Leviticus 11:1

PART THREE ON "PUTTING AWAY" UNCLEANNESS (Leviticus 11-22)

This is the principal part of Leviticus, consisting of eleven sections presented in Leviticus 11-22. Most of these sub-sections consist of one chapter each. This first one outlines the regulations concerning uncleanness from:

(a) eating or touching unclean flesh of beasts;

(b) fish;

(c) birds;

(d) insects; and

(e) vermin.

UNCLEAN MEATS

Under the Mosaic covenant, there was an extensive list of creatures that could not be used for food, and these were not only honored and respected by the Jews, but even today there are millions of people in all nations who refuse to eat certain creatures. Furthermore, this proscription of certain creatures as unsuitable and forbidden food is far older than the Mosaic law. These strong rejections of certain meats are deeply rooted in the prehistoric instincts of the human race.

Against this background, the most significant thing about the whole mass of regulations laid down here is that Jesus Christ abolished it in its entirety, "making all meats clean" (Mark 7:19). An apostle elaborated this in saying that, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified through the Word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Another apostle saw the heavenly vision three times, a vision of:

"A great sheet let down by four corners upon the earth: wherein were all manner of beasts and creeping things and birds of the heaven. And there came a voice to him, saying, Rise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that was common and unclean. And a voice came unto him 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 (Acts 10:11-16)."

This N.T. light on the question resolves a number of questions. Such things as health and hygiene did not require these regulations in Leviticus, because, if the human race would have been more effectively blessed with health on account of these regulations, Christ would never have abolished them. Also, it is evident from Peter's vision in Acts that the acceptance of Gentiles into the kingdom of God was definitely commanded by the abolition of the taboos against certain kinds of meat. Peter got the point at once, and accordingly consented to go and preach the gospel to Cornelius, whom he baptized. This definitely ties the whole "clean and unclean" meat question with God's necessity, for a long period of time, to separate Jews from Gentiles. This undoubtedly means, therefore, that the thing which made one animal clean and another unclean to the Jews was the simple fact that God commanded one to be eaten and the other not to be eaten. Jamieson's profound observation on this is correct:

"Undoubtedly the first and strongest reason for instituting a distinction among meats was to discourage the Israelites from spreading into other countries, and from general social contact with the world - to prevent them from acquiring familiarity with the inhabitants of the countries bordering on Canaan, so as to fall into their idolatries, or be contaminated with their vices; in short, to keep them a distinct and peculiar people, by raising a broad and impassable wall of opposite customs."[1]

This perception avoids altogether the task of trying to figure out why goat meat was clean and horse meat was unclean. "They believed things were unclean because the Lord had said they were. It's as simple as that."[2]

Now, as regards the manner in which the people of all nations had viewed this question during the pre-Mosaic centuries, it was that very thing which made it possible and exceedingly appropriate for God so effectively to establish the prohibitions listed in these chapters. A basic human instinct is involved, a fact proved by the universal existence of the rejection of certain meats as food. Many civilized cities all over the world would close any restaurant that served dog meat or horse meat to its customers, and yet, scientifically, there is no reason whatever why either should not be eaten. In what, we may ask, are such deep-rooted human taboos founded? Note this has nothing to do with God's reason for the imposition of restrictions listed in Leviticus, but is an exploration of the human condition that made it favorable for God to use this method for the separation of the Chosen People.

(1) The hygienic interpretation of these restrictions accepts the proposition that the forbidden creatures were carriers of disease, and for a number of them, this is surely true. Certain shellfish, for example can be, and often are, carriers of hepatitis. Oyster bars in Houston, Texas, within the last two or three years, have caused many cases of that disease by serving infected oysters. "Pork, improperly cooked, is widely recognized as a carrier of trichinosis. The rock badger and the hare are known carriers of tularemia."[3] Such facts indeed might have influenced the beginning of taboos against eating those creatures, but there are other forbidden animals that do not follow that pattern, for example, the horse, or the dog. Also, cattle which were designated clean, are carriers of the deadly anthrax, which is generally fatal to man. The governments of both Mexico and the U.S.A. are this very day conducting a joint-program aiming at the control of anthrax.

(2) Another guess as to the rationale of allowing some and rejecting other creatures as food supposes that the forbidden animals were sacred in certain pagan religions, and that, for this reason, they were denied to the Israelites. For example, it is known that our ancient Anglo-Saxon ancestors venerated the horse as sacred to the god Odin; "And it was therefore forbidden to them when they became Christians, to avoid any danger of compromise with the old ideas."[4] In a similar way, it may be supposed that the Hebrews came to regard certain animals as "unclean" because they were sacred to heathen deities. As Micklem pointed out, however, many of the animals sacred to Egyptian deities, notably the bull, were permitted in Hebrew sacrifices, and were listed among the "clean" creatures. Another example, pigeons, allowed in Hebrew sacrifices, "were sacred to Astarte."[5]

(3) Another supposition supposes that the "clean" creatures were symbolical of the way Israelites should have lived, and the "unclean" were symbolical of sinful and wicked men. This is whimsical and fanciful. For example, the ancients thought that "chewing the cud" reminded men to meditate on the law,[6] and that the sheep was clean because it reminded the ancient Israelite that "the Lord was his shepherd!"[7] The unclean pig, on the other hand, due to his dirty habits, symbolized filth and iniquity. Seiss carried out this idea of symbolism extensively, saying that, "The various unclean animals were just so many hieroglyphics, setting forth the uncleanness of man."[8] The owl, for example, an unclean bird, is a creature of the night, suggesting the "deeds of darkness" mentioned by Paul (Ephesians 5:12; 2 Thessalonians 5:4-5). The mole, another unclean creature, is in the underground! As noted above, these cannot provide any acceptable rationale for what God did, although, of course, such symbolism is interesting.

(4) The division between "the clean" and "the unclean" is purely arbitrary and capricious. Some of the ancient rabbis thought this.[9] However, it is impossible to believe such a proposition. God surely had reasons, good and sufficient, for the distinctions made in these chapters. What appears to us as the reason, at least one of the most plausible reasons, is stated near the first of this chapter. It is also evident that all of the animals God designated as clean and fit for sacrifice and for food were indeed suitable, all of the clean creatures indicated still being used in every civilized country on earth as the common food of the people, and also considered the very best food available on earth. Not even the locust is an exception to this, because it is used extensively in some countries now. Also, there was possibly a special reason for allowing the locust as clean, because locusts frequently ate up all crops and every green thing, and people caught in such a situation had only one choice - eat the locusts or starve to death!

Thus, there appears to be the utmost concern and discrimination on the part of God in imposing the regulations here recorded.

These common views as to God's reason for this legislation are included here, because they are always mentioned in the study of these rules.

UNCLEANNESS OF LAND-DWELLING ANIMALS

"And Jehovah spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or them that part the hoof: the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you. And the coney, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you. And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you. And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is cloven looted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you. Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you."

We might paraphrase all that is said in this paragraph as follows: "God commanded Israel through Moses and Aaron to eat only those animals that were ruminants and had a cloven foot. To touch any dead carcass or any unclean animal dead or alive made one unclean." This condenses sixteen lines to three and affords a good illustration of the Biblical style.

There is little here that needs explaining. There is some quibbling about whether a pig, for example, actually has a cloven hoof, but he certainly appears to have, and these instructions were not written for natural scientists, but for people generally, where appearances were the guiding criterion and not technical and scientific findings.

"Saying unto Moses and to Aaron ..." Since Aaron had now been invested with the office of the High Priest, God here addressed him and Moses jointly.

"The coney ..." Keil, following Luther, described this animal as the rabbit. "Naturalists tell us that the rabbit does not ruminate (or chew the cud), as they have not the four stomachs which ruminants have, but the rabbit's jaws move constantly in a manner that looks like ruminating."[10] The language here is that of ordinary people, and not that of natural science. Jamieson was sure that "the coney" mentioned here was not the rabbit, but the hyrax, a small animal somewhat resembling the rabbit.[11] Coleman declared it to be the rock badger.[12] This illustrates the uncertainty regarding a great percentage of the creatures mentioned in these Levitical laws. Wenham tells us that, "One expert (F. S. Bodenheimer) in this field says that only 40 percent of the Hebrew terms can be identified with accuracy."[13] Instead of discussing all the options, we shall follow Wenham whose opinions are based upon the consensus of recent studies. The whole question is of minor interest to Christians.

Significantly, the entire feline family of animals were categorized as unclean.