yahweh’s name, worshipping idols and tolerating idolatry would amount to a violation of the Third Word as well as the First and Second Words. But the laws of apostasy in chapter 13 obviously concentrate on idolatry as defined by the First and Second Words, setting forth three cases in which the people of Israel are tempted to worship other gods, calling for the death penalty for the seducer in each case.

Deuteronomy 13:2 (13:3 in Hebrew) refers to following other gods with an expression that would be literally translated “walk after other gods.” The exact Hebrew expression “walk after” is used four times in Genesis to describe someone following another person (Gen 24:5, 8, 61; 32:19). The expression does not appear in Exodus or Leviticus. It occurs once in Numbers to refer to a person following another, as in Genesis (Num. 16:25). But in Deuteronomy, where the expression occurs five times, it is used exclusively to refer to “walking after” other gods (Deut 4:3; 8:19; 11:28; 13:2; 28:14). Moreover, 13:2 is the fourth of those five occurrences, so the particular nuance of the expression has been established, especially since the first reference was to a recent incident in Israel’s history in which 24,000 people died of a plague because of “walking after” Baal of Peor (Deu. 4:3).

There is also a similar expression “go and serve” — literally “walk and serve” — which is never used in the Pentateuch before Deuteronomy and only used in Deuteronomy four times — twice in chapter 13 in reference to idolatry (13:6, 13), and twice later in Deuteronomy (17:3; 29:26) clearly referring to idolatry. Outside of Deuteronomy, this expression is used in Deuteronomy-influenced historical books three times, always with reference 11 See Kaiser, Ibid., pp. 132-33. I do not think it is worth reproducing the argument in detail here. Suffice it to say that I agree with Kaufman that there are allusions to First and Second Word passages in 14:1-21, but the point of those allusions is not to identify which commandment is being treated, but to define Third Word obedience as making Israel distinct among nations which practice idolatry. For Israel to bear the name of Yahweh, they must not be like the nations around them. Chapter 13, on the other hand, is clearly devoted to First and Second Word issues. 12 It seems to me that in Deuteronomy 6-13, there is no strong division between the first two commandments. Jordan understands 6-11 to be application of the First Word and 12-13 to be application of the Second Word. I believe his analysis is basically correct, but it also seems to me that the two commandments overlap in so far as the idolatry being forbidden in 12-13 is the worship of other gods. The distinction between the First and Second Words is seen more clearly in the positive thrust of the teaching in 6-11 and 12-13. The First Word section (6-11) is especially concerned with loving and trusting Yahweh. The Second Word section (12-13) is about worshipping Yahweh at the place He choses.

14

to idolatry (Josh 23:16; 1 Kgs 9:6; 16:31) and one other time in Chronicles with reference to idolatry (2 Chr 7:19).

The language in Deuteronomy 13, therefore, points distinctly to the problem of idolatrous worship. If Moses is treating the Ten Words in order, it seems patently obvious that chapter 13 is part of his sermonic application of the First and Second Words.

The two expressions discussed above belong to the technical language of idolatry in the book of Deuteronomy, but the most obvious expression referring to idolatry in Deuteronomy 13 is “other gods.” The very first time this expression occurs in Scripture is in Exodus 20:3, in the First Word: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Altogether there are 63 verses in the Old Testament that refer to “other gods,” with almost one third of them appearing in Deuteronomy (Deu. 5:7; 6:14; 7:4; 8:19; 11:16, 28; 13:2, 6, 13; 17:3; 18:20; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:26; 30:17; 31:18, 20). The distribution of this expression is also remarkable. The first instance in Deuteronomy is in the First Word (5:7), which is expressed in language identical with Exodus. It occurs five more times in the section of Deuteronomy that is indisputably concerned with the First and Second Words (6:14; 7:4; 8:19; 11:16, 28). When the expression “other gods” appears in chapter 13, where it is used 3 times (13:2, 6, 13), it has already been quite certainly established as First and Second Word language.13

It seems fair to conclude, therefore, that Deuteronomy 13 is not a Third Word passage, but rather part of the application of the first two commands. I argue, following Jordan’s analysis, that it is not until Deuteronomy chapter 14 that Moses turns to the Third Word.

Deuteronomy 14:1-2

Should we regard Deuteronomy 14:1 as the beginning of a new section?

Part of the answer to that question is to be found in the way Deuteronomy 13 concludes. The final verse of Deuteronomy 13 closes the instruction about being seduced to worship false gods in language that appears elsewhere in Deuteronomy either in introductions or conclusions to a pericope: “hearken

13 It is also noteworthy that the expression “other gods” does not appear in any of the other laws except 17:3 and 18:20, both passages belonging to the application of the Fifth Word, significant because Deuteronomy constantly portrays Yahweh as Israel’s Father. Otherwise, references to “other gods” appear in the last sections of Deuteronomy where Moses pronounces blessings and curses and warns the Israelites about their future. Within the exposition of the Ten Words in chapters 6-26, references to “other gods” are almost exclusively confined to chapters 6-13.

15

to the voice of Yahweh.”14 In this case, it is clearly the conclusion to chapter 13, not the introduction to a new section.

The first words of Deuteronomy 14 confirm the view that the last words of Deuteronomy 13 are a conclusion to a pericope, for Deuteronomy 14 begins abruptly with an extraordinary expression. It’s exact wording is unprecedented and never repeated verbatim in all the rest of the Old Testament.

Sons you [are] to Yahweh your God!

The unexpected declaration provokes questions: Why all of a sudden this unusual language, referring to individual Israelites as sons of Yahweh? Why such a brief and startling transition? The simplest answer to these and similar questions is that Moses uses an unusual expression to signal the introduction to new section. The immediate shift of language breaks off the application of the First and Second Words, alerting the reader to the fact that a new topic will follow. That this proposed answer is correct is confirmed in three ways — by the literary allusions in the first two verses, the content of the section as a whole, and the inclusio in verses 1-2 and verse 21.

Before we investigate this threefold confirmation, we need to consider briefly the first words of Deuteronomy 14:1. Though the exact language of 14:1 does not appear any where else in Scripture, there are close expressions (Deu. 32:5, 19-20) and one passage in particular that Moses seems to be alluding to.

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Yahweh, Israel is my son, my first-born: and I have said unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me; and thou hast refused to let him go: behold, I will slay thy son, thy first-born. (Exo. 4:22-23)

14 The expression “hearken to [b not l] the voice of Yahweh” (hwhy lwøq V;b omv) occurs only 29 times in the entire Old Testament, 11 times in the book of Deuteronomy (Deu. 13:18; 15:5; 26:14; 27:10; 28:1–2, 15, 45, 62; 30:8, 10). In Deuteronomy 27:10, the phrase is part of a conclusion to a section, as it is in Deuteronomy 13:18. In chapter 28 the phrase appears five times, twice in the introduction to the blessings (28:1-2) and three times in the section on the curses — at the beginning (28:15), near the middle (28:45), and near the end (28:62). In chapter 30:8, 10, the phrase again appears in a conclusion.

16

While Exodus 4:22-23 refers to the nation in the singular as Yahweh’s son, Deuteronomy 14:1 refers to the individual Israelites as Yahweh’s sons. However, the importance of the declaration in Exodus 4:22-23 and its prominent place in the story of Israel’s redemption are such that it is hard to imagine Moses is not intentionally pointing back to the famous declaration calling for Pharaoh to release Yahweh’s firstborn son. Also, shifting from singular to plural is a common phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible, appearing in 14:1-2 as well (note the shift from the plural “ye” in verse 1 to the singular “thou” in verse 2, and from the plural “Yahweh your God” in verse 1 to “Yahweh thy God” in verse 2). In Deuteronomy, for example, both the expressions “Yahweh thy God” 15 and “Yahweh your God” 16 appear frequently and Moses shifts from singular to plural in the same context without obvious reasons for doing so.17 Though the emphasis changes, it seems likely that references in the singular and plural to Israel as God’s son are related and should be seen as teaching a single truth that God is the Father to His people.

In Deuteronomy 14:1, what would the significance be of a reference to the people of Israel as Yahweh’s sons?18 Again, the simplest and most obvious idea would seem to be the best explanation. The declaration that the people of Israel are the sons of Yahweh says in no uncertain terms that they are His special people, different from all other peoples in the world. Or, to put it in other language, in calling them His sons, Yahweh identifies Himself with the people of Israel. Deuteronomy 28:9-10 seems to confirm this reasoning by alluding back to the theme of a “holy people” which appears

15 “Yahweh thy God” is much more common (Deu. 1:21, 31; 2:7, 30; 4:3, 10, 19, 21, 23–25, 29–31, 40; 5:6, 9, 11–12, 14–16; 6:2, 5, 10, 13, 15; 7:1–2, 6, 9, 12, 16, 18–23, 25; 8:2, 5–7, 10–11, 14, 18–19; 9:3–7; 10:9, 12, 14, 20, 22–11:1; 11:12, 29; 12:7, 9, 15, 18, 20–21, 27–29, 31; 13:5, 10, 12, 16, 18; 14:2, 21, 23–26, 29; 15:4–7, 10, 14–15, 18–21; 16:1–2, 5–8, 10–11, 15–18, 20–17:2; 17:8, 12, 14–15; 18:5, 9, 12–16; 19:1–3, 8–10, 14; 20:1, 13–14, 16–17; 21:1, 5, 10, 23; 22:5; 23:5, 14, 18, 20–21, 23; 24:4, 9, 13, 18–19; 25:15–16, 19–26:5; 26:10–11, 13, 16, 19; 27:2–3, 5–7, 9–10; 28:1–2, 8–9, 13, 15, 45, 47, 52–53, 58, 62; 29:12; 30:1–7, 9–10, 16, 20; 31:3, 6, 11). 16 “Yahweh your God” with the plural for “you” occurs less often (Deu. 1:10, 26, 30, 32; 3:18, 20–22; 4:2, 4, 23, 34; 5:32–6:1; 6:16–17; 8:20; 9:16, 23; 10:17; 11:2, 13, 22, 25, 27–28, 31; 12:4–5, 7, 10–12; 13:3–5; 14:1; 20:4, 18; 29:6, 10; 31:12–13, 26). 17 Note the shift back and forth in Deuteronomy chapter 1, for example. 1:10, “your God;” 1:21, “thy God;” 1:26, “your God;” 1:30, “your God;” 1:31, “thy God;” 1:32, “your God.” 18 Driver’s comment is noteworthy: “[Sons are ye to Jehovah your God] what is affirmed in Ex. 4:22f. (JE) of Israel as a nation (“Israel is my son, my firstborn”) is here transferred to the individual Israelites: they are Jehovah’s children; and while on the one hand they are the objects of His paternal care and regard (1:31 8:5), they owe to Him on the other hand filial love and obedience, they should conform their character to His, and do nothing that is unworthy of the close and intimate relation in which they stand towards Him.”

17

repeatedly in Deuteronomy, including 14:1-2,19 and affirming that the nation shall be called by the name of Yahweh. In other words, in 14:1-2, the “holy people” are the sons of Yahweh, which 28:9-10 translates into the people “called by the name of Yahweh.”

Yahweh will establish thee for a holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee; if thou shalt keep the commandments of Yahweh thy God, and walk in his ways. And all the peoples of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of Yahweh; and they shall be afraid of thee. (Deu. 28:9-10)

The nation of Israel is called by the name of Yahweh because they are His sons. His name is in them. These allusions suggest clearly that the abrupt declaration in 14:1 that the Israelites are the sons of Yahweh serves as an introduction to the Third Word. No other explanation for this remarkable proclamation at this particular place in Deuteronomy fits so well with the context. Furthermore, the idea that we have an introduction to a new section here is borne out, as I said above, by the inclusio in verses 1-21, the literary allusions in the first three verses, and the distinct content of the section, especially as compared with what follows.

First, consider the inclusio. Beginning and ending a portion of Scripture with the same or similar language is a frequently occurring literary device, defining the boundaries of a particular literary discourse. That Moses in Deuteronomy should uses such a device is no surprise. In the words of Jack R. Lundbum, “The book of Deuteronomy is widely acknowledged to be the rhetorical book of the Hebrew Bible.”20 Recognizing structural devices like chiasmus and inclusio are essential to an analysis of its literary composition. In the case of Deuteronomy 14:1-21, at one level the inclusio is patently clear.

“For you are a holy people to the Yahweh your God” (14:2).

“. . . for you are a holy people to Yahweh your God” (14:21).

19 The Hebrew expression occurs only 7 times in the Old Testament, five of which are in Deuteronomy (Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9; Hos 11:12; Dan 8:24). 20 “Inclusio and other Framing Devices in Deuteronomy I-XXVIII,” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 46, July 1996, pp. 296-315.

18

The inclusio may also include the reference to the dead in verse 1 and animals which die of themselves in verse 21, as well as a possible connection between the Israelites being the sons of Yahweh (14:1) and being forbidden to boil a child/young goat in its mother’s milk (14:21). If the two less clear cases are also intended as literary markers, the case for 14:1-21 as a literary unit is even more apparent.

Second, consider the literary allusions in the first three verses and their relationship to the content that follows in verses 4 to 21. I will argue for the allusions more fully in the next chapter. For now, I will simply point them out. There are allusions to two of the Bible’s greatest stories, as well as to laws in Deuteronomy about being separate from the nations and laws in Leviticus about priesthood and food. The abundance of literary allusions in the compact space of a few verses connecting a clearly distinguished pericope with other stories and laws characterizes these verses as an introduction to the pericope as a whole. By introducing the Third Word with such a rich web of allusions, Moses alerts his readers that he is taking up a new commandment and that he expects the reader to consider the commandment in the light of the other passages he alludes to.

Third, the content of Deuteronomy 14:1-21 is distinct both from what precedes and from what follows. In contrast with 12-13, there is no more mention of idolatry, though there is allusion to the idolatrous nations. Immediately after 14:1-21, Fourth Word concerns appear when Deuteronomy 14:22 — again abruptly changing the subject — offers a command about tithing which is continued with instruction about festivals (14:23 ff.). Thus, beginning in Deuteronomy 14:22, Moses is unquestionably applying the Fourth Word.

Conclusion

I believe I have presented adequate evidence for taking Deuteronomy

14:1-21 as a distinct unit. Since it follows a unit that treats the First and Second Words and is itself followed by a unit that treats the Fourth Word, it is not difficult to conclude that it must be concerned with the Third Word, even though the content of this section may not seem to bear an obvious relationship to the Third Word. The introduction to the laws in Deuteronomy 14:1-21 suggest the same, since it claims that the children of Israel are the sons of Yahweh. Among other things, that would mean that they bear His name, as Deuteronomy 28:10 explicitly states.

There is one other matter to be mentioned. Jordan takes the final expression in Deuteronomy 14:21 to be the introduction to the Fourth Word.

19

The identical command in Hebrew appears two other times in the laws of Moses, both times in the book of Exodus and both times in connection with bringing offerings to Yahweh.21

The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring into the house of Yahweh thy God. Thou shalt not boil a kid in it mother’s milk. (Exo. 23:19) The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of Yahweh thy God. Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. (Exodus 34:26)

These two references seem to connect the command forbidding boiling a kid in its mother’s milk with Fourth Word concerns about offering and rest in the land. Since the language in Deuteronomy 14:21c is identical to the two previous passages, it would appear to be an introduction to the Fourth Word in language that is almost a code.

I believe that Jordan is correct that it is an introduction to the next section, but it may also be a conclusion to the Third Word as well. In other words, the command about boiling the kid in its mother’s milk may function as a hinge or hook, connecting both with verse 1 — where the Israelites are said to be the sons of Yahweh — as an inclusio, and also with verses 22 ff. as an introduction to the section on the Fourth Word. As such, this seemingly odd command, which is repeated three times in the law of Moses, would be both a striking conclusion to the food laws and a transition to the concerns of the Fourth Word which immediately follow. Its place here in Deuteronomy further confirms Jordan’s analysis of Deuteronomy 14:1-21 as a Third Word section.

21 The Hebrew of the two verses in Exodus is identical, but for some reason the LXX translates them differently.

20

Chapter 4 Allusions in Deuteronomy 14:1-21

In the first chapter, I argued that the story of the covenant is what

unifies and grounds the laws in the book of Deuteronomy. In the third chapter, as part of my argument that Deuteronomy 14:1-21 forms a distinct pericope, I claimed that these verses contain a number of literary allusions. In this chapter, I hope to demonstrate that Moses really does make these allusions. More importantly perhaps, I address a question that I have hitherto assumed without directly addressing. Could an ancient reader be expected to note the allusions I have been speaking about? Obviously, allusions that would not have been noticed could have no literary purpose. Even if a modern reader might think he finds allusions, for this literary device to have any real meaning, the allusions would have to be identifiable to an ancient reader — though not necessarily to any and every ancient reader.

After all, we should expect that a sophisticated reader like David, having both a poet’s linguistic sensitivity and also musical gifts, would have taken note of aspects of a passage that a less cultured reader would miss. Of course, given the differences in time, language, culture, and music — not to mention spiritual gifts and genius — David would probably note much that a modern reader would miss, also. Still, to some degree, a modern reader can trace how a man like David might have considered a text like Deuteronomy 14:1-21. Though I am going to confine myself to literary allusions in the Pentateuch, David would no doubt have read the passage in the light of the subsequent history as well. That part of his meditation will not be included in our thought experiment.

Is the Bible Really so Full of Allusion?

To answer the question posed by the subtitle, we need to consider

briefly the nature of literary allusion. Robert Alter, a prolific Jewish scholar who has written much about the Bible as literature, affirms that literature is inescapably allusive.

All literature, to be sure, is necessarily allusive: writers are compelled in one way or another to make their text out of antecedent texts (oral or written) because it would not occur to them in the first place to do anything so unnatural as to compose a hymn or a love poem or a story unless they had some

21

model to emulate. In the Hebrew Bible, however, what is repeatedly evident is the abundance of authoritative national traditions, fixed in particular verbal formulations, to which later writers respond through incorporation, elaboration, debate, or parody.22 Allusion to antecedent literary texts is an indispensable mechanism of all literature, virtually dictated by the self-recaputulative logic of literary expression. No one writes a poem or a story without some awareness of other poems or stories to emulate, pay homage to, vie with, criticize, or parody, and so the evocation of phrases, images, motifs, situations from antecedent texts is an essential part of the business of making new texts.23

Since we are considering Moses, and since I take it for granted that he

was, as the Scriptures present him to have been, the basic author of the first five books of the Bible — though they were updated or edited somewhat by a later prophet or prophets — we have to ask why he would make allusions to material that he himself wrote or edited?24 It would not only be to interact with a previously written authoritative tradition — though in his last words, recorded in the book of Deuteronomy, that aspect might be more prominent. For the original editor and author, Moses, literary allusion would have been, among other things, a form of shorthand.

In other words, by alluding to previously written material, Moses sends his reader to the previous texts and invites him to meditate on the two texts together. In this way, he is able to say far more in far fewer words. He is able to communicate a complex and intricate message through apparently simple statements. Of course, this also creates the need for an aesthetically sophisticated reader, for a reader who takes time to meditate and compare, to consider the relationships between history and law and the modifications that necessarily arise as the covenant situation changes. Or, to put it in different

22 Robert Alter, The World of Biblical Literature (New York: Basic Books, 1992), p. 50. Alter has written extensively on the literary nature of the Bible, including the following titles: The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1981), and The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985). 23 Ibid., p. 110. 24 I refer to Moses as “editing” material because I believe that the book of Genesis was composed by editing writings that had been preserved from the long past. In that sense, when Moses himself began to compose books by the inspiration of God, he would have been interacting with a previously established authoritative tradition.

22

words, this form of writing creates the need for interpretation. Getting to the heart of the matter requires intellectual work, pursued in a spirit of humility.

Contrasting Biblical stories with Homer, Eric Auerbach wrote the following.

It is all very different in the Biblical stories. Their aim is not to bewitch the senses, and if nevertheless they produce lively sensory effects, it is only because the moral, religious, and psychological phenomena which are their sole concern are made concrete in the sensible matter of life. But their religious intent involves an absolute claim to historical truth. . . . The Bible’s claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homer’s, it is tyrannical—it excludes all other claims. The world of the Scripture stories is not satisfied with claiming to be a historically true reality—it insists that it is the only real word, is destined for autocracy. All other scenes, issues, and ordinances have no right to appear independently of it, and it is promised that all of them, the history of all mankind, will be given their due place in its frame, will be subordinated to it. The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us—they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels.25

When we read Moses, we have to assume that he believes himself to be

exactly what the Scriptures purport him to be, a prophet of God, chosen by Yahweh from his birth to accomplish a unique work in the history of the world. We have to assume that he is not only conscious of this calling, but that, in the power of the Holy Spirit, he sincerely attempted to fulfill it. Part of his work in seeking to fulfill his calling under God would have been to write Scripture, knowing that it is revelation from God through him. Alluding to previous Scripture for the purpose of provoking deeper understanding of Israel’s mysterious and sovereign God would have been a natural part of his literary endeavor, because allusion facilitates the reader’s quest for God through the text He inspired. At the same time, rather than putting everything on the surface, as Homer did, Moses writes so that the text is as much of a paradox as it is revelation. The reader is called to bow before God to know the message, even in its most superficial meaning. 25 Eric Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), pp. 14-15.

23

How Are Literary Allusions Established?

There are a number of ways to establish a literary allusion. The simplest

is through the use of a key word, a word that is used so rarely or with such a narrow range of meaning that its very appearance in a text would compel an intelligent reader to recall other occurrences of the word, especially the original occurrence. In the passage we are considering, there is an example of just this kind of literary allusion in the use of the word translated “treasured possession.” This rare word, appearing only eight times in the Old Testament (Exo. 19:5; Deu. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Mal. 3:17; Psa. 135:4; Ecc. 2:8; 1 Chr. 29:3), has a very distinct historical significance that no intelligent reader would have missed.

Of course, the quotation of an entire phrase or sentence would establish a literary connection between two passages also. So, in Deuteronomy 14:21, Moses quotes verbatim what he had previously written in two places (Exo. 23:19; 34:26). Since the command itself seems almost odd, its threefold repetition would draw attention and provoke questions, initiating the labor of meditation and interpretation.

No less remarkable in this context is the nearly verbatim repetition of a rather long verse of Scripture previously appearing in the book of Deuteronomy.

For thou art a holy people unto Yahweh thy God: Yahweh thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. (Deu. 7:6) For thou art a holy people unto Yahweh thy God, and Yahweh hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. (Deu. 14:2)

As is clear from the relatively literal English translation above, the

verses quoted diverge very slightly, but the two are so close that the words in Deuteronomy 14:2 inevitably take the intelligent reader back to Deuteronomy 7:6 to consider the relationship between the two texts.

Literary allusion can also be established by closely parallel language employed to treat a clearly parallel topic. Consider the following two laws and note the similarity of the language.

24

They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. (Lev. 21:5) Ye are the children of Yahweh your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. (Deu. 14:1)

The word translated “baldness” above is used only twice in the Pentateuch, in the two verses above, and only eleven times in the Old Testament (Lev. 21:5; Deu. 14:1; Isa. 3:24; 15:2; 22:12; Jer. 47:5; 48:37; Eze. 7:18; 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16). Whatever the relationship of the other passages may be, clearly the two references in the Pentateuch are connected, both by language and content. Leviticus is concerned with mourning by the priests in particular. Deuteronomy treats mourning customs of the people of Israel as a whole. Moses brings the two laws together and invites his readers to consider the relationship between them.

Literary allusion may also be rather more subtle. It does not require common vocabulary, nor does it demand parallel ideas, except in a rather abstract way. When I have taught Deuteronomy 14:1-21 to various groups and asked them what previously written passages of Scripture come to mind, I have usually been greeted with silence. But when I rephrase the question and say, “Moses here says one kind of food is permissible and another kind of food is forbidden. Does that sound familiar?” everyone picks up the parallel passage immediately. It should be too obvious to mention. How could an ancient Israelite reader encountering a passage about forbidden food not think of the story in Genesis 2-3?

Of course, an intelligent reader of Deuteronomy 14:1-21 will naturally recall the same food laws that were recorded in more detail in the previously given Scripture in Leviticus 11:1-47. Since these are the only two passages in the law of Moses that offer a detailed list of what may and may not be eaten, the ancient reader will be drawn to compare them. The second list must be dependent upon the first, but the relationship between the two is not necessarily simple.

To answer the question in the subtitle directly, then, literary allusion can be established in various ways, including a simple key word, a phrase, a quoted verse or partial verse, repetition of similar content, or even by the broad association of a similar idea or theme. Since we are talking about the Bible as a work of art, we should expect to find in it the same kind of subtlety,

25

complexity, and intricacy we see in the beauty of the world God created as a work of art.

Would An Ancient Reader Really Have Seen The Allusions?

To answer this question, we should not be thinking of the “average”

reader, but rather a reader like David — a reader who was himself an author, a reader who thought carefully about words and expressions, as well as theological content. David was a theologian, politician, military leader, poet, musician, and shepherd. He performed his work in each of these distinct realms so well that even if his talent had been limited to only one of them, he might have been a historically significant person.

Let us also suppose that David had obeyed the instruction in Deuteronomy 17:18-20 and had written out his own copy of the law of Moses by hand in order to read in the law daily. Even more than simply reading, we have to assume that David gave time to seriously weighing the message of the text. Why must we assume that? Because God commanded Joshua to mediate on the law daily and David himself described the righteous man — not necessarily a king — as one who meditated on the law day and night.

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate thereon day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Josh. 1:8 But his delight is in the law of Yahweh; And on his law doth he meditate day and night. Psa. 1:2 I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy doings; I muse on the work of thy hands. Psa. 143:

To “meditate” on the law apparently involved speaking out loud,26

repeating what was written in the law. But the process of meditating would have also included weighing and comparing, asking questions and seeking understanding. In that process, noticing similar language and expressions,

26 This is implied by the Hebrew word.

26

especially for someone reading the original Hebrew, would be a natural ingredient. Different passages discussing the same or similar topics would obviously be considered together. The fact that Biblical revelation was comprehensively historical would invite an intelligent reader to ask historical questions and seek answers by reading and re-reading the inspired and authoritative history.

It is also commonly assumed that a godly ancient Hebrew like David would have large portions of the law memorized. Repeated reading would result in natural memorization to some degree. But passages of Scripture like Psalm 119:11 suggest that godly people specifically devoted themselves to the task of memorizing Scripture.

Thy word have I laid up in my heart, That I might not sin against thee.

Thus, a man like David, who would presumably have memorized large portions of Scripture, would note similar language appearing in different places. Meditating on the Scripture, therefore, would have included asking questions about the similarities and repetitions that he could easily recall, without needing to consult a scribe or a scroll.

In conclusion, then, taking David as our standard for the sake of argument, it is not possible to imagine that the author of so many Psalms — themselves filled with allusions to Israel’s history and Scripture — would have been so literarily insensitive that he would have simply not noticed the similarities of language and content which are the means of establishing literary allusion. Neither is it possible to imagine that a theologian and poet who devoted himself to meditate on the Scriptures would not have ask questions about the literary purpose or the theological significance of an allusion. Given the way allusions appear in the Bible, it would be absurd to deny that Moses and other authors intended to communicate by means of these sorts of literary devices, just as it would be absurd to imagine that David or other godly readers simply did not understand what was written. However, it also seems clear from the oldest extant extra-Biblical Jewish exposition of Scripture that methods of discovering allusion and meditating on them were lost through unbelief. The leaders of the Jews in Jesus’ day no longer understand the Scriptures.

What Allusions are Present in Deuteronomy 14:1-21?

27

We have already answered this question in part, but it might be helpful to present a summary and clear statement of the allusions in this rich passage. Let me begin by simply listing them.

1. In the words, “Ye are the sons of Yahweh your God,” there is an allusion to Exodus 4:22, where the nation is called the “son of Yahweh.” This, in turn, also provokes questions about what it means to be a son of God and invites us to consider deeper theological themes. 2. In the command not to cut themselves for the dead in the second half of 14:1, there is an allusion to the priestly laws for mourning in Leviticus 21:5-6. The law in Leviticus is immediately followed by a statement that the priests must be holy to God, which is also picked up in Deuteronomy. 3. In 14:2, when Moses declares that the people are a holy people to Yahweh, he repeats almost verbatim what he had written in Deuteronomy 7:6, clearly linking the two passages. 4. The key word usually translated “treasured possession” points back to the story of Israel at Mt. Sinai in Exodus 19:1-6. 5. The list of forbidden and allowed foods in Deuteronomy is a repetition of the list in Leviticus, but there are differences which would call for thought. 6. The list of forbidden and allowed foods in Deuteronomy would inescapably remind an ancient Israelite of the story of Genesis 2-3. 7. The law forbidding Israelites to boil a kid in its mother’s milk (Deu. 14:21b) points clearly to the laws in Exodus 23:19 and 34:26, where the identical rule is given.

Conclusion

To restate what is involved in the seven allusions pointed out above, there are allusions here to two stories: the story of the Garden of Eden and the Fall (#6), and the story of the Exodus (#1), with its climax at Mt. Sinai in the presence of the glory cloud of Yahweh (#4). There are also allusions to five other passages of instruction in the law of Moses, Exodus 23:19 and 34:26 (#7), Deuteronomy 7:1-6 (#3), Leviticus 11 (#5), and Leviticus 21:1-6 (#2).

In addition to these seven allusions, each of which is relatively easy to discover, I am inclined to see another more subtle allusion to another story. In order to see this allusion, we have to remember that when Biblical writers

28

quoted a verse or alluded to previously written Scripture, they are not “proof-texting,” simply trying to prove a point by the authority of Scripture without regard for the larger context or message of the passage they refer to. On the contrary, Biblical writers quote or allude to previously written Scripture with the larger context and message in mind. An allusion to forbidden food, therefore, would not simply be an allusion to the verses in the Genesis story where God commanded man about the trees (Gen. 2:16-17), but to the story as a whole. A godly reader like David would recall and meditate on the story of creation and the fall in order to have a deeper appreciation for the instruction in Deuteronomy 14:1-21.

That being so, I believe that a good case can be made for another allusion, though it is not directly stated in the text. It seems to me that recalling the list of forbidden foods in Leviticus 11, especially with its language of discerning the holy and common, clean and unclean, would naturally also bring to mind the shocking narrative that immediately precedes the food laws in Leviticus, for the food laws themselves point back to the story of Nadab and Abihu — the sons of Aaron who were judged before God for offering forbidden incense. The fact that their story recalls the story of Adam and Eve makes the association all the more natural and likely.

If I am correct, there are, then, allusions to two main stories and one secondary story, as well as allusions to five laws. In the next chapter, I will discuss what these allusions communicate and show how they relate to each other to form a network of allusion aimed to enforce a single message.

29

Chapter 5 Meaning of Allusions in Deuteronomy 14:1-21

I have argued that Deuteronomy 14:1-21 is an independent literary unit

that applies the Third Word to the lives of Israelites from the time of Moses and Joshua. In this short pericope, Moses suggests broad and deep meaning by means of literary allusion to the stories of the creation and the exodus from Egypt. He also alludes to other laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, establishing a secondary literary allusion to the story of Nadab and Abihu. In this chapter, I seek to show what the combined meaning of these allusions would be, though I must admit from the outset that in the nature of the case, stories and the laws that are related to them abound with significance. The mine is too rich to be emptied in a short essay.

In order to unpack the meaning of these complex allusions, I exercise what I hope is sanctified imagination. I try to imagine what a Joshua or David might have understood, reading the text with the kind of literary sensitivity such men would have had. Thus, in this chapter, I am not trying to read as a Christian with a New Covenant perspective. However, my Christian thinking may have intruded itself into my thought experiment in ways that I have not noticed. All the same the attempt has been edifying for me and I hope it will be for the reader also.

Alluding to Adam and Eve

As I said in the previous chapter, it is inconceivable that an Israelite in

Joshua’s day — or any time in Israel’s history — could have read a passage which allowed certain foods and condemned others without recalling the story of the Garden. Forbidden food is at the heart of the first story in the Bible. When Moses forbids food again, a godly Israelite reading and thinking about his words absolutely must reconsider the original story.

Adam and Animals

Where would the Israelite start in his meditation? I think that perhaps even before considering the command about food, an ancient Israelite might have considered man’s first contact with animals, since it is particular animals that are forbidden in Deuteronomy 14:1-21. For moderns this might be difficult and might not be the most natural starting point because few of us have regular contact with animals. But in an agricultural society like that of

30

Israel after the conquest, animals would be very much a part of the daily reality of the vast majority of the Israelites, even those who lived in the cities.

People with so much contact with animals would note the language used. For example, in Deuteronomy, the animals that are forbidden are called an “abomination,” a Hebrew word often associated with the immorality of the Gentile nations in Leviticus (Lev. 18:27-30) and with Gentile idolatry in the book of Deuteronomy (Deu. 7:25-26; 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9, 12; 20:18; 27:15; 32:16). In the book of Leviticus, the forbidden animals are called “detestable,” a word which only appears 11 times in the Old Testament, primarily in Leviticus speaking of the forbidden animals (Lev 7:21; 11:10–13, 20, 23, 41–42; Isa 66:17; Ezek 8:10). These are striking labels for the unclean animals. In both cases, the words Moses used would have reminded readers and hearers of Gentiles, especially their immoral customs and idolatrous religions.

What is the connection with Adam? It is found in Adam’s naming of the animals (Gen. 2:19-20). Naming animals involves analyzing them and finding an appropriate “label” for each of them, one that depicts something of their character, especially — I assume — something of their relationship with man. God commanded Adam to name the animals in order to teach Adam who he was and to educate him about his relationship with other created things. With this background in Genesis, a foundational story for a godly Israelite, it would be natural to view animals as God-designed sermons on life. Adam listened to God’s basic instruction through the animals and won a wife. Then, God sent another animal to teach Adam and Eve about the tree.

In other words, on the basis of the Genesis story of creation, Israelites would view animals as God-given teachers. An Israelite reading about animals, especially when the animals are specifically tied to Gentile customs and idolatry, would have remembered the story of Adam’s naming of the animals and sought to understand the lesson Yahweh was trying to teach them through the laws of forbidden animals. In the case of some of the animals, at least, the instruction would have been obvious. For example, animals like lions or eagles that prey on other animals display a lifestyle that is similar to idolatrous Gentiles that make war on and oppress other nations. Though this does not give us a transparent rule for all of the prohibited animals on the list, it does offer a partial answer, the beginning of something deeper.27

27 Jordan notes that among fish, not all carnivores are forbidden. He concludes that forbidden carnivores among land animals are not forbidden because they are carnivores, but because of the other qualities mentioned in the text. It seems to me, however, that the prohibition of carnivores among the land animals and birds is not the kind thing that would

31

Not only are the forbidden animals often animals that prey on other animals to live, they are also and more importantly animals that share a special relationship with the dirt that was cursed because of Adam’s sin. This is the more profound connection between the various forbidden land animals. Contact with dirt would be contact with death, with the land that called for man’s death. Animals without hooves walk on the ground with their bare feet, so to speak, and therefore are defiled with the dirt.

Beginning with this insight, it should not have been difficult to conclude that the forbidden animals are similar to the serpent in the Garden that was cursed to live in the dust and eat dust. So, animals that in one way or another resemble the serpent would be unclean.28 Also, the association of forbidden animals both with Gentiles’ lifestyle and the serpent in the Garden would remind the ancient Israelite that the Gentile nations’ worship of idols was not worship of nothing. It was demon worship. Idolatrous nations were enslaved to the Serpent and their lifestyles reflected their devotion to the devil. The Israelites were the sons of Yahweh and their diet was restricted to animals which had a lifestyle that reflected Israel’s calling to be a holy people.

Eating the Fruit

What else might a godly reader in Joshua’s day have discerned? To begin with, I do not think it is far-fetched to imagine that such a godly reader would have noticed the difference between a command like “Thou shalt not kill!” and a command like “Thou shalt not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!” Adam was created upright and good, but at the same time, somehow, able to fall. There is a mystery here we cannot wholly penetrate, but the facts of the situation seem relatively plain. Given that Adam was upright, it is highly unlikely that the Tempter could have persuaded him to murder Eve and eat her dead body. But eating the fruit of an apparently arbitrarily forbidden-tree was something altogether different. The forbidden fruit constituted a test of trust, not a test of basic moral sense, a test of love and loyalty, not a test about something glaringly evil. That is part of the explanation for the possibility of the temptation.

go unnoticed. How could an ancient Israelite not associate the carnivores with the Gentiles’ lifestyle — even if that is not the whole explanation? 28 The restriction to animals that divide the hoof and chew the cud is more difficult to understand. James Jordan opines that the traditional interpretation is probably best. That is, that dividing the hoof refers to discernment and chewing the cud to meditation on God’s word. See, James B. Jordan, Studies in Food and Faith (Tyler, TX: Biblical Horizons, 1989), pp. 204 ff. I am also indebted to Jordan for the insight that unclean animals are connected with the serpent.

32

I believe, too, that a reader in Joshua’s time could have thought through the test in the Garden and understood the story in some depth, as allusions to the story of the Garden suggest. Certainly he could have seen that as soon as Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit that they not only had their eyes opened, but they also came to know good and evil — albeit they knew good and evil from the perspective of the person who had fallen into evil and become its slave. That is part of what the Scripture means when it says that they knew they were naked.

Thus, as an ancient reader thought about the story, questions would come to mind, such as, What if Adam and Eve had refused the Serpent? (Do we as modern readers really imagine that a godly man in Joshua’s day would not have ask this?) The question seems inescapable. But what would have been the answer? It seems relatively apparent that had Adam and Eve refused the temper, they would still have come to the knowledge of good and evil. The temptation would have been a help to them. Obeying God’s command without temptation would not necessarily have taught them anything. But having been tempted to doubt God and then refusing the temptation by making a clear decision not to doubt His love or His word would have resulted in enlightenment. As a result, they would have come to know good and evil from the perspective of one who had decided to stand with the good. Something like this line of reasoning should not have been difficult for a godly reader in Joshua’s time.

What would that mean for the food laws in Deuteronomy? The first and most obvious answer would be that the Israelites should trust Yahweh and obey His laws, whether they understand them or not. But they should obey in the hope that what they do not yet understand would someday be clear to them if they obeyed in faith. The lesson would have been clear enough — right understanding, like all blessing, comes through faithful obedience.

Temporary Restriction

There is at least one more inference an ancient Israelite could have made as he reflected on the story of the Garden. As I suggested above, it is not too far-fetched to imagine that a godly Israelite in Joshua’s day would have asked himself, what if Adam had not disobeyed? He would probably have concluded that if Adam and Eve had been obedient to Yahweh’s command and refused the temptation to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would have attained the knowledge of good and evil. But he might have carried his reasoning one more step. He might also have concluded that once that had attained that knowledge, the prohibited fruit would be no longer forbidden. In other words, he might have reasoned that the

33

prohibition would have been temporary because it had a specific purpose. Though the prohibition was arbitrary in one sense, it was not entirely so. It was intended to be educational. Once Adam and Eve had graduated from the school of the knowledge of good and evil, they would probably have been allowed to take the fruit of that tree in commemoration of their graduation.

If a person reasoned that far, it would be easy to take the next step and infer that the prohibition of Satan-like animals was also temporary and educational. What would have been the lesson? Perhaps a godly Israelite would think about it something like this: The serpent was under the curse, but until the coming of the seed of the woman, the conflict between her seed and the seed of the serpent would characterize human history. As the history of the world from the Garden to the Conquest had shown, the seed of the serpent often overpowered and persecuted the seed of the woman. Thus, until the coming of the Messiah to save the seed of the woman, the people of God would face trials and difficulties. They would be like sheep in a world of lions and wolves. But when the Messiah came, He would crush the serpent’s head, freeing the oppressed and leading to the fulfillment of the covenant promise that all the nations of the world would be blessed through Abraham (Gen. 12:3).

In this way, the prohibition of serpent-like foods would have been a reminder not only of the fall of man and the serpent’s power in history, but also of the promise of the Messiah. The godly Israelite, in other words, could have understood the prohibition of serpent-like food as “you may not eat these animals yet — not until the Messiah conquers the serpent.” The prohibited animals could remind the Israelites that someday the Messiah would come and conquer. They might also realize that after the Messiah had conquered the serpent, they would be able to eat the serpent-like animals because the Messiah’s dominion had been realized.

My suggested line of thought here may go too far for an ancient Israelite, but I do not think it would have been impossible. At any rate, the forbidden foods had a relatively clear connection with the serpent. If an ancient Israelite could have seen that, he would have been reminded of the promise of the Messiah who would defeat the serpent. He would be refusing certain foods in hope of the Messiah. Food laws contained the promise and an encouragement.

Alluding to the Exodus

The allusion to the Exodus story is contained in the first words of

Deuteronomy 14:1 — “ye are the sons of Yahweh your God” — as well as in the use of the technical term translated “treasured possession,” “His own

34

possession,” “peculiar people,” “precious people,” and so forth. The two allusions together bring to mind the whole story of the Exodus, from the call of Moses to the arrival at Mount Sinai. A godly Israelite recalling the story of the Exodus would have much to meditate on. I can only suggest a portion of what such a meditation might include.

The allusion to Israel as Yahweh’s son comes near the beginning of the Exodus story as Yahweh commissions Moses in words that briefly encompass the entire story of Yahweh’s judgment of Egypt.

And Yahweh said unto Moses, When thou goest back into Egypt, see that thou do before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in thy hand: but I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go. And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Yahweh, Israel is my son, my first-born: and I have said unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me; and thou hast refused to let him go: behold, I will slay thy son, thy first-born. (Exo. 4:21-23)

For Israel to be Yahweh’s firstborn son implies that Israel has a special

place, the highest place, among all the nations of the world. Thus, in the story of Exodus, the gift of Abrahamic covenant and the calling of Abraham and his descendants to bring blessing to all the world reverberates in the background. When Israel finally arrives at Sinai, Yahweh declares more fully what His son’s special position among the nations is — Yahweh’s firstborn is called to serve Him as the royal priesthood.

In Deuteronomy 14:1, the allusion to the Exodus 4:21-23 statement of Israel’s sonship connects naturally with the allusion in Deuteronomy 14:2 to Exodus 19:1-6 and the statement that the people of Israel are Yahweh’s special treasure. Just as the allusion to sonship comes from an important passage in the early part of Exodus, so, too, the allusion to Israel as a “special treasure” comes from one of the most important declarations in the Old Testament, Yahweh’s words to Israel when the nation arrives at Sinai. Note how this short proclamation of Yahweh’s covenant grace is both introduced and concluded with similar solemn language.

And Moses went up unto God, and Yahweh called unto him out of the mountain, saying,

35

Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be my special treasure from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a royal priesthood, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exo. 19:3-6)

What Yahweh had promised, He had accomplished. He did indeed

punish the Egyptians as He said He would, killing their firstborn to redeem His own firstborn son. Moreover, He brought His firstborn son to Himself (“brought you unto myself”) — profoundly personal language, which comes with even greater emphasis when read in the light of the preceding clause. He brought His son, Israel, to Himself “on eagles’ wings” — language repeated in Deuteronomy 32:11.

As an eagle that stirreth up her nest, That fluttereth over her young, He spread abroad his wings, he took them, He bare them on his pinions.

As Deuteronomy’s allusion to Exodus 19:4 shows, the reference to the wings of an eagle speaks of Yahweh loving Israel with a mother’s love. Like a mother eagle, with tender care Yahweh guarded Israel and carried His son out of Egypt and to His mountain, to Himself.

The grace of redemption from Egypt and Yahweh’s motherly concern for the son in the wilderness on the way to the mountain of God were the prelude to the personal meeting at Sinai where the covenant was granted as an expression of Yahweh’s redemptive love. Therefore, the statement “if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant” cannot be read as if Yahweh’s motherly affection had somehow been transformed into thundering threats, or as if a king was now imposing a treaty on a defeated vassal. In fact, the covenant intended to make the firstborn son of Yahweh a co-ruler with Him, a “royal priesthood” and a “holy nation.”

36

Holy Nation, Holy Food

The food laws in Deuteronomy are prefaced by allusions to the Exodus and Sinai, specifically reminding the Israelites that they were called to be a holy nation because they were Yahweh’s precious treasure, beloved by Yahweh with the love of a mother and father. They had been set apart from all the nations of the world and had been given the gift of the covenant because Yahweh had promised Abraham that his descendants would be blessed and also be a blessing (Gen. 12:1-3). Since the Exodus itself was in fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise to Abraham (Gen 15:13-16), the whole Exodus story and the gift of the covenant at Sinai could only be understood in connection with Abraham.

The food laws, therefore, defined what it meant for Israel to live a holy life in the holy land. Avoiding all serpent-like food, while awaiting for the coming of the Messiah, constituted an essential aspect of Israel’s call to be holy, to be different from the nations around her, for those nations were enslaved to the Serpent. In contrast, for an Israelite every meal was to be a confession that Yahweh had chosen them from among all the nations, called them His firstborn, and given them His covenant as His holy people. Israelites following the laws restricting them to holy food would been proclaiming the truth that Yahweh had made them His holy people (cf. Lev. 11:43-45). Thus, the restrictions had a positive message and meaning.

Holy Food, Holy Mission

As the holy people of Yahweh, set apart from the rest of the world as His special treasure, Israel had a special priestly calling, which the gift of the covenant at Sinai stressed. Their calling to be a royal priesthood indicated what it meant for Israel to be Yahweh’s firstborn. As royal priests, Yahweh’s firstborn would rule the world with Yahweh — just as Adam would have, had he obeyed Yahweh’s food laws. But Israel was to rule as a priestly nation, which meant the firstborn had a spiritual calling to bring blessing to all the nations of the world (Gen. 12:3). With the story of the fall in mind, it would not be difficult for a godly Israelite to understand that obeying the food laws which defined Israel as holy would be essential to fulfilling their mission to bring blessing to the world.

It is also significant that Deuteronomy begins the list of permitted animals with the three sacrificial animals which the priestly nation would offer to Yahweh for the forgiveness of their own sins and the sins of the world (Deu. 14:4). Eating meat was probably not an everyday matter for the common Israelite. But at the festivals each year there would have been an

37

abundance of the meat of the sacrificial animals, so that Israelites would have enjoyed their feasts in the presence of Yahweh (Deu. 12:7, 12, 18) — a profound reminder of their priestly calling and mission to bring blessing to the world.

Special Food, Special Love

Though we read the food laws as limits on Israel’s diet, that is not the way they were supposed to see them. That is why, in Deuteronomy, Moses begins by reminding the Israelites of Yahweh’s special love and calling, displayed so wonderfully in the Exodus and declared so profoundly at Sinai (Deu. 14:1-2). In this way, Moses’ introduction to the food laws was designed to protect the Israelites from the Satanic slander that had succeeded in the Garden. To Adam and Eve, Satan lied about the character of God. He slandered Yahweh’s name, implying that the food command in the Garden expressed mean-spirited jealousy, hatred, and petty mindedness. According to the Serpent, Yahweh’s command was not fatherly love intended to instruct His son, but Yahweh’s narrow, unloving demand. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were affirming Satan’s slander of Yahweh’s name.

Any prohibition, especially one that was seemingly arbitrary, could attract the same sort of slander. Since nations around Israel ate some of the forbidden foods, the slander that Yahweh was prohibiting Israel from enjoying good things could occur to an Israelite or be suggested by pagan neighbors. Moses, therefore, puts the food laws under the Third Word as defining what it means for the Israelites to bear the name of Yahweh in their daily life, to live as His beloved sons and special treasure. The food laws are prefaced by a reminder of Israel’s high calling and Yahweh’s covenant love, so that the prohibition of certain foods would be understood in connection with that special calling and parental love. Food laws that forbade serpent-like animals were especially appropriate for a priestly people who would draw near to Yahweh and bear His name in the world. Understanding the food laws rightly — in the light of the preface and the allusions to the Garden and the Exodus — would not only prevent Satanic slander or misunderstanding, but also, and even more, make the food laws a blessing, a reminder of Yahweh’s grace and love for His firstborn, as if the law read: “You are Yahweh’s beloved son and special treasure, therefore in love Yahweh has given you this special diet.”

Alluding to the law in Deuteronomy

38

Deuteronomy 14:2 is almost an exact repetition of Deuteronomy 7:6. There is, therefore, no question about the fact of the allusion. But it is an allusion to a law, not a story. In this case, it is important to remember that, as I explained before, an allusion to a previous passage is intended to bring to mind the whole context, not simply the repeated words. Recalling the whole context in Deuteronomy 7 makes the reason for the allusion clear.

When Yahweh thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when Yahweh thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them: thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Yahweh be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly. But thus shall ye deal with them: ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire. (Deu. 7:1-5) For thou art a holy people unto Yahweh thy God: Yahweh thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. (Deu. 7:6)

Israel’s holy calling required that Israelites avoid Gentile idolatry

completely and entirely. In particular, no compromise with or mercy toward the nations of Canaan was permitted, for they were under the judgment of Yahweh’s wrath. The reminder of Israel’s holy status and the blessing of the covenant came also with a reminder of Israel’s calling to be an instrument in Yahweh’s hand to judge the Canaanites — the calling which Israel failed to fulfill when the holy people responded to the report of the 10 spies in unbelief, giving in to the slander of the serpent (Num. 13-14).

The food laws are prefaced, then, with a reminder that can be seen to constitute a warning as well. By alluding to a passage that repeats the command to judge the nations of Canaan, Moses also reminds Israel of their rebellion against Yahweh at Kadesh Barnea and their failure to believe

39

Yahweh’s promise, a theme that has been repeated in Deuteronomy (Deu. 1:19-46; 2:14-15; 9:22-24). Just as Adam’s obedience was tested with a simple command, Israel’s obedience would be tested by food laws. Trusting Yahweh and obeying Him as His holy people would bring success and blessing in the coming conquest because Yahweh loved His son Israel and delighted to bless him.

Alluding to laws in Leviticus As we have seen, there are two allusions to the laws in the book of

Leviticus. The more general allusion is to the food laws in chapter 11 of Leviticus. The second allusion is more narrow, but I believe it would not have been difficult for an ancient Israelite to discern, since the relatively rare Hebrew word translated “baldness” is only used twice in the whole law of Moses (Lev. 21:5; Deu. 14:1) and the basic content of the two passages is the same.

Priestly Laws of Mourning

By alluding to Leviticus 21:5, Moses directs the reader’s attention to a paragraph defining the laws of mourning for the priests. This might seem out of place in the introduction to the food laws, but it actually fits in well with the allusion to Exodus 19:1-6 in Deuteronomy 14:2 — the story of Yahweh making whole nation to be a royal priesthood. Thus, priestly nation had mourning laws that were similar to and related to the mourning laws for their priests.

Of course, for the nation as a whole to be Yahweh’s priests did not mean that there were no distinctions among priests, as Israel learned in the wilderness through the failed rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Yahweh had called the whole nation to holiness, but within the general priesthood given to the nation, there were distinctions. Aaron and Miriam had to learn a similar lesson with respect to Moses (Num. 12).

What is interesting here is that one feature of the mourning laws specifically given to the priests in Leviticus is repeated in Deuteronomy and applied to the Israelites as a whole — though other restrictions on the priest’s mourning are not applied to the nation. The fundamental issue was holiness, a calling shared by the nation with its priests and reiterated in Deuteronomy 14:2 in a progression of thought that is basically the same as the passage in Leviticus 21:5-6. Note also the concern for Yahweh’s name, the concern of the Third Word.

40

They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy. (Lev. 21:5-6)

The allusion to this priestly law in Deuteronomy 14:1, therefore, ties in

with the emphasis on Israel as the special priestly nation and to the special demands placed on a holy people. Specifically, they are called to avoid Gentile customs, — probably associated with idolatry (cf. 1 Kings 18:28) — that would bring defilement. Obedience to the food laws, which would constitute the Israelites as a distinct people, were similarly a way in which they honored the name of Yahweh and lived a holy life as those who are near Him, His priestly people.

Levitical Food Laws

The meaning of the narrower allusion is made more clear by the allusion to the food laws of Leviticus 11, perhaps the first portion of the law an Israelite would remember as he read Deuteronomy 14:3-21. The law in Leviticus stands out especially because of the well-known words near the conclusion.

For I am Yahweh your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that moveth upon the earth. For I am Yahweh that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. (Lev. 11:44-45)

The emphatic statement “for holy am I” occurs in those exact words

only four times in the Old Testament, all in Leviticus (Lev 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:26; 21:8). In each occurrence, the people of Israel are called to imitate Yahweh’s holiness as His called and chosen holy nation. The food laws in

41

Leviticus are emphatically laws of holiness for the nation called to be priests to the Holy God.

Note how in the paragraph below, which briefly repeats the essence of the food laws, there is similar emphasis on the relationship between food laws and Israel’s call to live as Yahweh’s holy people.

Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all mine ordinances, and do them; that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out. And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey: I am Yahweh your God, who hath separated you from the peoples. Ye shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean fowl and the clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by bird, or by anything wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I, Yahweh, am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be mine. (Lev. 20:22-26)

Nadab and Abihu

There is something more implied in the emphasis placed on making distinctions between clean and unclean animals. In Leviticus the repeated command to make a distinction between clean and unclean (Lev 11:47; 20:24–26) is grounded in the story of Nadab and Abihu, whose failure to make proper distinctions in their priestly service cost them their lives. Immediately

42

after Nadab and Abihu are judged by Yahweh, and Aaron is forbidden to mourn for his sons, Yahweh adds this instruction.

And Yahweh spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: and that ye may make a distinction between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which Yahweh hath spoken unto them by Moses. (Lev. 10:8-11)

Nadab and Abihu had failed to make the distinctions they should have

made between the holy and the common, the clean and the unclean. At least that would seem to be the implication of this law forbidding the priests to drink alcohol when they go into the Tabernacle. Apparently Nadab and Abihu were drunk, which led to their indiscretion. They violated their call to holiness. Since they were holy leaders in a nation that was called to imitate Yahweh’s holiness, the incident held special significance, for it constituted the fall of the priests, just as the sin of worshipping the Golden Calf at Sinai constituted the fall of the priestly nation.

The incident with Nadab and Abihu is subtly alluded to in Leviticus 20 (quoted above) as it points back to the food laws of chapter 11 with its call to imitate Yahweh’s holiness. Leviticus 20 repeatedly emphasizes the importance of making distinctions, using a key verb four times. This is not evident in English because English usage demands different words be used. I have put the key verb in italics below.

I am Yahweh your God, who hath separated you from the peoples. (20:24) Ye shall therefore make a distinction . . . (20:25) . . . which I have separated from you as unclean. (20:25) And ye shall be holy unto me:

43

for I, Yahweh, am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be mine. (20:26)

The emphatic repetition of the key word from Leviticus 10 would serve

to remind Israelites of Nadab and Abihu’s sin and warn them of the importance of making appropriate distinctions, for as a priestly people they drew near to Yahweh to serve Him in His house. These associations all belong to the food laws in Leviticus. In Deuteronomy 14, Moses’ allusions to Israel’s sonship, the priestly mourning laws of Leviticus 21:5-6, Israel’s mission to conquer Canaan (Deu. 7:1-6) and the gift of priestly status at Sinai (Exo. 19:1-6) all combine with the allusion to the food laws in Leviticus both to encourage Israelites by the reminder of Yahweh’s gracious love and to warn them by the reminder of their past failure and the failure of Nadab and Abihu. The set of allusions bring to mind both the grace of the covenant and the weight of priestly responsibility.

Allusions and Daily Life

Assuming that an intelligent reader could and would note all the

allusions here, we need to consider the implications of such a meditation for daily life as a godly Israelite. What would mediation on these allusions mean? The answer, I believe, is at least fourfold.

Faith, Worship, War

For the ancient Israelite first hearing Moses’ sermon, or perhaps hearing it read again for the 30th time, the allusions to the Exodus and his special privilege as a son of God would strengthen his faith and encourage his worship of God. For understanding the allusions would help him see what it means that he bears the name of Yahweh not only in special worship, but also in everyday life in the food he eats or the food he rejects.

In special worship, the ancient Israelites faced a complex reality. On the one hand, a system of worship that forbade anyone but priests to enter the tabernacle told them in no uncertain terms that they were not worthy to enter Yahweh’s house. They could offer Him sacrifices, but they had to stand in the yard outside the house. Only special representatives could go in, and even then most of them were not allowed into the throne room of His presence. That was reserved for the most special representative who was only allowed to enter the throne room one day of the year for a brief ceremony. Does this sound strange? Perhaps it does, but in ancient Israel this law had a special

44

purpose. For the whole priestly system and the forbidden house were designed to remind Israel of Adam’s sin and the fact that mankind had been cast out of the Garden with him.

On the other hand, however, the fact that the Creator of the world had chosen the children of Israel out of all the peoples on the earth and had made His abode with them communicated His grace and love in terms no less clear and certain. The declaration that they were the “sons of Yahweh” and the reminder that He views the nation as His “special treasure” would encourage the Israelites to approach Yahweh without fear, trusting in the mercy and grace of the God who saved them from Egyptian bondage.

Trusting in Yahweh’s love and grace and rejoicing in His goodness, of course, would mean enthusiastic participation in the sacrificial worship system, including both respect for the priestly system that keeps them away from Yahweh — in contrast, for example, with Korath, Dathan, Abiram, and On (Num. 16) — and also thankfulness for redemption from Egyptian bondage — the theme of Passover, which began every new year, and the Sabbath day (Deu. 5:13-15), which ended each week.

Beyond this, worship for the ancient Israelite was connected to warfare in ways that most Christians do not think of. To begin with, the conquest generation could not worship Yahweh and at the same time refuse to go into the land and fight against the Canaanites. To believe in and worship Yahweh necessarily meant to fight His battle. If they were the sons of Yahweh and His holy people, they had to fight the holy war that He commanded them to fight. The allusion to Deuteronomy 7:1-6 would bring to mind the responsibilities of holy war for the people who have been blessed to be called His “special treasure.”

But that is not all. Even though “holy war” in the narrow sense would be over when the land of Canaan was conquered, there was another war implied by the food laws — a war against idolatry and the Serpent. Referring to forbidden food as “abominable” (Deu. 14:3) reminded the Israelite of Gentile immorality (Lev. 18:22, 26–27, 29–30; 20:13) and idolatry (Deu. 7:25–26; 12:31; 13:14). Their separation from immorality and idolatry was part of the blessing of being Yahweh’s holy people, but it was also a call to the spiritual battle against idolatry in their own hearts and a political battle against all attempts to reestablish idolatry in the land.

The fact that the “abominable” animals were animals that were in one way or another reminiscent of the serpent in the Garden would remind the godly Israelite that the real battle was against the Serpent himself. Throughout history the seed of the woman and the seed of the Serpent would be locked in deadly combat until the true Seed of the woman appeared who

45

would defeat Satan and free man from bondage. Until He appeared, they were to fight in faith. Every act of sincere worship, in which the name of Yahweh was “lifted up” righteously, was a blow struck against the foe.

Self-consciously Wearing Yahweh’s Name

I argued in an earlier chapter that in Deuteronomy 14:1-21 Moses sermonizes on the Third Word. Thus, the allusion to Exodus 4:22-23 and the declaration that each Israelite is a son of Yahweh his God was intended to impress on the ancient Israelites the fact that they “carry” the name of Yahweh all the time, everywhere they go, in all that they do. Just as Moses’ instruction about the First Word included an exhortation to love Yahweh and keep His words on their hearts (Deu. 6:5-6), so also his instruction on the Third Word would impress them with Yahweh’s love for them and their responsibility to live as His children.

As we saw, the law forbidding pagan mourning customs links to the mourning law for the priests in Leviticus (21:1-6). Also, the allusion to Exodus 19:1-6 reminded the Israelites that they were a priestly nation. It would be clear, then, that the prescribed priestly conduct was intended to picture to the nation the life of Yahweh’s priestly people. The high priest in particular was the representative Israelite. He wore on his chest the breastplate with the stones for the twelve tribes and on his shoulders the names of the twelve tribes inscribed in stone, as if to say that in his every movement he carried the twelve tribes with him. His work was the work of the whole nation. But even more important than the name of the tribes on his shoulder and their stones on his breastplate was the name of Yahweh on his forehead: “Holy to Yahweh” (Exo. 28:36-38). The high priest bore the name of Yahweh as His representative.

In a secondary sense, then, for the people of Israel to be Yahweh’s sons and a priestly nation meant that they, too, always bore the name of Yahweh. Their clothing marked them out as Yahweh’s people because of the blue tassels they wore, pointing to the blue in the tabernacle and the priests’ clothing.29

And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them tassels on the wings of their garments

29 Every use of the word “blue” in the five books of Moses is to the tabernacle or the priests’ clothing, except the one reference to the tassels on the Israelites robes (Exo. 25:4; 26:1, 4, 31, 36; 27:16; 28:5–6, 8, 15, 28, 31, 33, 37; 35:6, 23, 25, 35; 36:8, 11, 35, 37; 38:18, 23; 39:1–3, 5, 8, 21–22, 24, 29, 31; Num 4:6–7, 9, 11–12).

46

throughout their generations, and that they put upon the tassel of each wing a cord of blue: and it shall be unto you for a tassel, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of Yahweh, and do them; and that ye follow not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to play the harlot; that ye may remember and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God. I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am Yahweh your God. (Num. 15:37-41)

Just as their clothing was to be a testimony to them of Yahweh’s love

and grace in order to remind them to do His commandments, the food laws also were to remind them to keep all of Yahweh’s commandments so that they would not profane the name of Yahweh by imitating Gentile idolatry, but “carry” His name righteously to honor Him.

Education and Food Laws

Instruction of the next generation was a high priority in ancient Israel. A godly Israelite would appreciate this deeply and probably think about education or understand his duty along the lines I suggest in what follows.

First, nowhere is the importance of educating the next generation more evident than in the book of Deuteronomy where the command to teach children the commandments of Yahweh is included in the application of the First Word as the daily expression of what it means to love Yahweh with all the heart.

Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh: and thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand,

47

and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates. (Deu. 6:4-9)

Second, in addition to this profound exhortation to devote oneself to

teaching the next generation, we are given a concrete picture of ancient instruction in the rules for teaching children at passover. Though it may not be entirely clear from the passage, it seems that Exodus 12:26-27 is establishing a sort of ceremonial form of instruction that would be repeated each year at the passover.

And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, “What mean ye by this service?” that ye shall say, “It is the sacrifice of Jehovah’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.” And the people bowed the head and worshipped. (Exo. 12:26-27)

Though encouraging children to be inquisitive may seem superfluous,

in this law godly curiosity is endorsed through a ritual in which children ask the meaning of the Passover. Of course, this sanction of natural curiosity in the celebration of Passover at the beginning of each year would have broader ramifications. Children would feel free to ask the meaning of other laws as well — which is, no doubt, exactly what Yahweh intended. In other words, the law in Exodus 12:26-27 corresponds to the instruction in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The one law commands parents to teach children; the other law encourages children to ask questions promiscuously.

We must also note that the answer to the question above is a story, however abbreviated. I assume that at Passover, the whole story would be told over and over, which is why the abbreviated form would communicate. But the point is, to the question, “What does this mean?” the answer is to be a story, not a philosophical discourse. Israel was called to be a story-oriented, story-full people.

It seems obvious, therefore, that the same process would be repeated with the food laws. Children would ask their parents what it means that some

48

animals are clean and others to be “detested.”30 It would have been easy to imagine why mice or cockroaches should be detested. But why should horses be detested? They have noble bearing and are beautiful animals. Children might also ask why the people in the caravans traveling through Israel ate pig meat, while it was forbidden to them. They would wonder why the aliens living with them were allowed to eat animals that died naturally, but they were not. In short, the food laws would have provoked multitudes of questions.

When children asked about the animals and food laws, the parents should have known how to respond because Deuteronomy alluded to stories to introduce the food laws — the story of the Garden and the story of the Exodus and the revelation of Yahweh at Sinai. These stories are rich enough that they can be told over and over from many different angles. And, of course, the stories themselves would provoke other questions.

Just as every Passover was a time of instruction, every meal afforded opportunity to remind parents and children of the story of the command in the Garden and Adam’s disobedience, the story of the promise of the Messiah and the first animal sacrifice, the story of Abraham and the patriarchs who received the covenant promises that were fulfilled in the Exodus, the story of Moses and Pharaoh, and the story of Sinai. Since the food laws spoke of Israel’s special calling to be different from the Gentiles and to fight against the Serpent until the coming of the Messiah, each meal could and should have been an opportunity to teach children by constantly rehearsing the stories and promises. The food laws were given to stimulate natural curiosity so that children could learn about and trust in the Messiah to come who would defeat the Serpent and free not only Israel, but all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:3).

Israel’s Mission and the Food Laws

A godly Israelite would have realized that the geography of ancient Israel was important. Every godly Israelite would have recognized that Yahweh gave His special people a strategically located land which linked Europe and Asia to Africa. The Cambridge Ancient History refers to a

30 Strictly speaking, the word “detestable” is not used for all unclean animals and is never used in Deuteronomy. In Leviticus, the Hebrew word “detestable” occurs 9 times, but it is only used of unclean fish, birds, and insects (Lev 7:21; 11:10–13, 20, 23, 41–42). However, in Deuteronomy a parallel word is used and translated “abomination.” In Deuteronomy 14:3, the word “abomination” seems clearly to cover all the unclean animals. Since the two words are rough synonyms, it seems fair to say that all the unclean animals are “detestable,” though the word “abominable” would be more correct.

49

“network” of trade-routes running through ancient Israel.31 These routes were profoundly important for trade between the great ancient empire of Egypt with kingdoms and empires in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia and Media or even further to the East. To have major trade routes on both sides of the Jordan river meant that numerous caravans would be traveling through Israel, carrying the riches of Egypt to Babylon and Persia, and vice versa. Since the land was about 180 miles long, it would have taken perhaps five days or more for a caravan to travel through it.32 Caravans would need places to rest, to water and feed their animals, and places to buy food (cf. Gen. 42:27).33

In other words, Yahweh led His people to a place where the world would come to them to hear the Gospel, so that every people could be blessed through Abraham. Confronting a new and different diet, travelers would almost certainly have asked the meaning of the food laws and customs. Given such an opportunity, Israelites were supposed to be ready to tell them stories, beginning with the story of the forbidden food in Genesis and continuing all the way to Sinai and the new laws of forbidden food that distinguished Israel as Yahweh’s beloved people.

If Israelites had kept the laws of Moses, it would have afforded them numerous opportunities to tell the story of Yahweh’s redeeming grace to Gentiles traveling through the land when they asked about the Israelites’ strange clothing and diet. The Sabbath would have been surprising to foreign travelers, who no doubt would have been amazed to see not only the Israelites resting one day in seven, but the slaves and animals resting, too.34 Even the Mosaic law of capital punishment for murder would have been surprising, since in other ancient Near Eastern societies murderers could usually buy their way out of punishment.35

31 The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by I. E. S. Edwards (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), Vol. II, part 2, p. 582. 32 A camel traveling 4 miles per hour for ten hours could cover 40 miles a day, but that seems like a hard pace to keep up for a long time. 33 The story of the Levite traveling through Gebeah suggests that in many places lodging for travelers depended on private hospitality (Jud. 19:15). Even though Gebeah was situated on or near a smaller trade route, it apparently had not developed inns by the time of the Judges. But in Jericho, Rahab ran an inn. So, even in ancient times, there was lodging and food for travelers in some cities. By the time of David and Solomon, trade would have developed much more and the major trade route on the coast would have been in Israel’s control, as well as port cities like Joppa and Ashkelon. 34 There was apparently no parallel to the Israelite Sabbath in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. See, John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), p. 35. 35 The laws of Ur Namu seem to demand the death penalty for murder [Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995), p. 72.] But the Hittite laws specifically allow for compensation [Ibid., p. 215], which was

50

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have tried to show how a godly Israelite with a well-

educated and sanctified imagination might have meditated on Deuteronomy 14:1-21. There was much for him to consider. The rich web of allusion in these verses invited the ancient Israelite to mediate on his special calling and to remember Yahweh’s gracious love in order to encourage him in the face of temptation. It was not only the nation as a whole that was Yahweh’s son, each individual Israelite, too, was given that name. Because the nation was Yahweh’s special treasure, so were the individuals that made up its people. This testimony of Yahweh’s love meant that in a secondary sense each Israelite could be thought of as bearing Yahweh’s name in a manner analogous to the high priest, who had Yahweh’s name inscribed in gold on his forehead.

Among the allusions were some that would remind him of the sin of Adam in the Garden as well as the sin of Israel at Kadesh. The Israelites who first heard Moses’ sermon knew they faced great battles ahead and that they must not imitate Adam’s disobedience or that of their fathers. Related to this, food laws would have had special significance for people who for forty years had been eating mostly manna. Their diet was about to change, but they had to enter the land first. The food laws covered what they could and could not eat after they crossed the Jordan when the manna had ceased. Thus, prefacing the food laws with allusions to stories reminding Israelites of past sin should have spiced each meal with warning and encouragement.

The detestable animals, with their Gentile-like violence and serpent-like closeness to dirt, would also remind Israelites that they had been delivered from Egypt in order to serve Yahweh as His special people. They were not to live like the Gentiles or worship their gods. Rather, they were part of a history-long spiritual battle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. When the true Seed of the woman appeared, He would deliver them.

All of this counted as very practical instruction in what it means to bear the name of Yahweh. Since they lifted up His name in praise and prayer, the Israelites were called to a lifestyle like that of the sacrificial animals. Most

apparently most common [A Companion to the Near East, ed. by Daniel Snell (Malden, MA.: Blackwell), p. 162]. However, there seem to have been significant variations among societies. Conclusions are somewhat difficult because the information available is partial at best [A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. by Raymond Westbrook (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 77-79, 130, 176, 515-518, 644-649, 810-811, 961-962, etc.].

51

especially, they were to eat every meal in hope for the coming Messiah who would crush the head of the Serpent.

52

Chapter 6 A Christian Meditation on Deuteronomy 14:1-21

In the nature of the case, “the” Christian meditation on Deuteronomy

14:1-21 cannot be written. Meditation offers too many possibilities, opens too many doors. There is not one and only one correct set of associations for a Christian to consider when thinking of Deuteronomy 14:1-21. We could consider how Israel kept or did not keep the laws here and what those laws mean for us now as Christians. We could meditate on the whole notion of sonship from its beginning in the Garden of Eden to its culmination in the revelation of the Son of God. We could also consider almost endless questions about what it means to “wear” the name of God. The list goes on. So, I do not imagine that what I have to offer can even cover most of the bases, let alone be a full exposition.

No More Clean and Unclean

I can, however, address the basic issue. In the new covenant there is no

more distinction between clean and unclean. This is most fundamental and important. It seems that from the time of the fall, there was a distinction between clean and unclean animals. At least from the time of Noah, the distinction was well known, for Noah took seven of the various clean animals, instead of just two, so that he could offer sacrifice after the flood (Gen. 7:2-5; 8:20-22).

Erasing the distinction between clean and unclean animals is tantamount to creating a new world, which is exactly what Jesus did. The old world of the flesh and fallen Adam was the world in which clean and unclean animals dwelt. It was the world in which the old Israel lived and worshiped God. It is profoundly important to teach Christians that Jesus changed the world, that His death and resurrection created a new reality in which the old distinctions have been done away and replaced with something better.

Jesus and the Clean/Unclean Distinction

Jesus’ most profound comment on the food laws comes in a passage in

which He is rebuking the Pharisees for exalting their own traditions above God’s law. As James Jordan explains, Jesus’ comments here critique the Jewish laws that were added to Scripture, not the Biblical food laws per se. But after Jesus’ resurrection, Peter, who stands behind Mark’s Gospel, saw that

53

Jesus’ instruction here had broader and deeper implications that what anyone noted at the time.

And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? (This he said, making all meats clean.) And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:14-23)

The words in parenthesis — This he said, making all meats clean — are

Peter’s later reflection on the profound meaning in Jesus’ words. But until the cross, these words were not wholly in effect. What Jesus said was indeed true. It would have been true in Moses’ day as well. If an Israelite was starving and in need of something to eat, and if the only thing that presented itself at the time was a pig, he would not be defiling himself in any deep sense by eating it. Real defilement comes from within man’s heat, from which every sort of sin and evil proceeds. Yahweh was never more concerned with pork than with covetousness, adultery, murder, or theft. The food laws were intended to be educational, not to define certain animals as having a sort of quasi-magical power to defile.

However, it was Jesus’ death on the cross that reconciled all things unto God, thus removing the distinction between clean and unclean, as well as making the whole world holy in principle. There are now no especially

54

“holy” places in the sense in which the word was used in the Old Testament.36 What Jesus taught in Mark 7 pointed forward to new covenant realities.

Peter and the Clean/Unclean Distinction

Even though Jesus taught about clean and unclean in a way that pointed to the erasing of the distinction, His disciples obviously did not grasp what He said. So, when God granted Peter a vision of clean and unclean animals and told Peter to eat indiscriminately, Peter objected.

Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour: and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance; and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean. And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common. And this was done thrice: and straightway the vessel was received up into heaven. (Act 10:9-16)

Just as Peter rebuked Jesus when He spoke of going to the cross (Mar.

8:32), in Acts 10, Peter attempts to correct God: “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.” The translation above makes clear one aspect of the meaning that some translations obscure. For Peter to refuse to eat would be to “make” common what God had cleansed. To refuse 36 I qualify my statement because there may be places where the people live a much holier lifestyle than others, and so the place may be “holy” in that sense. But in the old covenant, the holiness of a place had to do with God’s presence and manifestation. There were gradations of holiness, the temple being the most holy general area, and within the temple, the most holy place being the holiest of all spaces. There is nothing corresponding to that now in the new covenant era. God dwells in each individual who believes in Him. The church has become the new holy place.

55

to eat pork, for example, for religious reasons is to “make” pork unclean, in spite of the fact that God has already cleansed it. What does that mean?

As I pointed out above, we have to remember that the distinction between clean and unclean was introduced by the fall. In the original creation, all was clean. Holiness and unholiness are not quite the same. Differences in the degree of holiness are differences in nearness to God, so it can be said that even apart from sin, there would have been some places more holy than others. Without the fall, however, there would not have been any place, thing, or person who was unholy, just some that were less holy. The full system of clean-versus-unclean and holy-versus-unholy that was established by the Mosaic law presupposed the fall of Adam and the destruction that sin had brought into the original harmony of the creation.

Jesus’ death on the cross changed all of that. The world that had been undone by Adam was reconciled by Christ, so that in principle — though not yet wholly in fact — the world was restored and even exalted. Paul says that Christ reconciled “all things unto Himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens” (Col. 1:20). The disharmony that entered the world through sin was done away and peace was won. There cannot now be an unclean person, thing, or place, and no food that should be regarded as an “abomination” or “detestable.”

For men now, after the cross, to maintain the dietary rules of the old covenant and to insist that certain foods are unclean is to deny the efficacy of the cross and attempt to drag man back to the covenantal situation prior to the cross. It is a form of rejecting Christ and the cross, even though a man who does it, like Peter did, may have no such intention.

The vision to Peter made clear to early Christians that there could be no more clean and unclean. In the case of Peter’s vision, God communicated that Gentiles could be accepted equally with Jews through faith in Christ and baptism. But this was as hard to digest as pork, so Peter continued to struggle with the issue, as we see in Galatians when Paul had to rebuke Peter publicly for refusing to eat with Gentiles (Gal. 2:11-21).

Conclusion

Christians in the era of the new covenant have much to learn from the

law of clean and unclean foods. But it is not something that applies directly, as if these laws prescribed a truly Christian diet. It is, rather, the symbolism of the law as originally given and as fulfilled in Christ that makes these laws especially edifying for Christians.

56

An intelligent and godly Israelite in Joshua’s day would refuse pork not only because God said to do so — though, of course, that would have been sufficient reason — but also because he would have perceived the relationship between pigs and serpents, and because he would have understood that God forbade all animals that were similar to the tempter. If he thought deeply enough, he might have understood that serpent-like animals must not be eaten until the Messiah comes, who will defeat the devil. To eat serpents is to have complete victory over them, but not until the Messiah comes would anyone be able to confess their faith in Him by eating pork.

For Christians, therefore, eating pork should not merely be seen as equal to eating beef or chicken. Pork or shrimp are special in the sense that foods that were unclean under the law are now clean specifically because of the cross of Christ. They are victory foods. By eating what was formerly unclean, we are confessing our faith in the victory of Christ and the cross. We eat the serpent because Jesus defeated him.