Deuteronomy 14:1

In this chapter, Moses recounted some of the regulations already given in Leviticus, etc. (See Leviticus 11 for some of the rules mentioned here.) The slight variations in the lists of clean and unclean creatures when compared with similar lists in Leviticus are by no stretch of the imagination indications of "separate traditions," "multiple sources" or "different authors." To begin with, the variations are so slight as to be negligible. The appearance of a name here and there which is omitted in Leviticus is most likely due to more than one name belonging to a specific creature. Even in America we have two names for the flesh of a sheep - "mutton chops," "lamb chops," etc.

Alexander discussed the variations as follows:

"In Leviticus, the general classification of animals that may be eaten is given, whereas in Deuteronomy the names of specific animals are included. Also, the list of fowls which may not be eaten included "the glede" (Deuteronomy 14:13), which is not mentioned in Leviticus. However, the vulture is mentioned in Leviticus, and the glede is probably of the vulture family. The class of reptiles carefully described in Leviticus is altogether omitted in Deuteronomy, etc., etc."[1]

As easily seen, such "variations" are of little or no significance, and it is a waste of time to pay a lot of attention to so-called "discrepancies" of this type.

Another "variation," of a little different kind was utilized by Driver, one of the great architects of the alleged-sources-of-the-Pentateuch theories to claim that, "The Israelites and the strangers are placed on different footings in Deuteronomy, and placed on the same footing in Leviticus."[2] As McGarvey pointed out, "No such discrepancy exists." It is simply an example of the critic having failed to read what is written in the text.

"Ye are the children of Jehovah your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God, and Jehovah hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing."

First, the Jews were forbidden to indulge in the ridiculous mutilations and disfigurements that characterized pagan funeral customs. As a people who, like their distinguished ancestor, "looked for the city that hath the foundations," it was altogether unbecoming that they should indulge the wild excesses of the pagans. Moreover, the body itself was "holy unto Jehovah" and it was not appropriate to disfigure and mutilate the body. There is surely an echo in this verse of Exodus 19:6, where all Israel is conceived of as a "holy priesthood unto Jehovah." It is primarily the holiness of Israel that formed the reason why such customs were forbidden.

The cuttings and the baldness mentioned here were "pagan acts of sacrifice, the blood and the hair being offered up to heathen deities or to the dead but deified ancestors."[3] That such cuttings of the body with knives was a standard procedure in pagan worship is also noticeable in Elijah's contest on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:25ff). Thus, such customs so closely allied to paganism were forbidden to Israel in the same Spirit that commands Christians "to avoid the very appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

Deuteronomy 14:3 introduces a list of clean and unclean creatures as they pertained to the authorized diet of the Hebrews. As Cousins said, "It is futile to seek detailed explanations for the inclusion and exclusion of creatures listed."[4] As far as we are concerned, it appears that the list is absolutely arbitrary. "But the very arbitrariness of these stipulations make them the better tests of submission to the sovereign word of the Lord and more distinctive badges of consecration to him."[5] This is not to deny that in specific instances, there could have been some dietary reason for the restriction, swine's flesh, for example, being, even yet, a prime carrier of the deadly trichinosis. However, the flat declaration of the N.T. that Jesus Christ "made all meats clean" (Mark 7:19) reveals the undeniable truth that, after all, the lists were simply arbitrary. This or that was wrong or right simply because that is what the Lord commanded. These dietary restrictions certainly did what they were designed to do, they separated God's people from the rest of mankind! There is a sense in which baptism itself, as commanded in the N.T., partakes of the same nature as possessed in these ancient lists. It is a purely arbitrary commandment, needing no justification at all, except that Jesus Christ commanded it! In our commentary on these restrictions in Leviticus, we stated that they were "not merely arbitrary," but there we were speaking of them from God's viewpoint. Of course, God had a motive and a reason for the restrictions, but here we are speaking of the fact that there appear to be no human reasons why some were restricted and others allowed, and, from that viewpoint they were absolutely arbitrary.