We, today, often neglect Leviticus. The book is regarded as a collection of esoteric cultic rules for Judaism, smattered with a few ethical laws that still have bearing for mainline Christians. The food laws, in particular, seem hard to understand from a Christian perspective. However, this need not be the case. The forbidding of certain foods fits very very nicely into a few typological understandings of Leviticus.
First, Jews were only allowed to eats "pure" animals - that is to say, animals which were the best example of their 'type.' They couldn't eat shellfish because a shellfish wasn't a "fishy fish" - it didn't have the backbone of a true fish. Similarly for animals which do and don't chew the cud or have hooves.
Why would such a thing matter? Only typologically! Jews were the 'type' of humanity - the truly 'human humans' thanks to the ethical law. The food laws symbolized that and gave a constant reminder to the Jews of who they were - God's chosen, those set apart by the revelation of the covenant to be His true humanity. The food laws were a sign of how Jews were separate and different from the Gentiles - they were a racial designation (like physical circumsition)
The second explanation is that not eating certain foods provides a consistent ascetic discipline that circumcizes the heart - that is to say, by learning to obey God in the eating of food one is reminded to obey God in all things and one is tutored to obey God in all things (as the law is a tutor). By denying our desire for a shrimp we die to our old self - the ancient Israelites however, not having baptism, did not have Christ's transformed human nature to provide a new self, so you see how the Law was merely a tutor and not salvation itself.
In short, the food laws are a form of ascetic fasting.
So why don't we follow those today? Well, how can we fast when the bridegroom is with us? And, since Christ has broken down the wall of enmity, how can we racially set ourselves apart? There is nothing WRONG with creation or certain animals - God has taken on matter and flesh to sanctify all matter and flesh. The physical world is GOOD, and refusing to eat foods once God has lifted the ban (as is evidenced in the NT) would be blasphemous.
Back to the fasting for a moment, because there's a really fantastic typological moment here. Before Christ, the bridegroom was not with Israel (racial Israel), and so they fasted constantly (with their food laws) and would fast more extensively for specific purposes. When Christ was on this earth during His ministry, the bridegroom was directly with Israel (racial and spiritual) and so there was no fasting for His disciples (this is noted in Matthew and Mark). Now, after Christ's glorious resurrection and ascension, the bridegroom is not with us (so we fast) and yet IS with us (in particular in the Eucharist, but also in His Church in in the union we have with Him by His activity and grace), therefore we don't fast.
So now, we fast and we don't fast. How do we do that? If you look at the Orthodox Church's calander, exactly half of the year (including the W/F fast) is fasting, and the other half feasting. Right now, the Kingdom is already but not yet here, so we feast for Christ's salvation and fast for our repentance and to die to our old self.
This also forshadows the second coming, when the bridegroom will reside in the New Jerusalem and give light to all the world, and then there will be no need for fasting at all.
So that is why we don't follow Jewish food laws. To do so would be to blaspheme the commands of God through His apostles (in the NT) and would be tantamount to saying that Christ is NEVER with us in this life - in short to denying that Christ accomplished anything on this earth. Since we, as Christians, can say neither of those things, we fast ascetically (though from different foods from the Jews) and only off and on throughout the year, feasting to celebrate Christ's salvation.
Happy feasting! CHRIST IS RISEN!
In the hope of the feast of the resurrected Christ,
Macarius
In 20+ years in the faith (evangelical not Orthodox yet) I've never heard the Levitical laws presented in such a way. This certainly makes lots of sense, thank you!
ReplyDeleteMrJim
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteChrist is risen!
I'm glad that this was helpful for you (despite the typos - I need to fix those). It seemed appropriate for the season. I first "came up" with this way of thinking about the food laws while in college. My (protestant) Old Testament professor taught me about the "fishy fish" for the "humany humans" part - that Israel was a pure, or supreme, type of humanity.
Now that I think about it, that also meshes with the idea of Mary as the culmination of Israel: no truer Israelite could be found than one who perfectly followed the Law and, indeed, bore God so fully within her life. By the Incarnation of God in her womb, she recieved what was missing in the Law and, in a way, became the most humanly human ever: truely set apart (that is "all-holy" since holy means "set apart").
Christ also, as a human man, fulfilled the type of Israel as His perfect fulfillment of the Law (literally filling what was missing in the Law with His divinity) perfected Israel. Even more so than Mary, He is the ultimate humanly human.
The ascetic part of the above post came from a conversation I had with a priest from the Antiochean parish in Santa Barbara. We were discussing "Way of the Ascetics" and I asked him if that principle explained, in part, the Levitical food laws. He agreed, and at some point we talked about the already-not-yet sense of the Kingdom in that context. It stuck in my brain as, for the first time in my life, I felt I understood what was, before, an odd and quirky part of the Bible.
Given the way that Adventists and Messianic Jews are, essentially, committing Judaizing by their adherence to the OT Laws I think it is necessary for the modern Church to remember its typological approach: the more we can read Christ into the OT, the more sense it makes! That's how the ancient Church did it, and the medieval Church... The modern practice of trying to grasp the 'original intent' (historical-critical exegesis) has, generally, led Christians into heresy in the past. We use the OT, but Orthodox Christians have never read it literally and had it turn out well.
In the love of the risen Christ,
Macarius