## 'Do Not Eat the Owl': Hearing Leviticus 11 as Christian Scripture

G. Geoffrey Harper

Sydney Missionary & Bible College, 43-45 Badminton Road, Croydon, NSW 2132, Australia.

gharper@smbc.edu.au

Abstract: Christian appropriation of OT legal material is a perennial crux interpretum . Evident,  is  a  spectrum  of  approaches,  from  Marcion-like  dismissal  on  the  one  hand through to theonomist appeals for re-enactment on the other. Within Western Christianity, the Reformation served to enshrine one approach in particular: a threefold division of the Law that distinguished between civil, ceremonial, and moral commands. However, while undoubtedly neat, such compartmentalization is highly problematic and has resulted in a myopic  view  of  OT  legal  material.  Leviticus  11  is  a  case  in  point.  While  regulations regarding  the  eating  and  touching  of  (un)clean  animals  remain  determinedly  central  to Judaism, Christian tradition since the early church has sidelined the pericope with equal determination. Even though the Reformation sparked a renewed interest in the reading of Scripture,  the  designation  (and,  arguably,  dismissal)  of  Leviticus  11  as  'ceremonial' merely  served  to  perpetuate  a  lacuna  regarding  the  enduring  relevance  of  this  text  as Christian  Scripture.  In  this  article  I  tease  out  how  Leviticus  11  might  be  better appropriated  by  employing  tools  derived  from  the  fields  of  speech  act  theory  and intertextuality. These tools allow for greater precision in describing what Leviticus 11 as a text is doing. It becomes apparent that while some illocutions performed by Leviticus 11  are  supervened  when  read  in  light  of  the  NT,  other  illocutions  persist.  These illocutions may be legitimately appropriated by Christian readers of the text with benefits for both faith and practice.

Keywords: Leviticus 11, food laws, hermeneutics, Old Testament preaching.

## 1. Reading Ritual Texts in the Church

Christian appropriation of OT law is a perennially vexed issue. The history of interpretation displays  a  wide  spectrum  of  approaches  from  Marcion-like  dismissal,  through  allegorical inventiveness, to theonomist appeals for re-enactment. 1

One  frequently encountered 'solution' for appraising OT  legal material in  Western confessional  churches  is  what  may  be  termed  a  'separation  hermeneutic.'  By  'separation hermeneutic'  I  refer  to  those  approaches  which  attempt  to  separate  what  is  continually binding upon the people of God from that which is temporal and limited. In what is arguably the  most  common  application  of  a  separation  hermeneutic,  the  legal  material  of  the Pentateuch is divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral categories. According to this schema, all  three  categories  are  understood  to  have  been  obligatory  for  Israel. 2 For  Christians, however, only the so-called moral law is usually regarded as holding any ongoing forcealthough theonomists and dispensationalists construe things differently. 3

* Earlier drafts of this article were presented to the Tyndale Old Testament Study Group, Cambridge (July 2017) and at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (November 2018). I am grateful to those who gave feedback and suggested refinements. Remaining flaws, of course, remain my own.

1  For a comprehensive overview, consult Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996-2013). For an exploration of the appropriation of OT law in the early Christian period, see Susan J. Wendel and David M. Miller, eds., Torah Ethics and Early Christian Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016).

Such  neat  categories  would  be  wonderful-if  they  worked.  But,  unfortunately,  as  many exegetes note, the matter is not so straightforward. While the separation hermeneutic outlined above rightly recognizes a measure of discontinuity between the Testaments, it faces at least three significant problems. First, both the idea of dividing the law into subcategories, as well as the designations used, run against the biblical portrayal which does not employ such labels and consistently, in both Testaments, treats the law as a whole (e.g., Josh 23:6; 2 Kgs 10:31; Matt 5:17-19; Gal 4:21; 5:3; Jas 2:10; cf. Philo QG 3.3). 4 Second, a separation hermeneutic is  open  to  the  charge  of  subjectivism:  who decides which  category a given  proscription or pericope belongs to? Third, there are passages that defy all attempts at categorization, thus leaving  their  ongoing  worth  undecided  (for  example,  Sabbath  observance).  A  separation hermeneutic, at least as it is often construed, generates as many problems as it solves.

Needless to say, it is not possible in an article-length treatment to present a comprehensive hermeneutic  for  OT  legal  material. 5 Nor  is  it  possible  to  engage  with  the  issues  at  an ecumenical level, incorporating viewpoints from Roman Catholic and Orthodox perspectives. The scope of this article is more limited and remains exploratory in relation to an intramural discussion  within  Reformed  hermeneutics.  My  goal  is  to  apply  insights  derived  from  the fields  of  speech  act  theory  and  intertextuality-fields  whose  recent  (re)development  has proven immensely valuable for biblical studies in other regards 6 -to an example legal text.

2 There is, of course, debate regarding how, if at all, the legislation was to be enacted. The year of Jubilee and the construction of the tabernacle are prime examples. For discussion of the former, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3B; New York: The Anchor Bible, 2001), 2241-48; for the latter, see Suzanne Boorer, The Vision of the Priestly Narrative: Its Genre and Hermeneutics of Time (SBLAIL 27; Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 296-326. Invariably, conclusions reached tend to reflect underlying presuppositions regarding dating and exigency.

3 For dispensationalists, operating with a strict divide between Israel and church, 'the law as a body of stipulations defining righteousness is no longer applicable to the church' (David K. Lowery, 'Christ, the End of the Law in Romans 10:4,' in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search For Definition [ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 246). The classic theonomist text remains R. John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (3 vols.; Philipsburg: P&R, 1973). For additional discussion of the theonomist position, see H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland: Multnomah, 1988). 4 See the helpful treatment in Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (NSBT 31; Downers Grove: IVP, 2013), 26-31. Rosner suggests that when νόμος is used in the NT to refer to Scriptures other than the Pentateuch (as, for example, in 1 Cor 14:21), this should be understood as synecdoche.

5 More substantive attempts, from a range of perspectives, can be found in the literature. See, most recently, Roy E. Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017) and James M. Todd III, Covenant Laws for the New Covenant Community (Downers Grove: IVP, 2017).

Sinai and the Saints: Reading Old 6 The literature on both fronts is vast. For summaries, see, respectively, Richard S. Briggs, 'The Uses of Speech-Act Theory in Biblical Interpretation,' CurBS 9 (2001), 229-76, and Geoffrey D. Miller, 'Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,' CBR 9 (2011), 283-309, Patricia Tull, 'Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures,' CurBS 8 (2000), 59-90, and Konrad Schmid, 'Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte,' in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65 Geburtstag (ed. Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid; BZAW 300; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 1-22.

My contention  is  that  this  combination  of  methodologies  can  help  to  clarify  the  enduring worth of OT ritual material for Christian readers by offering a more nuanced understanding of the range of actions the author was performing with the text.

I  have  chosen  Leviticus  11  as  a  test  case.  That  choice  is  not  arbitrary.  For  Israel,  food provided a mark of cultural distinctiveness vis-à-vis the goyim . Hence, the dietary regulations outlined in Leviticus 11 remain central to Judaism and, historically, have been strenuously defended (see, for instance, 1 Macc 1:62-63; 4 Macc 5:16-27; cf. Tob 1:10-11; m. Ḥul 310). Yet, on the other hand, most Christian traditions have ignored Leviticus 11 with the same determination,  especially  in  light  of  NT  passages  like  Mark  7  and  Acts  10-11. 7 So,  for example, none of the major Protestant confessions-the Sixty-Seven Articles (1523), the Ten Theses of Berne (1528), the First Confession of Basel (1534), the Geneva Confession (1536), the  French  Confession  of  Faith  (1559),  the  Scots  Confession  (1560),  the  Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvitic Confession (1566), the Bohemian Confession (1575), the Book of Concord (1580), or the Westminster Confession (1647)-contain any discussion of clean and unclean animals. 8

To proceed,  I  will  first  explore  the  influence  of  the  Reformation  on  the  appropriation  and interpretation of OT ritual texts before considering how speech act theory and intertextuality can  help  to  better  assess  how  Leviticus  11  meaningfully  contributes  to  life  and  faith  postChrist.

## 2. The Reformation's Call to Get Back to (Most of) the Bible

Ronald Heine notes that '[m]ajor things have happened in Christian history when individuals have rediscovered the Bible.' 9 That was certainly true of the Reformation. The path that led to Martin Luther nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg took its decisive turn in his reading of Romans 1-3. 10 Luther's encounter with the Scriptures gave him  new  tools  to  assess  the  Roman  Catholicism  he  had  inherited.  He  found  it  wanting. 11 Scripture,  not  tradition,  lauded  Luther,  is  the  only  sure  foundation  for  life  and  faith.  Even when assessing  his  own  contribution,  he  famously  declared:  'I  did  nothing;  the  Word  did everything.' 12 Accordingly,  catchcries  of  'Back  to  the  Scriptures'  and  ' sola  scriptura ' became  intrinsic  to  the  ideological  fabric  of  the  blossoming  movement,  an  ideology  that found  expression  in  the  study  of  original-language  manuscripts  and  the  proliferation  of vernacular Bibles. 13

7 Seventh Day Adventists are one notable exception. Leviticus 11 is marshalled to defend their stance on vegetarianism, or at least a non-pork diet. See Jiří Moskala, The Laws of Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus 11: Their Nature, Theology, and Rationale: An Intertextual Study (ATSDS; Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society, 2000), 368-69.

8 Moskala, Laws of Clean and Unclean , 68-69.

9 Ronald E. Heine, Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church: Exploring the Formation of Early Christian Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 15.

10 Luther writes, 'This passage in Paul became for me a gateway to heaven' (cited by Michael S. Horton, 'Scripture Alone: Luther's Doctrine of Scripture,' in The Legacy of Luther [ed. R. C. Sproul and Stephen J. Nichols; Sanford: Reformation Trust, 2016], 99).

11 See, for example, Luther's comments in his Large Catechism, in Theodore G. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 416.

12 Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, eds., Luther's Works (55 vols.; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986), 51:77.

The Reformation signaled a revolution in the church's engagement with the Scriptures. But what of OT ritual texts like Leviticus 11?

In the centuries that  preceded  the  Reformation,  allegorical  readings  of  Leviticus  11 predominated. 14 Jiří  Moskala  demonstrates  how  the  Church  Fathers  used  this  interpretative method  to  dejudaize  the  text  in  order  to  free  Christians  from  observing  its  regulations. 15 Luther, however, explicitly rejected the  allegorical  approach of his  forebears:  'Jerome and Origen contributed to the practice of searching only for allegories. God forgive them. In all of Origen there is not one word about Christ.' 16

In contrast, Luther's appropriation of OT law was determinedly shaped along Christological lines.  The  law's  preeminent  value  was  that  it  pointed  to  Christ.  Thus,  to  read  OT  ritual correctly, Luther avowed, one must focus on Christ, 'for he is the man to whom it all applies, every bit of it.' 17 However, locating the primary value of the law in its anticipation of Jesus had consequences for assessing its enduring worth. Elsewhere, Luther wrote, 'Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service.' 18 At  work here is Luther's rigid divide between law and grace, a divide made unambiguous in his commentary on John 1:17 where he states, 'grace and truth were not taught by the Law or given by Moses. Grace and  truth  draw  a  line  of  demarcation  between  Christ  and  Moses.' 19 For  Luther,  then,  the enduring  value  of  OT  law  was  truncated  by  the  advent  of  Jesus,  even  though  he  still recommended that 'we should look to [Moses] for examples of outstanding laws and moral precepts.' 20

13  Key moments included the production of a Hebrew grammar by Johann Reuchlin (1506) and Erasmus's Greek NT of 1516. See further, Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 136-44.

14 This approach to Leviticus 11 is already evident in the Letter of Aristeas (c. 170 BC) and was emulated by other early Jewish and Christian commentary. For an overview of the period, see Moskala, Laws of Clean and Unclean , 31-52. The Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 100) even denied that literal observance was intended, arguing instead that the legislation was only ever meant to teach spiritual truths through allegory. Thus, regarding Leviticus 11, 'Moses spoke with a spiritual reference . . . but they [the Jews] received them according to fleshly desire, as if he had merely spoken of [literal] meats. . . . Behold how well Moses legislated. But how was it possible for them to understand or comprehend these things? We then, rightly understanding his commandments [as allegory], explain them as the Lord intended' ( Barn . 10).

15 Moskala, Laws of Clean and Unclean , 51.

16 Pelikan and Lehmann, eds., Luther's Works , 54:47. There have been calls to reassess whether Origen and his hermeneutic have been fairly represented or merely caricatured. See Peter W. Martens, 'Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen,' Journal of Early Christian Studies 16 (2008), 283-317; Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 209-13.

17 Timothy F. Lull, ed., Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 130. Luther's application of his own dictum (ironically) led him towards what is best described as an allegorical approach, seen, for instance, in his discussion of Leviticus 8-10 in which Aaron is 'nobody but Christ alone' and Aaron's sons are interpreted 'to be ourselves' (130-31). Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation: (Sacred Hermeneutics) (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950), 26, hits the mark: '[Luther's] hermeneutical rules were far better than his exegesis.'

18 Lull, ed., Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings , 139.

19 Pelikan and Lehmann, eds., Luther's Works , 22:140.

20 Pelikan and Lehmann, eds., Luther's Works , 27:15.

John Calvin's interpretative approach to ritual texts was more explicit. In order to read 'the whole system of religion delivered by the hand of Moses' Christianly ,  Calvin  employed a hermeneutic  which  distinguished  between  moral  and  ceremonial  law. 21 The  moral  law,  he argued in the Institutes , continues to be binding for Christians: 'the Law has lost none of its authority,  but  must  always  receive  from  us  the  same  respect  and  obedience'  (2.7.15).  The 'case of ceremonies,' however, says Calvin, 'is different.' 'Christ by his advent put an end to their use' even while sealing their force and effect by his death. Thus, 'the truth is made clearer by their abolition than if Christ . . . were still figured by them as at a distance, and as under a  veil'  (2.7.16).  Ritual  texts,  therefore,  while  binding  upon  Israel  of  old,  have  their primary value for Christians in their foreshadowing of Jesus's ministry. Thus, when Calvin famously discussed the law's three uses, it was the moral law to which he referred, not the ceremonial. 22

This method of interpreting OT law during the Reformation was not de novo .  A separation hermeneutic  can  be  found  at  least  as  far  back  as  Justin  Martyr  in  the  second  century. 23 Although  not  using  the  same  terminology,  Justin  nevertheless  divided  the  law  into  two categories. 24 The first contained moral instructions which Justin avowed were universal and eternal.  His  second  category  concerned  ritual  matters.  Some  of  this  second  category  Justin understood as having 'a certain mysterious import' ( Dial . 24 25 ), by which he meant elements that  had  a  higher  spiritual  or  typological  value-for example circumcision (see Dial .  114). But  the  bulk  of  the  ritual  law,  Justin  states,  was  given  to  the  Jews  'on  account  of  [their] transgressions and the hardness of [their] hearts' ( Dial . 18); applied only to Israel; and was nullified  by  Christ.  Thus,  to  expect  these  aspects  of  the  ritual  law  to  have  universal significance would, for Justin, 'be ridiculous and absurd' ( Dial . 23). 26

The separation hermeneutic evident in Luther's, and particularly in Calvin's, reading of OT ritual thus stood in a long line of tradition, reflecting one of the methods used historically by the church to interpret the law. What the Reformation succeeded in doing, however, was to codify this  hermeneutical  approach and to make  it normative for  Reformed traditions. The Westminster Confession provides a notable example of such codification:

The  moral  law  doth  for  ever  [sic]  bind  all,  as  well  justified  persons  as  others,  to  the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect  of  the  authority  of  God,  the  Creator,  who  gave  it.  Neither  doth  Christ  in  the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

21 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008 [orig. 1559]), 2.7.1.

22 That is, the law functions (1) as a mirror to reveal sin; (2) as a means of restraining wickedness; and (3) as a means of urging obedience (2.7.6-12).

23 Rabbinic exegesis also drew a distinction between 'light' and 'heavy' commands (cf. Matt 23:2324), although the distinctions ran along different lines (circumcision, for example, was considered a 'heavy' command). See C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teaching (New York: KTAV, 1970), 316-17.

24 At least part of Justin's motivation for isolating an enduring function for Mosaic legislation was to rescue the OT from Marcionite claims (Susan J. Wendel, 'Torah Obedience and Early Christian Ethical Practices in Justin Martyr,' in Torah Ethics and Early Christian Identity [ed. Susan J. Wendel and David M. Miller; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016], 186, n. 27). See further, Theodore G.

Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law (SBLDS 20; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975), 4576; Heine, Reading the Old Testament , 48-52.

25 Text cited from Philip Schaff, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), ad. loc.

26 Justin argued that Christ, through special revelatory insight, aided interpreters to know which aspects of the law were eternal and which were not. See Wendel, 'Torah Obedience,' 182-83.

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship,  prefiguring  Christ,  his  graces,  actions,  sufferings,  and  benefits;  and  partly, holding forth instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. 27

While  the Westminster  Confession still regards OT  law  as being valuable for the regenerate-restraining corruptions, forbidding sin, portraying sin's punishment, and so forth (see  19.6)-it  is  by  no  means  apparent  how  its  ritual  or  ceremonial  aspects  work  in  this regard.  Instead,  by  making  a  separation  hermeneutic  a  confessional  matter  for  Protestant Christians, the Westminster divines contributed to the functional ignoring of the Pentateuch's ritual  material. 28 Texts  like  Leviticus  11  could,  seemingly  without  loss,  be  jettisoned  from lectionary and pulpit alike and left to the perusal of academics who inexplicably had a fancy for such unappealing morsels. 29 Reformation hermeneutics thus gave rise to a deeply ironic and no doubt unintended outcome: a call for Christians everywhere to return to the Bible, just not all of it.

The approach to OT ritual law promulgated by Reformation hermeneutics continues to wield considerable influence. 30 Willem VanGemeren, for instance, acknowledging his affinity with Reformed tradition, writes:

Each one of the Ten Commandments expresses the moral law of God, whereas most laws in the Pentateuch regulate the rituals and ceremonies (ceremonial law) and the civil life of Israel as a nation (civil laws). . . . The ceremonial laws, civil laws, and the penal code have been abrogated, and the moral law has received further clarification in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ. 31

27 The Westminster Confession, 19.3-5 (order altered); text cited from A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1958), 253.

28 There were, of course, other contributing factors that led to the neglect of ritual texts. The legacy of Julius Wellhausen, for instance, should not be underestimated in this regard. For a telling exploration of his influence, see Walter Brueggemann and Davis Hankins, 'The Invention and Persistence of Wellhausen's World,' CBQ 75 (2013), 15-31.

29 The sidelining of Leviticus at pulpit level-at least in twentieth-century North America-can be provisionally substantiated by the Best Sermons series published in three blocks by Newton (4 vols., 1924-27), Butler (10 vols., 1944-68), and Cox (7 vols., 1988-94). Of the 879 sermons represented across the twenty-one volumes, only two (0.22%) were based on a Leviticus text (16:2-3 and 19:1-2, 15-18). For further details and analysis, see Brent A. Strawn, The Old Testament Is Dying: A Diagnosis and Recommended Treatment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 28-38.

30 See also Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 4448, who supports a tripartite division of the law while also seeking to nuance the distinctions.

31  Willem A. VanGemeren, 'The Law is the Perfection of Righteousness in Jesus Christ: A Reformed Perspective,' in Five Views on Law and Gospel (ed. Wayne G. Strickland; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 30, 37. VanGemeren also recognizes the complexity of Israelite law within which various types of commands have been intertwined (31).

For VanGemeren, then, the ritual law has been done away with by Christ. 32 The moral law, however, is understood to be permanently binding. 33 VanGemeren offers Leviticus 19:18 as an example of the moral law's permanency:

the commandment 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Lev. 19:18) is defined in the context as an imitation of God: 'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy' (v. 2). Humans must  be  'holy'  in  their  love  for  fellow  humans.  How  can  they  avoid  interpreting  the commandment in such a way as to make it powerless? 34

Yet,  one  could  feasibly  apply  VanGemeren's  reasoning  to  the  ritual  text  of  Leviticus  11. Avoiding unclean animals is, like Leviticus 19:18, defined in context as an imitation of God: 'Be  holy,  because  I  am  holy'  (Lev  11:44). 35 Humans,  therefore,  must  be  'holy'  in  their choice  of  food.  VanGemeren's  own  question  thus  remains:  How,  then,  can  they  avoid interpreting the commandment in such a way as to make it powerless?

## 3. Reading Leviticus 11 as Christian Scripture

How  should  Christian interpreters approach Leviticus 11?  Employing  the separation hermeneutic bequeathed by the Reformation suggests Leviticus 11 has little or no enduring force for Christian readers. 36 The overt ritual concerns of the pericope warrant a classification of  'ceremonial.'  Therefore,  while  Leviticus  11  was  binding  for  Israel,  it carries  no obligations for the church-even more so considering the NT seems to explicitly repeal the need to observe clean/unclean animal distinctions. So, while perhaps helpful as a pointer to Christ, the Westminster Confession's language of 'abrogated' would seem to carry the day.

However, that conclusion is problematic. First, in Leviticus 11:44-45, as mentioned, YHWH twice commands Israel: 'be holy, because I am holy.' This double exhortation functions as a climax  to  the  pericope  and  unmistakably  resembles  the  holiness  language  of  chs.  18-26 (compare 19:2; 20:7-8, 26). For this reason, many commentators view 11:44-45 as a H (or HR) insertion into a P text. 37 Irrespective of whether that is the case, we must still account for how these verses form a fitting summary to what is ostensibly ritual legislation-even more so  if  they  are,  in  fact,  interpolation.  The  force  of  the  conclusion  suggests  that  to  label  the pericope as 'ceremonial' would be reductionistic at best, misdirected at worst. 38

Second, the author of 1 Peter quotes from Leviticus in order to re-appropriate the imperative 'be holy' for his Christian addressees (1 Pet 1:16; cf. Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; see also 20:7-8, 26). 39 The implication is direct and ongoing relevance. 40 What remains to be determined is whether this is true only for 11:44-45//19:2 or if, as is often the case with NT use of the Old, there  is  also  a  bringing  to  bear  of  the  wider  context-an  instance  of  metalepsis  or transumption. 41

32 VanGemeren, 'Law is the Perfection of Righteousness,' 44.

33 VanGemeren, 'Law is the Perfection of Righteousness,' 29-30.

34 VanGemeren, 'Law is the Perfection of Righteousness,' 32.

35 All translations of biblical texts are my own unless otherwise indicated.

36 This is demonstrable by applying the methodology laid out in Hodge, The Confession of Faith , 255.

37 Milgrom is representative: 'Clearly, as the product of H, [vv. 43-45] is alien to the chapter' (Jacob Milgrom, 'The Composition of Leviticus, Chapter 11,' in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel [ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991], 189).

38 For this reason, Trevaskis argues that the legislation in P (Lev 1-16) has at least an implicit moral or ethical value. See Leigh M. Trevaskis, Holiness, Ethics and Ritual in Leviticus (HBM 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011).

39 The wording of the citation in 1 Peter reproduces Leviticus 19:2 LXX verbatim: ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος (1 Pet 1:16); ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος (Lev 19:2). The wording of Leviticus 11:44-45 LXX, while conceptually identical, is slightly different: ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἅγιός εἰμι and ἔσεσθε ἅγιοι ὅτι ἅγιός εἰμι respectively.

Thus, third, it is apparent that the NT's appropriation of Leviticus 11 is not straightforward. The chapter's legislation is,  at  the  same  time,  deemed  both  directly  relevant  for  Christians ('Be  holy,  because  I  am  holy';  1  Pet  1:16) and non-relevant  (Jesus's  declaration  that  all foods  are  clean;  Mark  7:19).  For  these  reasons,  a  separation  hermeneutic  as  it  is  usually formulated is simply not sufficient to handle the interpretative complexities. A more nuanced approach is required to tease out how Leviticus 11 functions as Christian Scripture.

Much contemporary discussion of Leviticus 11 focuses on historical concerns. Analysis tends to  major  on  what  this  legislation  reveals  about  the  social  context  of  ancient  Israel, 42 on determining  the  underlying  rationale  of  the  animal  distinctions  and  hence  the  original symbolic tenor of the text, 43 or on how this chapter provides insights into the compositional history of the book. 44

Instead of beginning there, however, I want to take as my point of departure a recent essay by John Goldingay because it raises the nub of the issue I am seeking to address in this articledetermining the enduring relevance of Leviticus 11 (if any) for Christian readers. In his essay, Goldingay  bemoans  the  'uselessness  for  theologians  and  preachers  of  nearly  all  scholarly biblical  commentaries  written  over  the  .  .  .  [past]  two  centuries'  because  they  'generated nothing  that  would  preach.' 45 While  Goldingay  overstates  the  case,  his  point  regarding theological fruitfulness is well made. Thus, bearing Goldingay in mind, the question I want to consider is this: beyond simply informing readers about dietary constraints that operated in ancient Israel, or stimulating allegorical moralization, 46 does Leviticus 11 generate anything that will preach? For many Christian people, this is the litmus test of enduring worth. Is this pericope also useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16)?

40 Karen Jobes demonstrates the wider strategy in 1 Peter to apply OT language to the church based on the hermeneutic outlined in 1:10-12. See, Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 98-106.

41 Hays defines metalepsis as the use of allusion that 'evokes resonances of the earlier text beyond those explicitly cited . The result is that the interpretation of a metalepsis requires the reader to recover unstated or suppressed correspondences between two texts' (Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 2 [emphasis his]).

42 For instance, Walter J. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 140; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).

43  For example, Mary Douglas, 'The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus,' JSOT 59 (1993), 3-23. For a helpful critique of proposed rationales, see Jiří Moskala, 'Categorization and Evaluation of Different Kinds of Interpretation of the Laws of Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus 11,' BR 46 (2001), 541.

44  See Milgrom, 'Composition,' 182-91; Christophe Nihan, 'The Laws about Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Their Place in the Formation of the Pentateuch,' in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 401-32.

45 John Goldingay, 'Hearing God Speak from the First Testament,' in The Voice of God in the Text of Scripture: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics (ed. Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders; Grand rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 60.

46 Allegorical readings of Leviticus 11 persist in contemporary literature. For example, Douglas ('Forbidden,' 22) concludes: 'The forbidden animal species exemplify the predators, on the one hand, that is those who eat blood, and on the other, the sufferers from injustice. Consider the list, especially the swarming insects, the chameleon with its lumpy face, the high humped tortoise and beetle, and the ants labouring under their huge loads. Think of the blindness of worms, and bats, the

## 3.1 Speech Act Theory, Leviticus 11, and the Task of Preaching

Speech act theory provides useful tools to tackle the question. John Austin's maxim captures the  essential  insight  that  underlies  the  discipline:  'to say something is  to do something.' 47 Thus, says Austin, utterances are 'performative' and can do much more than merely assert. 48 Other  actions  may  be  performed  by  way  of  speaking-for  instance, asking a  question, pronouncing a verdict, giving a warning, and so on. Accordingly, Austin proposed the terms 'locution,'  'illocution,'  and  'perlocution'  to  tease  out  and  clarify  the  anatomy  of  speech acts. 49

Regarding the ongoing relevance of Leviticus 11, speech act theory helpfully clarifies two important issues. First, in relation to the fixed locutions of Leviticus 11, it becomes evident that several illocutions can be performed simultaneously. The force of the pericope may be multivalent-a  reality  that  NT  appropriation  of  the  text  already  suggests  (see  above). Accordingly, interpreters need to determine if Leviticus 11 is doing more than simply making assertions.  Second,  illocutions  exist  at  different  levels  within  a  text.  A  taxonomy  recently proposed  by  Kit  Barker  charts  how  illocutions  can  function  at  sub-sentential,  sentential, super-sentential,  generic,  or  whole-text  levels. 50 Importantly,  Barker  demonstrates  that illocutions present at higher levels have a supervening effect upon those operating at lower levels and may  align with, support, or even negate, lower-level illocutions. 51 This supervening effect is of particular importance when it comes to interpreting Leviticus 11, as the implications of reading this text as part of the Christian canon must be reckoned with.

Speech  act  theory  also  clarifies  what  it  means  to  preach  Leviticus  11.  Sam  Chan,  in Preaching as the Word of God , describes the preacher's task using speech act categories:

The aim of preaching . . . is to perform a speech act on behalf of God; and in the case of expository preaching, it is to re-perform the inscripturated speech act on behalf of God. And  in  order  to  perform  a  speech  act  on  behalf  of  God,  the  preacher's  locution  and

vulnerability of fish without scales. Think of their human parallels, the labourers, the beggars, the orphans and the defenseless widows.'

47 J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (ed. J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà; 2nd ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 12 (emphasis his).

48 Austin, How to Do Things , 6.

49 Austin proposed that in each act of speaking there is 'the locutionary act . . . which has a meaning ; the illocutionary act which has a certain force in saying something; the perlocutionary act which is the achieving of certain effects by saying something' (Austin, How to Do Things , 121 [emphasis his]). On the reception, and modification, of Austin's work, see John R. Searle, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979); Richard S. Briggs, Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation: Toward a Hermeneutic of Self-Involvement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001).

50 Kit Barker, Imprecation as Divine Discourse: Speech Act Theory, Dual Authorship and Theological Interpretation (JTISup 16; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 82-88, 100.

51 Barker, Imprecation as Divine Discourse , 91-99. Barker employs the term 'whole-text illocution' to nuance Vanhoozer's idea of 'generic illocution,' rightly noting that texts may be composed of several genres. He argues that the category of 'whole-text illocution' provides greater clarity because 'generic illocutions occur at a variety of literary levels and not exclusively at the whole-text level' (88). Cf. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 283.

illocution  are  to  correspond  with  God's  locution  and  illocution.  If  so,  then  this  is  a 'happy' speech act, which is sufficient to guarantee that the word of God is preached; that is, the preacher can claim that his or her proclamation is the same speech act as that of the biblical passage.' 52

Assuming  for  the  moment  that  the BHS text  of  Leviticus  11  faithfully  represents  God's locution,  it  becomes  incumbent  upon  preachers  (as  well  as  interpreters  generally)  to determine the illocutionary force(s) of that locution. For only by determining the illocution(s) present  in  Leviticus  11  does  it  become  possible  to  re-illocute  the  text  and  so  generate something that will preach that is also in line with the original speech act.

Speech act theory thus clarifies important issues related to the hermeneutics and appropriation  of  OT  ritual.  Determining  the  potentially  multifaceted  force  of  a  text  like Leviticus 11 becomes an essential precursor to any consideration of ongoing relevance.

## 3.2 The Illocutionary Force of Allusion in Leviticus 11

One possible way to determine the illocutionary force of a text is to pay heed to its rhetorical shaping. The last two decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the literary artistry and crafting of Leviticus. Leviticus 11 is no exception. 53 One of the more striking features of the text-which I have explored at length elsewhere-is its repeated use of allusion to Genesis 1-3. Connections are evident at lexical and syntactical levels:

Lev  11  shares  a  number  of  rare  and  uncommon  lexemes  with  the  Genesis  pericopes including מקוה  ,שׁרץ  ,רמשׂ and .מין In  addition,  rare  syntactical  combinations  are  also evident: ( בדל hiphil infin. const.) + ;בין nominal and verbal forms of שׁרץ and of זרע used in  conjunction; שׁרץ used  with אכל    ;רמשׂ used  with (  נגע in  second  person  forms);  the combinations ל ,מים + מקוה + ;בהמה   + כל + מן ,אכלה and the phrases על־הארץ and נפשׁ )ה(חיה . Most importantly, Lev 11 attests syntactical combinations that are found only here and in Gen 1-3. The use of רמשׂ in relation to aquatic creatures is unique to Lev 11 and Gen 1, as is  the  shared  phrase .כל)־(נפשׁ החיה הרמשׂת Also unique are the combinations +  על  +  גחון הלך and .ב + ימים Thus Lev 11 and Gen 1-3 share not only rare words and phrases, but also formulations and contextual usages that do not appear anywhere else. Moreover, the range of shared terminology (unique and otherwise) creates multiple points of connection to the same text(s). Leviticus 11 is, as it were, saturated with terminology found in, and sometimes only in, both Gen 1 and Gen 2-3. 54

The  force  generated  by  lexical  and  syntactical  connection  is  furthered  by  several  notable conceptual  parallels.  Leviticus  11  utilizes  the  same  taxonomical  and  spatial  categories  as Genesis  1,  although  the  order  of  spatial  zones  is  reversed  in  the  Leviticus  text  (land,  sea, air)-a key marker of deliberate textual linkage often referred to as Seidel's Law. 55 A link between  the  legislation  of  Leviticus  11  and  creation  is  thereby  formed.  Moreover,  divine creativity in Genesis 1, repeatedly styled as acts of 'separation' ( בדל ; 1:4, 6, 7, 14, 18), finds an analogue in both the priestly role description given in Leviticus 10:10 and the command to correctly separate types of animal (Lev 11:47). 56 Israel's acts of separation on the cultic plane are  thus  conceptually  related  to  God's  acts  of  separation  at  creation.  A  correlation  is suggested in relation to the (re)ordering of the world, with Israel invited to share in and even further the divine task of establishing order.

52  Sam Chan, Preaching as the Word of God: Answering an Old Question with Speech-Act Theory (Eugene: Pickwick, 2016), 221.

53 For examples, see Wilfried Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus (BIS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1999); Gary A. Rendsburg, 'The Inclusio in Leviticus XI,' VT 43 (1993), 418-21.

54 G. Geoffrey Harper, "I Will Walk Among You": The Rhetorical Function of Allusion to Genesis 1-3 in the Book of Leviticus (BBRSup 21; University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press/Eisenbrauns, 2018), 135.

55 Cf. Moshe Seidel, 'Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms [Hebrew],' Sinai 38 (1955), 149-72, 22940, 272-80, 335-55.

This use of allusion to Genesis 1 and 2-3 in Leviticus 11 performs a number of illocutions. Lexical  parallels  to  the  opening  chapter  of  Genesis,  combined  with  the  same  spatial categories  and  animal  taxonomy, remind readers  of  the  original  creation.  Readers  are  also reminded  of  YHWH's  generous  provision  of  food  as  well  as  his  subsequent  command regarding an exception (Gen 1:29-30; 2:16-17). By doing so, allusion declares that YHWH is  a  God  of  order  who  fashioned a world in which everything had its proper place. It  also declares that YHWH not only abundantly provides for his creatures but, as Sovereign Lord, decides what may and may not be eaten.

However, alluding to the garden story also functions to remind readers of Adam and Eve's transgression  in  relation  to  eating  prohibited  food. 57 Furthermore,  the  use  of  a  unique syntactical formulation which connects the 'land swarming creatures' of Leviticus 11 with the serpent of Genesis 3, 58 also  reminds readers of the disastrous consequences that follow the ignoring of YHWH's commands. Together, these reminders of the primordial infidelity and  resultant  punishment  act  to warn against  similar  disobedience  in  relation  to  culinary matters.  In  fact,  the  piling  up  of  multiple  lexical,  syntactical,  and  conceptual  connections allows Leviticus 11 to portray Israel  as  an  Adam  figure;  to  make  the  primeval  account  of humanity's banishment from the Garden a conceptual parallel for understanding the nation's potential  story.  For  Israel  to  daily  face  the  same  scenario  that  Adam  and  Eve  did-divine provision of abundant food with accompanying restriction, and a penalty for infraction that involved removal from YHWH's presence (garden or tabernacle)-would act pedagogically to dissuade the nation from experiencing similar banishment (be that short- or long-term; cf. Lev 26:33, 38-39). 59

Yet allusion to Genesis 1-3 in Leviticus 11 also invites a different response from Israel. The priests, as well as the nation en masse, are invited to participate in the divine task of correctly ordering  the  world  through  careful  separation  of  animals.  In  this  way  allusion  to  divine activity at the formation of the world functions to call Israel to imitate their God, to act as he does. Perhaps also at work here is allusion to primordial conditions serving to promise (albeit conditioned  upon  obedience)  the  restoration  within  Israel  of  the  original  orderliness  of creation and of humanity in the image of God. Thereby enabled is a declaration that God's original  purposes  for  the  world  and  for  humanity  still  stand.  On  that  basis,  Leviticus  11 invites readers and hearers to be agents of restoration, to begin to enact a renewed creation on a microcosmic scale.

56 The connection is made probable by the shared, and rare, syntax: בדל ( hiphil )  occurs twenty-one times in the Pentateuch and a further eleven times throughout the remainder of the Old Testament. However, the hiphil infin. const., used in conjunction with the preposition ,בין occurs only five times (Gen  1:14,  18;  Lev  10:10;  11:47;  Ezek  42:20).  Thus,  the  only  Pentateuchal  occurrences  of  the combination are in relation to creative (Gen 1) and cultic (Lev 10; 11) acts of separation.

57 The use of rare phraseology makes the connection: conjoined use of second person forms of אכל and נגע appears only three times in the OT: in Genesis 3:3a ( לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בו ; 'you will not eat from it and you will not touch it') and in Leviticus 11:8//Deuteronomy 14:8 ( מבשׂרם לא תאכלו ובנבלהם לא תגעו ; 'from their flesh you will not eat and their carcasses you will not touch'). In each case the form is second masc. plural qal yiqtol . In this way, Leviticus alludes to the whole garden story-not just to Adam, but to Eve too: she is the one who speaks about eating and touching. 58  Compare על־גחון הולך כל (Lev 11:42) and תלך על־גחנך (Gen 3:14), the only two instances of this

combination of terms in the Hebrew Bible.

59 If, as Wenham argues, the garden story is both protohistorical and paradigmatic, then the use of allusion in Leviticus 11 appropriates the episode in line with its paradigmatic function. See Gordon J. Wenham, 'Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory,' in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (ed. Charles Halton; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 73-97.

## 3.3 Re-Illocuting the Text of Leviticus 11

Considering  the  above,  it  is  apparent  that  the  illocutionary  force  of  Leviticus  11  is  more complex  than  first  appears.  Clearly  the  text  makes  assertions  about  eating  and  touching (un)clean animals and, styled as direct divine discourse (see Lev 11:1), implicitly demands compliance  to  its  regulations.  However,  by  alluding  to  Genesis  1-3,  other  speech  acts  are enabled. The text makes declarations about God: specifically, in relation to his character and his role as creator and provider of food. Furthermore, it reminds readers of Eden: the bounty and blessing once enjoyed as well as its subsequent loss. Against that backdrop, the passage invites Israel to live in YHWH's presence as Adam and Eve had once done but also reminds them that ongoing obedience to divine commands is the prerequisite. Accordingly, Leviticus 11 warns Israel about the consequences of disobedience, dissuades them from experiencing banishment, and calls the nation instead to imitate God by becoming holy even as he is holy.

In teasing out the enduring relevance of Leviticus 11 for Christian readers, the insights from Barker and Chan discussed earlier are especially helpful. As Chan reminds us, preaching, or at  least  expository  preaching,  involves the re-locution and re-illocution of the biblical text. However, while re-locution of Leviticus 11 is straightforward, re-illocution of this pericope is more  complicated  than  Chan  allows.  The  reason  for  this,  using  Barker's  terminology,  is because of the supervening effect the NT has upon the OT, especially upon OT ritual texts. The  advent  of  Christ  introduces  a  degree  of  discontinuity,  one  that  affects  Christian appropriation  of  Leviticus  11.  As  a  result,  not  all  the  illocutions  identified  above  are appropriate  to  re-illocute  for  the  NT  people  of  God.  This  is  most  clearly  the  case  with Leviticus 11's demand for compliance. While national Israel was obligated to submit to the legislation, Christians do not have the same relationship to the OT covenant, and thus need not  heed  the  demand  in  the  same  way. 60 NT  passages  which  eschew  dietary  prohibitions recognize this shift of context (for example, Mark 7; Acts 10-11).

However, and this is the main contention of the article, the supervening effect of the NT upon the  illocutions  in  Leviticus  11 is  not  uniform .  In  other  words,  while  some  illocutions  are mitigated,  the  NT  provides  a  context  that  affirms  others  and  even  enables  their  continued force. For Christian readers of Leviticus 11, therefore, the text continues to make assertions about which animals were (un)clean for Israel; to make declarations about God's nature and character; to remind of Eden-of blessing enjoyed and lost; to invite ongoing enjoyment of divine  presence  through  obedience;  to  warn  regarding  disobedience;  to  dissuade  from experiencing  'exile';  and  to  call  God's  people  to  become  holy  even  as  he  is  holy.  These illocutions are reaffirmed by NT illocutions that function along the same lines: remembering the past as a paradigmatic example for faith (1 Cor 10:1-11); invitation to remain in God's presence through obedience (John 15:5-10) rather than being 'cut off' (John 15:2); warning based on past failure (Heb 3:7-13); a call to be holy even as God is holy (1 Pet 1:15-16).

Thoughtful  readers  may  well  ask  whether,  in  the  end,  the  approach  advocated  here  is  not simply another version of a separation hermeneutic. And, at one level, they would be correct.

60 See also Calvin, Institutes , 2.7.15.

The  NT  introduces  an  unavoidable  degree  of  discontinuity  when  appropriating  OT  ritual texts. Yet, while some sort of separation hermeneutic is necessary (and is, in fact, evidenced in the NT 61 ), it must be construed in a more nuanced fashion. A failure to do so means texts like Leviticus 11 will continue to be functionally ignored, robbing the church of its full-orbed scriptural heritage.

## 4. Conclusion

The  ritual  texts  of  the  OT  have  not  fared  well  in  the  Christian  period.  Even  when  not allegorized away, the particular separation hermeneutic codified by the Reformation has most often resulted in their effective dismissal within the life of the Western church. Yet, as I have attempted to demonstrate, far from being obsolete and barren for Christian readers, Leviticus 11 continues to be theologically rich. Indeed, much of the text's original illocutionary force remains  and  is  validated  by  NT  illocutions.  Thus,  there  is  an  enduring  relevance  for Christians  that  is  missed  whenever  a  reductionistic  curtailing  of  the  pericope  is  allowed. Instead,  by  (selectively)  re-illocuting  the  text,  Christians  can  continue  to  access  and communicate what God is doing with Leviticus 11, giving those who dare bring this passage into the pulpit something to preach.

Again,  it  needs  to  be  reiterated  that  what  I  have  attempted  here  falls  short  of  a  universal hermeneutic that solves all problems stemming from the appropriation of OT legal material. Providing  such  a  hermeneutic  was  not  my  aim.  Rather,  my  goal  was  to  provide  a  worked example of how recent literary developments can shed light on one ritual text and thereby clarify its enduring theological value for New Covenant readers. There is more work to be done, but my hope is that Christian readers of OT ritual might be enabled to engage more fruitfully with the whole counsel of God.

61 See, for instance, the discussion of 1 Corinthians 7:19 in Joe M. Sprinkle, Biblical Law and Its Relevance: A Christian Understanding and Ethical Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulations (Lanham: Universtiy Press of America, 2006), 23.