(1) What is purity / impurity? (2) Why does God require the maintenance of purity? (3) What is the logic of the laws we encounter related to purity, specifically the food laws?
Mary Douglas draws upon mankind’s and Earth’s creation to argue what is pure and what is impure. To her, creation is the ultimate good, and God created everything very intentionally, thereby making creation holy. Creativity thus embodies creation and holiness. The opposite of creation therefore is “matter out of place.” This is what Douglas considers to be “dirt.” If we want matter to be in place as opposed to out of place, humans must strive for organization and order within their lives. This is done through categorization of the matter in the world. Therefore, what is pure can be categorized because it is organized and demonstrates its own creation. What is not pure, on the other hand, is that which cannot be categorized or organized, which demonstrates a lack of creation that is required for holiness. It is also worth noting that impurity can be spread through pollution, which is coming into contact (literally and figuratively) with that which is impure. Through the very definition of purity and impurity, we can see why God requires the maintenance of purity. That which is holy, created, and categorized, is to be sought after for a perfect world, and that which is not, should be avoided. This is all part of God’s larger goal of renewing the covenant that he created with humans in the early chapters of Genesis. By striving again for a renewal of the perfect world through dietary restrictions and things of this matter, God is attempting to renew the relationship humans and God once had. The logic behind laws governing purity, such as food laws, has to do with pollution. In all the laws that we see presented regarding purity, it is an attempt to either prevent one from becoming impure or to prevent one from pollution. For example, God says that animals that may be eaten on land must have cloven hooves and eat chud. This is a way of categorizing animals. Any other animal is therefore ambiguous and not “ordered” as Douglas posited. This makes those animals impure and not able to be eaten. The other laws have to do with avoiding pollution. We can see that impurities can spread easily. It was even mentioned that impurity can be passed on from person to person from just sitting on the same side of a table as someone who is impure. What is important to note is that hygiene often coincides with these laws of purity and impurity, which makes it so that those who break the laws of purity will be faced with punishment through disease.
Theology 
Blake, I enjoyed your analysis of purity as a categorization of a sort and the organization of creation, which is essentially what God strives for. I appreciated how you related purity to holiness, and I completely agree that that which is pure should be kept organized as “part of God’s larger goal of renewing the covenant that he created with humans in the early chapters of Genesis.” I think that is an extremely insightful observation and explains the logic behind the dietary restrictions and maintaining purity. God is wishing to keep holy what is meant to be holy and prevent pollution in His creation.
LikeLike
The one idea I want to further discuss is the idea of pursuing the holy and the good. You note in your response that organization should be pursued because it can be categorized and thus is good, “That which is holy, created, and categorized, is to be sought after for a perfect world, and that which is not, should be avoided.” Do you think that by following God’s laws and maintain order, we are fulfilling our role as humans? (God created humans to be fruitful and have dominion.) In regards to this topic, I believe that by following the law of the Lord, we are bringing about the good of Creation.
LikeLike
I agree with your argument that organization and order are God’s will against “dirt” in the world, and that the laws of Leviticus are means of achieving this order. Your connection of this purity to the new covenant is insightful, as it once again shows that God is trying to create a relationship with humans who keep doubting His will. It is interesting that people who disobey this covenant end up being punished by the world – disease – in a way that can be attributed to God.
LikeLike
Your commentary on Douglas’s suggestion that the dietary laws are meant to avoid food that pollutes individuals is certainly compelling. However, one part is unclear. You state, “God says that animals that may be eaten on land must have cloven hooves and eat chud. This is a way of categorizing animals. Any other animal is therefore ambiguous and not “ordered” as Douglas posited.” Is there any reason why G-d categorized animals in this manner? What about a lack of cloven hooves or chud-related diet makes an animal impure or pollutable? How does this relate to our faith or relation to G-d?
LikeLike