Section V: Some Private Observances.
SECTION V: SOME PRIVATE OBSERVANCES
§ 23. In the category of ceremonial laws there are also some private observances, commanded by God in the Old Testament, regarding food, drink, and other aspects of private life.
The distinction between clean and unclean animals.
This class includes: (I) The distinction between clean and unclean animals, given in Leviticus 11 and repeated in Deuteronomy 14.
** The distinction between clean and unclean animals was known in the church even before Moses, as shown from Gen. 7:2. Furthermore, the cleanness of animals was twofold, one with respect to sacrifice, which is discussed in Leviticus 1, 3–5; and the other with respect to food, which is discussed in Leviticus 1. You see, some animals could be eaten and offered to the Lord (such as oxen, sheep, and goats), but others were allowed to be used for food but not for sacrifices (such as deer and young mules). Some animals were considered unclean for either (such as the pig, horse, donkey, and dog). **
The general rules were: (1) Animals that chew the cud but do not have cleft hooves were prohibited; that is, the Israelites were forbidden to use them for food. (2) Kinds of fish that have fins and scales were clean, and those lacking either of these were unclean. (3) Winged creatures which went on all fours were considered unclean, that is, if their legs were joined to their bodies in such a way that they could not hop but were forced only to crawl. Also, the kinds of vultures and ravens and, in general, birds of prey and ill-omened birds were considered unclean. (4) Almost all reptiles were forbidden. These rules are detailed with a listing of a variety of animal species and qualified with exceptions in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Not even the rabbinic scholars agree among themselves when it comes to identifying the names used specifically for the forbidden animals. (Concerning this, see Münster, on Leviticus 11.)
There were three main reasons for these prohibitions: (1) Typological, for they symbolized that before God the human race was so corrupted and contaminated through sin that it could not use many creatures of God which were good of their own kind. Also, the regenerate should be zealous for true spiritual cleanness. Luther wove the following allegory: the cleft hooves denote the spirit of prudence and discretion necessary for deciding spiritual matters; chewing the cud denotes zeal for and diligent rumination on the heavenly Word. Irenaeus (Advers. haeres., bk. 5, ch. 11):
Those who reject the counsel of the Spirit and instead serve the pleasures of the flesh and live irrationally, these the apostle calls “carnal” (etc.). The law about animals foreshowed all these things in figures and described man, for it declared clean all [animals] that have cleft hooves and chew the cud but removed as unclean all animals that lack either or both of these [qualities]. Now who are the clean? Those who firmly hold through faith to the Father and the Son. This is [signified by] the steadiness21 of those creatures with cleft hooves. [The clean] also “meditate on the words of God day and night” [Ps. 1:2] that they may be equipped with all good works, for this is the meaning of those which chew the cud. The unclean animals, which have neither cleft hooves nor chew the cud, are referred to the heathen who neither have faith in God nor meditate on His words. Those which do chew the cud but do not have the double hoof are referred to the Jews, who have the words of God on their lips but do not affix the stability of their root in the Father and the Son. Those which have the double hoof but do not chew the cud are referred to heretics and hypocrites, who say that they believe in the Father and the Son but do not meditate on the words of God and are not adorned with righteous works.
Lactantius (Div. instit., bk. 4, ch. 17):
God ordered the Jews to abstain from pork, intending especially that they should abstain from sins and uncleanness, for this is a muddy and unclean animal. It never looks up to heaven but devotes its whole body and mouth to the dirt and is always a slave to its belly and food. Its whole life long it cannot be of any other use, the way the other animals can, for some serve as transportation for someone to ride on, some help in cultivating the fields, some pull wagons with their neck, some carry loads on their back, some provide clothing with their fleece, some overflow with a supply of milk, and some keep watch by protecting homes. Therefore He forbade them to make use of the flesh of swine, that is, that they not imitate the life of swine which are fed only to be slaughtered; that they not, serving pleasures and their belly, become useless for doing righteousness and be struck by death; also, that they not indulge themselves in shameful lusts like a pig gorging itself on filth; that they not serve images made of dirt and befoul themselves with mud, for they besmear themselves with mud who worship the gods, that is, mud and dirt. In this way all the commands of the Jewish law serve to display righteousness, since they were given through obscurity so that, through the figure of the carnal, the spiritual might arise.
These are Lactantius’s words. Thus the prohibition of predatory animals should have been a discouragement from rapine and injustice. Thus Eusebius says (De praeparatione evang., bk. 8, ch. 3):
Under this mystery regarding food Moses wanted to teach the stiff-necked and unbridled Israelites those things which have to do with righteousness and piety, for he forbade them to eat animals and birds which live off of prey and death, and he did so for no other reason than to discourage them from plunder and murder by the symbolic [meaning] of this law. Moreover, he forbade them to eat the flesh of swine to warn the Jews to be very careful to avoid those things which defile the body externally and the soul internally, and soberly not to live like swine in dirt and filth, for the pig is a friend to mud and slimy places in which it wallows and delights.
(2) Legal, for by this ordinance God wanted to distinguish the Jews from the Gentiles until the times of the New Testament when the distinction of foods was removed, so that “all things are clean to the clean” (Titus 1:15). Thus those who command abstaining from certain foods and have reintroduced that distinction into the church are said to be “sowing the doctrine of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). As to the fact that at the Council of Jerusalem the apostles ordered people to abstain from what had been strangled and from blood (Acts 15:20), this was temporary, established only temporarily at certain times for reasons explained quite often [cf. On the Law of God (Commonplace XV), § 182]. Justin (Dial. cum Tryphone, p. 183): “God commanded you to abstain from some foods so that, even in your eating and drinking, God may be before your eyes, for you are still quick and inclined to fall away from knowing Him.” In QQ. et resp. ad orth. (q. 35): “God wanted the Jews to be under the yoke of bondage to the Law with respect to eating foods, just as with everything else.” Ibid.: “In Egypt all animals (except swine) had been given by God, which is why He called some living creatures clean and others unclean. He entrusted the clean ones to them to kill as sacrifices and forbade them even to use the unclean as food. In both ways He was showing them that these things were unworthy of the name and honor of God—that is, both for killing for sacrifices and for use as foods, and through the fact that they are called unclean.”
(3) Bodily, for most of the prohibited animals are not very healthy to eat, especially in the warmer regions where the Israelites dwelled. Accordingly, with these ordinances God demonstrated that He is a physician for His people (Exod. 15:26), who suffers not only their souls but also their bodies to be His concern. Langius asserts (Epist., bk. 1, letter 42, from Justin): “The Jews22 were commanded to refrain from eating pork because of elephantiasis, a unique malady of Egypt at that time.” However, at the same time Langius says (Epist. 61) that Moses did not forbid the eating of pork as unhealthy, because it nourishes the most strongly of all foods, provided it be cooked, due to the great affinity it has with human flesh. The rabbinic scholars claim that the individual forbidden species of animals, fish, and birds were shown to Moses on the mountain, because Scripture says, “Eat this animal,” etc. They say that the reason for this distinction is that “unclean animals, when eaten by man, cause putrefying and various illnesses, hinder man in his service to God because they make him lazy and weary for doing good work, weaken his digestive power, and slacken the entire body into a bad temperament so that the soul is too weak to do anything good, much as if you put a brilliant lamp in a misshapen lampstand.”
Levitical uncleanness.
§ 24. (II) Levitical uncleanness or impurity also belongs here. This could be contracted in various ways: for instance, from contact with a woman in labor, a leper, one who suffers from a discharge, an unclean animal, dead flesh, etc. Against this uncleanness there were various washings and cleansings that had to be accomplished through sacrifices and other rituals. Here note that, of themselves and by their own nature, these uncleannesses were not sins before God nor was anyone befouled in his conscience by these absolutely and simply. Rather, they were Levitical uncleannesses; that is, they were sins in a certain respect, namely, with respect to transgressing the ceremonial law. You see, God not only published the moral Law to the Israelites on Mount Sinai but also prescribed to them the ceremonial laws which He wanted them to observe no less than the other, and this is why: with respect to this lawgiving, uncleanness was contracted from the kind of contact forbidden in the law. The corresponding sacrifices and other rituals for the cleansing of those uncleannesses sanctified the defiled “for the purification of the flesh” (Heb. 9:13), and likewise did not have the power to atone for sins before God—not of themselves nor by just doing the work nor by the dignity of the person—especially since the prophets very often disapprove of such hypocritical belief. Ps. 50:9–10, 13: “I shall not accept a bull from your house nor goats from your folds, for every beast of the forest is Mine. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?” Isa. 1:11, 13: “What is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? says Jehovah. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not want the blood of bulls or of lambs or of goats. Do not offer another false sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me.” Jer. 6:[20]: “Your burnt offerings do not please Me, nor are your sacrifices sweet to Me.” Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” Amos 5:22: “If you offer Me your burnt offerings and gifts, I shall not accept them, nor shall I regard the peace offerings of your fatted beasts.” Mic. 6:6–7: “Shall I please God with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will thousands of rams avail before Jehovah, or ten thousand rivers of oil?” In fact, even the Epistle to the Hebrews (10:4) says clearly that “it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Rather, the power to cleanse and purge is ascribed to those sacrifices and other rites typologically, according as they prefigured that one propitiatory sacrifice which Christ, the New Testament Priest, offered to the heavenly Father on the altar of the cross, by which all who are sanctified are perfected. Heb. 8:5: “The priests of the Old Testament serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Heb. 10:1–2: “The Law had only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the true form of the things. It can never make perfect those who draw near by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year. Otherwise they would have stopped being offered.”
Just as those uncleannesses were Levitical, exposing the inner uncleanness of sin, so the corresponding rituals of cleansing were also types, foreshadowing the unique cleansing from sin that comes to us through the blood of Christ. Leviticus 12 commands that a woman in labor be considered unclean so that we may be admonished about the spread of original sin through fleshly generation. The double time of uncleanness to be observed after the birth of a baby girl was a reminder that sin was brought into the world through a woman. For the cleansing of a woman who had given birth, a lamb was offered as a whole burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sacrifice, to signify that Christ, “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29), was offered on the altar of the cross to wash away the uncleanness of original sin. The fruit of this benefit overflows to us through true repentance in which we “moan like a turtledove” (Isa. 38:14) and, like pigeons, hide ourselves by true faith “in the clefts of the Rock” (Song 2:14), that is, in the wounds of Christ. Leviticus 13 commands that a leper be considered unclean so that we may be admonished about the leprosy of sin which makes us truly unclean before God. Leviticus 14 describes the rituals for expiating or cleansing. Two clean birds had to be brought, one of which was slain over an earthen vessel that had clean water which received the dripping blood; from the other bird, still alive, along with cedar wood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop, there would be a sprinkling by which the leper would be sprinkled seven times after those things had been dipped into the blood of the slain bird. All these things can be applied to our expiation before God, for we are sprinkled by the blood of Christ through the ministry of the Word that we may be cleansed from the leprosy of sin. Ps. 51:7: “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.” The herb hyssop is humble and lowly, as is the ministry of the Word before the eyes of men. The slain bird symbolizes Christ, who dies according to His human nature, whose blood cleanses us from sins. The living bird symbolizes the same Christ raised from the dead, who applies the benefits of His death through the ministry of the Word and Sacraments as a salutary sprinkling. The leprous house also denotes the corruption of sin, which we inherit even though the first parent of our race was the pure and holy dwelling place of God.
** The following were required for the cleansing of a leper: (1) Approaching a priest. This is required so that we approach Christ as our Physician and Priest. The leper would be brought (
, in the Hophal) by others; even so we cannot come to Christ by our own powers. The priest would go out from the camp. Origen (on Leviticus, homily 8): “Always to the one who cannot go inside the camp goes out the One who can go beyond the camp, who says, ’I came forth from God and am come into the world’ [John 16:28].” The priest would consider whether the leper had been healed; Christ does not only consider but actually heals us Himself. (2) The cleansing of the leper. This is a type for justification. Six things were required for it: (a) The blood of a clean bird, for two birds would be offered, and the second, which was dipped into the blood of the other, would be set free. Some think the bird that was to be sacrificed means that the flesh is to be put to death (Gal. 5[:24]), and the free bird [denotes] the spirit flying into heaven on the wings of prayer and devotion. However, sanctification, where mortification belongs, comes after justification. Origen thinks that the two lambs hint at the same thing, so that the meaning is that our soul, having been dipped into the blood of Christ, is set free. (See Psalm 124.) Theodoret (on Leviticus, q. 19): “The Lord Christ was crucified for mankind, which had been defiled with leprosy, His flesh suffering death while His divinity applied the suffering of the humanity to itself.” (See Acts 20[:28]: “the blood of God.”) (b) Cedar, which neither rots nor is eaten by worms. Some apply to this the fact that the worm of conscience does not harm those who have been justified. Origen takes it to mean the wood of the cross; and Theodoret, the divinity of Christ. It can be understood as Christ, who compares Himself to a green tree (Luke 23:31). (c) Scarlet yarn. Origen understands this as the blood of Christ; Theodoret, as His humanity which, like a twisted thread, consists of soul and body. It can be understood as repentance and the acknowledgment of sins which “are like scarlet” (Isa. 1[:18]). The scarlet color cannot be washed away. In this way our sins cannot be washed away except by the blood of Christ and by faith which, dyed with the red of Christ’s blood, unites us with Christ. (d) Hyssop, a lowly herb, fiery and fragrant, having the power to drive out bad humors.23 It means the ministry, which is lowly in the eyes of men but is efficacious through the Holy Spirit, offers its sweet fragrance to consciences (2 Cor. 2[:15]), and drives out the stains of sins by absolution. (e) An earthen vessel. They apply 2 Cor. 4[:7] to this. It can be applied to the earthly means—the pulpit, font, altar, etc.—at which we are sprinkled with the blood of Christ. It can be referred to the emptying of Christ [Phil. 2:7] in which He took up our frailty. (f ) Flowing water. This denotes Baptism (Eph. 5[:26]). The blood of Christ mixed with this causes the purple flow. Christ the cedar, united with the ministry of hyssop and the scarlet yarn of faith, washes us with His blood in the water of Baptism. The sprinkling occurs seven times; so Christ shed His blood seven times. The number seven can also be applied to perfection and to repetition throughout life. (3) The purging of the cleansed person. This symbolizes renewal. Here there is: (a) The washing of clothes and the body, which symbolizes the repentant tears shed because of internal and external sins. (b) The shaving of hair, which denotes the mortification of the old Adam. (c) Admission into the camp. Even so, we, purged through Baptism, are ushered into the church. (4) The perfecting of the purging. This includes: (a) Waiting for the seventh day, which symbolizes the Last Day, the jubilee, the day of rest. (b) The repeated cleansing. In this way we shall be cleansed from every stain of sin by drying out.24 (5) The admission of the cleansed person into the tabernacle. So those clean from sin are ushered into the eternal dwellings. **
Leviticus 15 commands that one suffering from a discharge and a woman who is menstruating be considered unclean. These, too, symbolize inner uncleanness through and because of which even our good works are contaminated. Isa. 64:6: “All our righteousnesses are as menstrual rags.” Yet the works of the reborn are pleasing to God through Christ, who is our sanctification.
Whoever touched a dead body was considered unclean (Num. 19:13); this served to show that those who live in sins against conscience and are spiritually dead before God are detestable to God, and, as a result, others are also befouled by fellowship with them.
The spotless red heifer, burned in the fire, from whose ashes the purifying water was prepared (Num. 19:1[–10]), symbolizes Christ, the spotless Lamb of God, who was consumed by the fire of love on the altar of the cross, whose blood cleanses believers from every sin [cf. 1 John 1:7].
[Ordinances regarding food, clothing, and household chores.]
§ 25. (III) Finally, the ordinances to be observed regarding food, clothing, and household chores must be placed here. (1) In Lev. 17:10 and elsewhere, the eating of the blood of any animal is severely prohibited. In v. 11 the reason is added: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.”
** This was so that we might not only have reverence for the Creator of life, to whom the blood should be offered, but also that we might attribute some honor to the blood of the Mediator by which our expiation had to be accomplished. **
The Israelites were a stiff-necked people and prone to cruelty. Accordingly, they were forbidden to eat blood, lest by eating the blood of animals they might get the urge to shed human blood. In connection with this, it says “the soul of the flesh”—that is, the life of an animate creature—“is in the blood,” namely, because blood is the instrument nearest to the soul, “a kindly son of nature,” as Avicenna says. Justin (QQ. et resp. ad orthod., q. 145): “If the flesh and blood consist of the same things, then why does God permit eating the flesh of living creatures but forbids the use of the flesh in the blood? So that by this God might distinguish us from the inhumanity and likeness of beasts which in tearing the flesh also lick up the blood of those animals whose flesh they devour.” Furthermore, in the sacrifices the blood of clean animals was offered upon the altar, and for that reason God wanted the Israelites to restrain themselves from eating the blood in honor of the sacrifices. Morally this law refers to all cruelty being forbidden as well as every symbol thereof. However, typologically it refers to the shedding of Christ’s blood (Heb. 10:29).
(2) Lev. 17:15 forbids eating carrion and flesh that is torn by beasts. This was to symbolize that we must abstain from dead works. There is also the underlying medical reason that such food is not at all consistent with good health.
(3) Deut. 22:6 forbids fowlers from taking from a nest a mother with her chicks. This was to avoid the appearance of cruelty, to preserve the propagation of birds, and for the hatred of those who do evil, who would abuse the mother and her chicks captured at the same time. It also symbolized the arrest of only Christ in the garden as His disciples fled freely, etc.
(4) Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:9 forbid sowing a vineyard with different kinds of seeds and also making a garment of different kinds, out of wool and linen; [it was forbidden] to plow with an ox and a donkey at the same time in order to signify that Samaritanism25 and all syncretism of differing religions displease God.
** Calvin (commentary on the Pentateuch, edition of ’95, p. 176) applies it in this way: “That the seeds of different religions not be mixed in God’s field, which is the church.” Konrad Pellikanus (commentary [on the Pentateuch], f. 146): “That a field was not to be sowed with mixed seed seems to be an allegory against hypocrisy in words and deeds and against all iniquity; as also the rule about clothes woven of wool and linen mixed seems to teach that false doctrine must not be mixed with the true and that worldly life must not be peddled under religious garb.” **
(5) In Num. 15:38 and Deut. 22:12 they are ordered to make for themselves tassels of blue cords and to attach them to the four corners of their garments so that they may be reminded of the Commandments of God. Deut. 6:6–7, 9: “These words which I command you this day will be upon your heart, and you shall repeat them to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down and when you rise. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Weidner, a converted Jew (Loc. praecip. fid. Christ., tract. 1, p. 141): “Those four tassels were [made] of cords but doubled, having three knots on their upper part but two on the lower. The four cords signify the four seasons of the year, and the doubled cords signify day and night, so as to remind them of God’s Commandments throughout the four seasons of the year and, in fact, throughout the entire year, day and night. For the three upper knots designate the Trinity of persons, and the two lower ones designate the two Testaments, namely, the Law of Moses and the Gospel.” Those are Weidner’s words.
(6) Exod. 23:19; 34:26; and Deut. 14:21: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” The reason for the commandment is: (a) Moral. It would be a sign of cruelty to snatch away a little kid, barely come to the light of day, from its mother. Thomas ([ST,] part 1, bk. 2, q. 102, art. 6): “He who practices having compassion on animals is thereby the more inclined to have compassion on people.” (b) Bodily. Such food is not very healthy for the human body. (c) Allegorical. Christ was not killed by Herod in early infancy but in full manhood. God does not subject a weak faith to overly grievous temptations, and so it becomes us to “support the one who is weak in faith” (Rom. 14:1). (See also Cajetan, commentary on this passage.)
(7) In Lev. 19:23 the “foreskin” of trees recently planted—that is, the fruits of the first three years—must be thrown away, so as to signify that our first birth according to the flesh was contaminated by sin before God. Gregory: “Fruit-bearing trees are works rich with virtue; we take away their foreskin when, mindful of the weakness of the beginning, we do not approve of the origins of our works.” Lyra gives two reasons for this precept: “(1) Because trees are less fruitful when they produce fruit too quickly. (2) Because idolaters thought that such fruits pleased the gods and offered them to idols.”
(8) In Lev. 19:27–28 the Israelites are forbidden to “round off the hair on their temples or mar the edges of their beard, and not to make cuttings on their flesh for the dead,” etc. This law was warning them: (a) Not to conform themselves to idolaters who did such things to honor false gods (Baruch 6 [i.e., the apocryphal Letter of Jeremiah];26 1 Kings 18). (b) Not to pursue softness27 and frivolity in the care of their body nor to mourn immoderately the death of friends.
These, then, are the more important ordinances that had to be observed in food, drink, and household chores. To some they seem to belong more to the forensic rather than to ceremonial laws.