Of Mammals

v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Aaron bring included as the high priest consecrated for the purpose of making an atonement for the sins of the people,

v. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. From the animals in general the Lord distinguishes the domestic animals and those commonly used for food by the inhabitants of the countries round about.

v. 3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed, so that the hoof is not only partially, but completely divided into two parts, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, as a member of the true ruminants, that shall ye eat.

v. 4. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof; as, the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, there being only a partial division of the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

v. 5. And the coney, a marmot-like animal of the size of a hare living in caves and clefts of the rocks, because he cheweth the cud, making the characteristic mouth-movements of the ruminants, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

v. 6. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Though the two last-named animals have not the three or four stomachs of the real ruminants, the motion which they make with their mouths as they sit before their burrows is that of chewing the cud.

v. 7. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Since pigs were nothing but scavengers in Oriental lands, and since the eating of pork in those circumstances often resulted in diseases of the skin, many of the ancient peoples considered them unclean.

v. 8. of their flesh shall ye not eat, to slaughter these animals for food was strictly forbidden, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

PART III UNCLEANNESS, CEREMONIAL AND MORAL: ITS REMOVAL OR ITS PUNISHMENT

SECTION I

EXPOSITION

THE two preceding parts having made manifest the way of approach to God by means of sacrifice and the appointed priesthood of mediation, there follows a part having for its subject that which keeps man apart from God, namely, uncleanness, whether ceremonial uncleanness, which may be removed by ceremonial observances, or moral uncleanness, that is, unrighteousness, which, so far as it is a ceremonial offense, may be also dealt with ceremonially, but in respect to its moral character demands punishment. This part consists of four sections. The first section, comprising chapters 11-15, treats of ceremonial uncleanness, caused

(1) by unclean food (Lev 11:1-47);

(2) by childbirth (Lev 12:1-8.);

(3) by the leprosy of man and of garments and of houses (Lev 13:1-59, Lev 14:1-57);

(4) by issues (Lev 15:1-33).

The second section deals with the uncleanness contracted every year by the whole congregation, to be annually atoned for on the great Day of Atonement (Lev 16:1-34), followed by a parenthetical chapter as to the place in which sacrifice is to be offeredsacrifice being the means by which purification from uncleanness is to be effected (Lev 17:1-16). The third section is on moral uncleanness, or sin (Lev 18:1-30, Lev 19:1-37), and its punishment (Lev 20:1-27). The fourth relates to the ceremonial and moral uncleanness of priests (Lev 21:1-24, Lev 22:1-33).

The idea underlying ceremonial uncleanness is not peculiar to the Jews. With the Greeks the idea of moral beauty was borrowed from physical beauty, and the standard of moral excellence was the beautiful. With the Hebrews physical ugliness is taken as the symbol of moral ugliness or deformity: whatever is foul is the type of what is evil. That which we have a natural admiration for is good, said the Greek; that which we have a natural repugnance for represents to us what is evil, said the Hebrew. In either case, taste appears to take the place of moral judgment; but in Greek philosophy, moral taste and moral judgment had come to be identical, while the Hebrew knew that what taste condemned was not therefore of itself evil, but only symbolical and representative of evil.
Another principle underlies the Hebrew theory of uncleanness. It is that whatever is itself foul, and therefore symbolical of sin, conveys the quality of foulness, and therefore of ceremonial uncleanness to any one it comes in contact with, and often to anything which it touches. Thus a dead body, quickly assuming a loathsome appearance in the East, where the setting in of corruption is very rapid, is unclean itself, and conveys uncleanness to those who touch it. The leper is unclean, and transmits uncleanness by his touch; and certain foul diseases and fluxes from the human body have the same effect. These and such like things, being always repulsive, always cause uncleanness; but there are others which, while in some associations they are utterly repellent, in others are not so. For example, there are some vermin and insects which are pretty to the eye, but the thought of eating them creates a natural feeling of disgust. These, in so far as they are not repulsive, that is, as creeping or flying creatures, are not unclean, nor does their touch produce uncleanness, but as objects of food they are “an abomination.”

Hence we are able to explain the distinction of clean and unclean animals. It does not rest upon a sanitary basis, though the prohibition to eat carnivorous and other animals repulsive to the taste is probably in accordance with the rules of health. Nor is it based on political reasons, though it is probable that the distinction kept the Jews apart kern other nations, and so served an important political purpose. Nor is the injunction in the main theological, though we know that in later times the favourite interpretation was that the clean animals represented the Jews, and the unclean animals the Gentiles (Act 10:28). Rather it was that certain creatures were forbidden because they were offensive to the taste, and, being so offensive, they were symbolical of vicious things, which must be avoided, lest they make those that partake of them or touch them to become vicious like themselves.

Lev 15:2-8 contain the regulations relating to the eating of quadrupeds; Lev 15:9-12, those relating to fish; Lev 15:13-19, those relating to birds; Lev 15:20-23, those relating to flying insects; Lev 15:29, Lev 15:30, those relating to unwinged creeping things; verses 41-44, those relating to vermin. Lev 15:23-28 and Lev 15:31 -40 extend the defiling effect to the simple touch of the dead carouses of animals, whether edible or not.

Lev 11:1

The Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron. Aaron, having now been consecrated high priest, is joined with Moses as the recipient of the laws on cleanness and uncleanness in Le Lev 11:1; Lev 13:1; Lev 14:33; Lev 15:1. His name is not mentioned in Le Lev 12:1; Lev 14:1; Lev 17:1; Lev 18:1; Lev 19:1; Lev 20:1; Lev 21:1, Lev 21:16; Lev 22:1, Lev 22:17, Lev 22:26. Probably there is no signification in these omissions.

Lev 11:2

These are the beasts that ye shall eat. In order that the Israelites might know how to avoid the uncleanness arising from the consumption of unclean flesh, plain rules are given them by which they may distinguish what flesh is clean and what is unclean. The first rule is that anything that dies of itself is unclean, whether it be beast, bird, or fish. The reasons of this are plain: for

(1) the flesh still retains the blood, which no Israelite might eat; and

(2) there is something loathsome in the idea of eating such flesh. Next, as to beasts, a class is marked off as edible by two plainly discernible characteristics, and instances are given to show that where there is any doubt owing to the animals possessing one of the characteristic marks only, the rule is to be construed strictly. As to fish and insects, equally plain rules, one in each case, are laid down; but as birds are not readily distinguished into large classes, the names of those that are unclean are given one by one, the remainder being all of them permissible. Thus the simple Israelite would run no risk of incurring uncleanness by inadvertently eating unclean food, whether of beast, bird, fish, or insect. The object of the regulations being to exclude all meats naturally offensive to the human taste, all carnivorous quadrupeds are shut out by the rule of chewing the cud (Lev 11:3), with the same purpose, birds of prey and birds that eat offal are prohibited (Lev 11:13-19), and scaleless fish on account of their repulsive appearance (Lev 11:9-12), as well as beetles, maggots, and vermin of all sorts. In the case of beasts and fish, the rules laid down to mark off those things that are offensive, being general in their application, are such as to include in the forbidden class some few which do not appear naturally loathsome. This is owing partly to the difficulty of classification, partly to a change of feeling which experience has wrought in the sentiments of mankind with regard to such edibles as swine’s flesh and shell-fish.

Lev 11:3, Lev 11:4

Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, should rather be translated, Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and completely divides it, The camel parts but does not wholly divide the hoof, as there is ball at the back of the foot, of the nature of a heel.

Lev 11:5

The coney, Hebrew, shaphan; the Hyrax Syriacus, or wabr, still called in Southern Arabia tsofun, a little animal similar to but not identical with the rabbit. “They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa 104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings of their caves, and extremely timid, as they are quite defenseless (Pro 30:26). They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish-gray or brownish-yellow color, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests” (Keil).

Lev 11:6

The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, There is little doubt that the same animal as our hare is meant. Neither the hare, however, nor the hyrax chews the cud in the strict sense of the words. But they have the appearance of doing so. The rule respecting chewing the cud was given to and by Moses as a legislator, not as an anatomist, to serve as a sign by which animals might be known to be clean for food. Phenomenal not scientific language is used here, as in Jos 10:12, “as we might speak of whales and their congeners as fish, when there is no need of scientific accuracy” (Clark). “All these marks of distinction in the Levitical law are wisely and even necessarily made on the basis of popular observation and belief, not on that of anatomical exactness. Otherwise the people would have been continually liable to error. Scientifically, the camel would be said to divide the hoof, and the hare does not chew the cud. But laws for popular use must necessarily employ terms as they are popularly understood. These matters are often referred to as scientific errors; whereas they were simply descriptions, necessarily popular, for the understanding and enforcement of the law” (Gardiner).

Lev 11:7

The swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted. Here, again, the description is not according to anatomical analysis, but to ordinary appearance. The pig appears to be cloven-footed, and it would be misleading to give any other account of his foot in ordinary speech, but scientifically speaking, he has four toes. The prohibition of the use of swine’s flesh does not arise from the fear of trichinosis or other disease, but from the disgust caused by the carnivorous and filthy habits of the Eastern pig. The repulsion originally felt for swine’s flesh was natural, and, where the animal is carnivorous, is still natural, but where its habits are changed, and it has become simply graminivorous, the feeling has ceased to exist.

Lev 11:8

Of their carcass shall ye not touch. This prohibition is founded upon the same feeling of disgust as the prohibition of eating their flesh. Whatever is foal must be avoided.

Lev 11:9-12

Whatsoever hath fins and scales. The absence of fins and scales, or their apparent absencefor phenomenal language is used, as beforegives to fish a repulsive look, on which is grounded the prohibition to eat them. Eels and shell-fish are thus forbidden, though a long course of experience has now taken away the feeling of repulsion with which they were once looked upon. The flesh of the beasts for, bidden to be eaten is only described as unclean, but that of the prohibited fish, birds, insects, and vermin, is designated as an abomination unto you.

Lev 11:13-19

The unclean birds are those which are gross feeders, devourers of flesh or offal, and therefore offensive to the taste, beginning with the eagle and vulture tribe. It is probable that the words translated owl (Lev 11:16), night hawk (Lev 11:16), cuckow (Lev 11:16) should be rendered, ostrich, owl, gull, and perhaps for swan (Lev 11:18), heron (Lev 11:19), lapwing (Lev 11:19), should be substituted ibis, great plover, hoopoe. In the case of the bat, we have again phenomenal language used. Being generally regarded as a bird, it is classed with birds.

Lev 11:20-23

All fowls that creep should rather be rendered all winged creeping things, that is, all flying insects. None are allowed except the Saltatoria, or locust family. The word translated beetle signifies a sort of locust, like the other three words. That the locust was a regular article of food in Palestine is amply proved. “It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity, both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greek thought the cicadas very agreeable in flavour (Arist. ‘Hist. An.,’ 5:30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure, and they are also dried and kept in bags for winter use. They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal, and make cakes of them” (Keil). (Cf. Mat 3:4.) The expression goeth upon all four, means groveling or going in a horizontal position, in contrast with two-legged birds, just spoken of.

Lev 11:24-28

These verses contain an expansion of the warning contained in Lev 11:8, to the effect that the touch of the dead bodies of the forbidden animals was defiling, as well as the consumption of their flesh. A further mark of an unclean animal is added in Lev 11:27. Whatsoever goeth upon his paws; that is, whatever has not hoofs, but goes stealthily, like beasts of prey of the eat kind. It includes also dogs.

Lev 11:29, Lev 11:30

The creeping things that creep upon the earth. This class contains things that go on their belly, but have not wings, like the previous class of creeping things (Lev 11:20-23). By the words translated tortoise, ferret, chameleon, lizard, snail, mole, different varieties of the lizard are probably meant. The mouse is joined by Isaiah with “eating swine’s flesh and the abomination” (Isa 66:17).

Lev 11:31-38

As the little animals just mentionedweasels, mice, and lizardsare more likely than those of a larger size to be found dead in domestic utensils and clothes, a further warning as to their defiling character is added, with tales for daily use. The words translated ranges for pots (Lev 11:35) should rather be rendered covered pots, that is, pots or kettles with lids to them. Seed which is to be sown, that is, seed corn, is not defiled by contact with these dead animals, unless it has been wetted by water being put on it, in which case the moisture would convey the corruption into the seeds.

Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40

The loathsomeness of the bodies of even clean animals that have died a natural death, makes them also the means of conveying defilement to any one who touches them.

Lev 11:41-43

The last class is that of vermin, which constitute a part of the un-winged creeping class already spoken of (Lev 11:29, Lev 11:30). Whatsoever goeth upon the belly indicates snakes, worms, maggots: whatsoever goeth upon all four, things that grovel, as moles, rats, hedgehogs; whatsoever hath more feet, or doth multiply feet, centipedes, caterpillars, spiders.

Lev 11:44-47

These concluding verses give a religious sanction to the previous regulations, and make them matters of sacred, not merely sanitary or political, obligation. They were to sanctify themselves, that is, to avoid uncleanness, because God is holy, and they were God’s. They were thus taught that ceremonial cleanness of the body was a symbol of holiness of heart, and a means of attaining to the latter. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt. It is possible that Egypt may be named as being the laud of animal-worship. To be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. The only way by which there can be communion between God and man is the way of holiness.

Jewish industry and care has counted the number of letters in the Pentateuch, and marked by the use of the letter in larger type, in the word , which occurs in Lev 11:42, that that letter is the middle letter of the whole work from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Deuteronomy. It is easy to see what a protection to the text such minute and scrupulous care must be.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR

Lev 11:1-47

The religious use of nature.

cf. Psa 104:1-35, Psa 107:1-43; Job 38-41; Mat 13:1-58; 2Sa 22:34. We pass now to the relation in which the Lord’s people are to stand to animated nature. So far from treating it with indifference, they were bound to regard certain animals as clean and certain others as unclean, and to regard their use of and contact with them as of religious importance. The temptation to use nature as something outside religious considerations was hereby avoided, and the Jew was led to regard every animal as having some religious significance to him. A literal watchfulness was thus inculcated of the most painstaking character. The Jew, wherever he went, was on his guard against the unclean, and was providing for his use only what was legally clean and pure.

I. NATURE IS A REVELATION OF GOD IF WE ONLY HAD ITS KEY. It is too often forgotten that nature was the first revelation of God to his creatures. The Bible is the supplementary revelation necessitated by sin. To our first parents before the Fall, nature had a deeper meaning, most probably, than it has yet had to us. The interpretation of nature is most important, and there is no need that it should be “agnostic” or irreligious. Provided scientific fact be welcomed, there is no detriment, but rather there is gain, in looking at our surroundings in a religious spirit. Science is not bound to become a department of theology, and to be running up into theological statements; neither, on the other hand, is it bound to indulge in atheistic ones. The “argument of design” may not be a part of science, but it is just as true that the argument of chance, which is the only alternative, is no part of true science either. But while science is under no obligation to become theological, it is right that nature should be regarded religiously, Natural religion has its sphere just as well as supernatural religion.

II. WE INSTINCTIVELY USE ANIMATED NATURE TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MANKIND. The animals become our picture alphabet, by whose help we spell out character. Indeed, so close are the affinities between the lower animals and the successive stages of human character, that one ingenious foreign writer points out an analogy between the development in nature and the development in individual human nature

“Man passes still today,” says M. Secretan, “through the form of the ape, and he passes through it visibly; the embryonic evolution continues itself in the transformations of the first age, the spiritual development allies itself to the corporeal evolution, it is regulated by the same laws. Just as the human body reproduces in summary form the whole history of organized nature, the spirit of a civilized person reproduces in abridgment the whole history of the human spirit, and the two histories are inseparable. The characteristic of the ape, imitation without intelligence, is also the characteristic of the child when he is put in possession of his organs. This phase is essential; the child would not learn to eat, he would not learn to walk, he would not learn especially to speak, and by consequence to think, were he not, during some period and in certain respects, a little parrot and a little ape, Simian imitation is the process by which the acquisitions of the species are appropriated by the individual. Simian imitation, by which I mean the reproduction of movements of which the intention is not comprehended, is the normal and desired transition between instinct and the reflective intelligence, which is the properly human condition.” There seems, therefore, to be a reason in the very nature of things for the illustration of moral or immoral qualities from the animals. Amid other uses served by the lower creation, there is certainly this one of furnishing illustrations of character. Our Lord’s parables embody the principle of the spiritual significance of nature in its broadest applications.

III. BY THE DIVISION OF THE ANIMALS HERE PROPOSED IMPORTANT MORAL QUALITIES ARE COMMENDED AND IMMORAL ONES CONDEMNED. A scientific division was not needed for a religious purpose. A popular division, easily apprehended, would serve infinitely better. The distinctions drawn are such as may be seen at a glance.

1. Quadrupeds. The clean are those who divide the hoof and chew the cud. In other words, the ruminants are to be regarded as the clean. All other quadrupeds are to be accounted unclean. That there may be no mistake, the camel, coney, hare, and swine are emphasized as unclean, because possessing only one of the required characteristics. The flesh of the ruminants is generally considered as more wholesome than that of the other quadrupeds; but this would scarcely determine the division. Let the fact, however, be noted that reflection finds its fitting illustration in the rumination of these animals, and that they are justly regarded as both sure-footed and cleanly; then we see a moral purpose in the distinction. If the Lord’s people were to associate with these animals and use them for food, while the other quadrupeds were to be avoided, it was to teach them to reflect faithfully upon what God gave them, to be steadfast in running the race he sets before them, and to be pure in their walk and conversation. That such moral ideas were associated with the clean animals is corroborated by such passages as 2Sa 22:34; Psa 18:33; Heb 3:19; with which may be compared 1Sa 2:9.

2. Fishes. Here, again, the clean ones are those which have both fins and scales. All that have not these two characteristics are to be deemed an abomination, such as sharks, eels, and the swarmers generally (). That moral characteristics are illustrated in fish as well as in quadrupeds is acknowledged by the common usage of language. Do we not call men of a rapacious disposition “sharks;” and say of men of uncertain and cunning ways that they “wriggle like eels”? It seems certain, therefore, that the distinction here made, while perhaps having some foundation in the quality of the flesh, is primarily to illustrate disposition, and to guard the Jews against the selfishness and rapacity associated with the unclean fishes.

It could hardly be locomotion which is referred to in this animal kingdom, since some of the unclean fishes, for example, the sharks, are remarkable for their speed. Moreover, the fact of sharks and some other fishes having scales, though of almost microscopic character, is no argument against the fidelity of the record. The Law was given primarily to a people of simple and not scientific habitsnot to microscopists. Its popular style and adaptation to common life are among its highest recommendations.

3. Birds. Here, again, when the words are looked carefully into, the distinction seems to be that clean birds are such as feed. on grain and grasses, while the carnivorous birds are excluded as unclean. In no more striking way could unholy appetites be illustrated and condemned. Restraint and purity were thus inculcated.

4. Reptiles. Of these permission is given to eat four kinds of locust, all of which are distinguished as leapers, and not runners. Locomotion in this case, rather than food, is the ground of the distinction. When besides, we remember the migratory character of these insects, there is conveyed an excellent illustration of the stranger spirit, which alights on earth only so far as is needful, and takes more kindly to the air. If God’s people should be “strangers and pilgrims upon earth,” if they should be setting their affections on things above, the locust tribes, which the Jews were allowed to eat, most admirably illustrated the required spirit.

On the other hand, the mole, the mouse, the lizard (, not “tortoise,” as in English ‘Version), gecko (, not “the ferret,” as in English Version), monitor (, from its great strengthnot “the chameleon”), lizard and sand-lizard (, from lying on the groundnot “snail,” for they are eaten by Jews and Orientals, as not unclean), and. chameleon are to be regarded as unclean. Earthliness and uglinessin one word, the repulsiveness of sinseem indicated by this distinction.

We have thus inculcated, by this easy, popular division of the animals, important moral qualities to be cultivated and immoral qualities to be avoided. Animated nature became thus a mirror for human nature. The living world around man was thus made to take up a parabolic language and promote his sanctification.

IV. THE DEFILING CHARACTER OF DEATH THROUGH NATURAL CAUSES WAS TO BE CONSTANTLY RECOGNIZED. Even a clean animal which had died of itself was not to be eaten or touched with impunity. Defilement was the result of such contact. The lesson of mortality as the penalty of sin was thus illustrated. Men might devote an animal to death for sacrificial purposes or for their own use, but when death came as the debt of nature, at once its defiling character must be realized, and purification sought accordingly.

The laws of this chapter entailed constant watchfulness. No careless living was possible under the Jewish regime. In the same spirit surely should we “watch and. pray, lest we enter into temptation.” In the same spirit should we ask ourselves, What spiritual lessons is surrounding nature communicating to our spirits? Not in vain, and not for mere utility, has such an environment been thrown around us.R.M.E.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

Lev 11:1-8

Clean and unclean.

As man is made after the image of God, so is the outward and sensible world constituted as a kind of apographa to represent the spiritual world which is the subject of faith (Rom 1:20). The key to unlock the mysteries of this system is to be found in the Scriptures of truth; and animals, according to it, are to be viewed as representing men.

I. THE LAW DISTRIBUTES THEM INTO TWO CLASSES.

1. The clean. The marks of cleanness are:

(1) That they “divide the hoof.” By the division of the hoof, as in the ox and sheep, the animal is able so to order its steps as not to throw up the mud upon itself, as the horse does whose hoof is not cloven.

(2) They “chew the cud.” So their food is more perfectly prepared for digestion. The manner in which this is done, while the creature rests, is so suggestive of thoughtfulness and meditation that it is described as ruminating.

(3) The clean animals were therefore chosen to represent the Israelites, who were a holy nation. They were ceremonially holy:

(a) So walking in the ways of God’s commandments as not to be polluted with the abominations of idolatry.

(b) So meditating upon the Law as inwardly to digest it to their nourishment (see Psa 1:2; 1Ti 4:13-15).

(c) Thus also they became morally greatly superior to the nations around them.

2. The unclean.

(1) The Gentiles in contrast to the Jews were so, ceremonially, and were therefore shut out from communion with the Jews. But it was competent to them to be made holy by becoming proselytes.

(2) They were in general idolaters, and so morally abominable. It was mainly to keep the Israelites from being contaminated with the idolatries of their neighbours, that these laws were instituted (see Lev 11:45; Lev 20:23-25; Deu 14:1-3).

3. There are but two classes of men.

(1) Though some animals divide the hoof, they are not clean unless they also chew the cud. The hog is of this order, and is filthy to a proverb (2Pe 1:1-21 :22). So it does not make men clean to have the faculty for walking cleanly when their disposition otherwise leads them to wallow in the mire of sin.

(2) Though some chew the cud, yet if they divide not the hoof they are unclean. The “camel,” the “coney,” and the “hare,” or whatever creature, the word may describe, are of this order. For what good is the semblance of meditation and repentance, if the walk of the life be not clean (Jas 1:20)?

(3) As there are varieties of clean and also of unclean animals, so are there varieties and degrees of goodness, on the one hand, and of wickedness on the other, amongst men. Still the classes are but two. The one is led by Christ, the other by Satan (Mat 12:30; Mat 25:2, Mat 25:32, Mat 25:33). To which class do you belong?

II. THE LAW IN THE LETTER IS NOW CHANGED.

1. The gospel is freely preached to the Gentiles.

(1) They are not now under obligation to be proselyted to Judaism. This subject was debated in the early Church, and settled at the Council of Jerusalem.

(2) The same decision, which was at the instance of Peter to whom the Lord had assigned that distinction (see Mat 16:19), released the Jews also from the yoke of the Law (see Act 15:1-41).

2. This was according to prophetic indication.

(1) Under the figure of the unclean wolf dwelling with the lamb, etc; (Isa 11:1-16) describes the Gentile and Jew as to be wonderfully reconciled in the days of Messiah.

(2) To show that the Jew must have no fellowship with the Gentile, the Law forbade the yoking together of the clean ox with the unclean ass (Deu 22:10). But prophecy anticipates the blessedness of the time when the seed, viz. of the gospel, should be sewn beside all watersnot those of Judea only, but of the wide world; and that in this business the ox and the assthe Jew and the Gentileshould become fellow-workers (see Isa 32:20; comp. also Deu 25:4; 1Co 9:9-11; 1Ti 5:18).

3. Peter’s vision instructed him that this lime was come.

(1) The animals contained in the sheet were those described as unclean in the Law, and represented the Gentiles. Peter, therefore, when commanded to kill and eat, hesitated, for that he “had never eaten anything that was common or unclean.” He therefore held that “it was an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation.”

(2) But the linen sheet which enclosed the animals was the emblem of purity; and they were thrice lifted into the heavens. To these symbols agreed also the voice which said, “What God hath cleansed that call not thou common.”

(3) When therefore Peter had all this corroborated by the counter-vision of Cornelius, he was convinced that henceforth he “should not call any man common or unclean.” For the universality of the mercy of the gospel had been testified in that the sheet was knit at the four corners, showing that the Gentiles were to be gathered together from the four quarters of the world.

III. THE LAW IN ITS SPIRIT STILL ABIDES.

1. For the gospel is that spirit.

(1) The glory on the face of Moses was veiled to the Jews. So concerned were they with the letter that they could not steadfastly look upon the true glory of their own Law. Moses therefore put a vail upon his face, viz. the vail of the letter. This vail is still upon their hearts, and must so remain until they turn to the Lord, or become converted to Christ.

(2) When Moses turned to the Lord, from whom he derived his glory, he took off the vail; and it is the same glory which falls upon us. The only difference is that in the spirit of the Law we see the glory of the Lord reflected from the face of Moses; but in the spirit of the gospel we see the same glory as Moses himself saw it, immediately, in the face of Jesus.

(3) Thus passing from the Law to the gospel, a spiritual person is changed from glory to glory. This brightening transfiguration is effected “by the Spirit of the Lord,” or, as the margin construes it, “by the Lord who is the Spirit,” viz. of the Law. The Spirit of the Lord is the Spirit of the Law.

2. The gospel insists upon moral purity.

(1) We have seen that the law of yoking together the ox and the ass is repealed under the gospel. This was as to the letter. But we shall find it still insisted upon, viz. as to the spirit. For Paul clearly refers to it (2Co 6:14) when he forbids the unequal yoking together of Christians and infidels.

(2) In the spirit of it Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, the Law, and that to the jot and tittle (Mat 5:17-20). What a rebuke is here to the antinomian! What a stumbling-block to the Jew is the antinomianism in false theories of Christianity! Christians who neglect the study of the Law miss the benefit of many glorious views of precious gospel truth. How just is the remark of Augustine, that “the Old Testament, when rightly understood, is one great prophecy of the Sew”!J.A.M.

Lev 11:9-12

The waters and their inhabitants.

“Here,” says Maimonides, “the exposition of this sentence, ‘A word spoken according to his two faces is as apples of gold in () maschyoth of silver’ (Pro 25:11). Maschyoth are a kind of lattice or network having very small interstices. Therefore ‘when a word spoken according to both its faces’ (that is, according to its exterior and interior signification) is likened to ‘apples of gold in network of silver,’ the meaning is that the exterior sense is good and precious as silver, but the interior is much more excellent as gold. An apple of gold covered with a silver network, viewed at a distance, seems to be all silver; but if by the worth and beauty of the silver yon be attracted to view it more narrowly, you may discover the apple of gold that is vailed within, So are the words of the Law in the letter useful and excellent for direction in morals, or for the outward government of the Church, while the interior part or spirit is of superior excellence to build up the believer in the sublime mysteries of faith.” According to this principle, let us consider here

I. THE MYSTERY OF THE WATERS.

1. They denote multitudes of peoples.

(1) This is expressed in such passages as Isa 55:5 and Rev 17:15.

(2) The reason, perhaps, is that they lave the shores of the earth and are the highway of commerce. At all times they sustain a multitude of navigators; and at one time, in the ark of Noah, the entire population of the world was afloat.

(3) In the text the waters are distributed into “seas” and “rivers.”

2. The sea may be diversely considered,

(1) Before the formation of light, when its consistency was muddy, it was called the deep, or the abyss, and was the symbol of hell (Gen 1:2; Luk 8:31; Rom 10:7; Rev 20:3).

(2) Under the action of light, the earthy particles precipitated, and the upper portion became gradually clearer and more liquid. Then the mass received the name of “seas” (Gen 1:10), In this condition the waters became stocked with living creatures and capable of supporting fleets, when it became a figure of the peoples of the world.

(3) When disturbed by fierce winds, and the sediment from the bottom worked up, as if the abyss of hell had been moved, the state of the wicked is described (see Isa 57:20). The winds by which the wicked are stirred are their passions, and the effects am turbulence and insurrection (see Psa 65:7; Psa 107:26; Jud 1:13).

(4) We carry waves and storms within us; they threaten to drown us (Jas 1:6); none can save us from ourselves but that Jesus who miraculously stilled the tempest (Mat 8:26).

3. Rivers also may be variously considered.

(1) They are taken in a good sense when they keep their channels, for then they are sources of blessing. The river of Eden represented the covenant of God, which, branching into “four heads,” showed how the blessings of the gospel were to be carried to the four quarters of the world (Gen 2:10; Psa 36:8; Psa 46:4; Psa 65:9; Rev 22:1). The peaceful people of the covenant would also be represented.

(2) Rivers are taken in a bad sense when they overflow their banks, in which case they become muddy, and carry desolation where they rush. Hence they are compared to invading armies and to ungodly men moved to violence (Jdg 5:21; Psa 69:15; Isa 8:7, Isa 8:18; Isa 59:19; Rev 12:15).

II. THE INHABITANTS OF THE WATERS.

1. The clean are distinguished by fins and scales.

(1) The fins are their instruments of locomotion. By means of these they rise to the surface and swim in purer water under the clearer light of the heavens. Thus they teach us that a holy people should be active, not in the darkness of sin and ignorance, but in the day of goodness and truth (Joh 3:21; Joh 8:12; Joh 9:4, Joh 9:5).

(2) The scales, which have a beautiful metallic luster, suggest the idea of armour; and, when the creature swims near the surface, these brilliantly reflect the glories of the sun. They teach us to “put on the armour of light” (Rom 13:12; Eph 6:7).

2. The unclean are those without fins and scales.

(1) Those destitute of both, like the eel, shun the light, and bury themselves in the mud at the bottom. They teach us to avoid the corresponding habits of the wicked, who rush into sin and ignorance and wallow in moral filth (Job 24:13-17; Joh 3:19, Joh 3:20; Eph 5:13).

(2) Those who have fins but no scales are covered with a thick glutinous matter, which in appearance contrasts unfavourably with the silver and golden armour in which the clean creatures are clad. If they use their fins to rise out of their depths, it is to make havoc upon shoals of brighter creatures. So are the wicked bloodthirsty and voracious, who therefore should be shunned.

(3) In the imagery of the prophets, anti-Christian kingdoms are sometimes described as great sea-monsters (see Dan 7:2, Dan 7:3; Rev 13:1). Such kingdoms must be held in abomination by the thoughtful student of the Law, and the time, earnestly longed for, when the Lamb will appear on Mount Sion.J.A.M.

Lev 11:13-25

Flying creatures.

So conflicting are the opinions of the learned as to many of the animals indicated in the Hebrew names in the verses before us, that it appears hopeless to expect certainly to identify them. This fact in itself ought to convince the Jew that the Law, in the letter, is abolished; for he cannot tell whether he has not repeatedly eaten abominable things, or that contact with the carcasses of such has not made him unclean. As to the spirit of the Law, there are broad indications of cleanness and uncleanness to which we may profitably attend.

I. THE UNCLEAN ARE IN GENERAL BINDS OF PREY.

1. Conspicuous amongst these are the eagles.

(1) There is little doubt that first name () is truly rendered “eagle.” The term expresses the propensity of that creature for lacerating and tearing in pieces the flesh of its prey.

(2) Its associates in the group (Lev 11:13, Lev 11:14) are similar in nature. The “ossifrage,” or bone-breaker, is probably the sea-eagle, whose habit is to break bones to get at the marrow. The “ospray” has its name in the Hebrew from its strength, and is generally understood to be the black eagle. The “vulture “if that truly renders the originalis one of the largest and most formidable of the eagle kind. And what is construed the “kite,” being in the same group, is probably some other description of eagle.

2. These are emblems of evil spirits.

(1) This, indeed, is true of all unclean birds, in proof of which see Mat 13:4, compared with 19, and Rev 18:2. They are so:

(2) From their traversing the air (see Eph 2:2). This is eminently the case with eagles, whose flight is towering, and whose nests even are in inaccessible mountain heights.

(3) From the formidableness of their attacks. From dizzy heights they swoop down upon their prey. They are armed with powerful talons, and strong, sharp, hooked beaks fitted to inflict dreadful wounds, tearing as they grip the flesh of their quivering victims (Job 39:30).

3. They also represent wicked men.

(1) Wicked men are the “children of Satan,” and naturally exhibit the family likeness. The kings of Babylon and Tyre are compared to the eagle (Eze 17:3, Eze 17:7). The persecutors of the people of God are likewise so compared (Lam 4:19). The Roman armies, whose standards were eagles, are called eagles by our Lord (Mat 24:28).

(2) The lesson for us is to avoid the disposition of the wicked, and to beware of their relentless voracity and diabolical cruelty. God is stronger than the “powers of the air.”

II. SOME UNCLEAN BIRDS ARE PROWLERS OF THE NIGHT.

1. This characterizes the next group (Rev 18:15-19).

(1) The Hebrew name for the “raven” () is that commonly used for evening. Our name “raven” probably comes from their ravening. The raven Noah sent forth from the ark, which wandered to and fro, and resting upon floating carcasses or what dry thing it could find, was an emblem of an unclean dark spirit, which is cast out from the Church of God, and from the hearts of his people, and wanders among the moral carcasses, the dead in trespasses and sins (comp. Zec 13:2; Mat 12:43).

(2) Keep close to Jesus, lest, departing from him, we may invite this unclean spirit to return with seven others more wicked than himself.

2. With the raven owls are associated (Rev 18:16-19).

(1) These are creatures whose vision will not endure the blaze of day, but who have wonderful sight in the dark. That rendered “hawk” has its name here () from the swiftness of its flight; but in Daniel 14:13 () from the sharpness of its sight.

(2) They are distinguished from each other by particular habits. That in our version called the “night hawk” () is the screech-owl. Its screams arc violent; and these birds in general make fearful and doleful sounds in the night. This does not argue favourably for the happiness of evil spirits.

(3) Wicked men also, like owls, hate the light. When honest people of the day are sleeping, these prowlers are plotting mischief. Witness the burglaries, the murders, the prostitutions, the debaucheries, practiced by them under the cover of darkness.

III. UNCLEAN BIRDS ARE GROVELLING IN THEIR HABITS.

1. Such are the “fowls that creep going upon all four.”

(1) The bat is a creature of this class. It has claws attached to its leathern wings, which serve it instead of feet to crawl by.

(2) This description includes also insects from which exceptions are taken in the verse following.

2. They are types of wicked intelligences.

(1) Some devils have a passion for enshrining themselves in organic bodies. The incarnation of Satan in the serpent was not the last attempt. There were demoniacal possessions in our Lord’s day; and when expelled from human beings, they preferred the bodies of swine to having no organic habitation.

(2) Wicked men grovel in the most revolting moral filth.

3. In what contrast to these are the flood!

(1) The dove sent forth by Noah is a figure of the Spirit of God, the gracious Messenger and Dispenser of peace to the Church; but who is often grieved by the impurities of men (Mat 3:16). The fruit of the Spirit, is peace; and those who exemplify it are called doves (Mat 10:16).

(2) The lark also is a clean creature, who soars high and sings gloriously in the light of the morning. How angelical! how saintly!

(3) While winged insects that could not leap from the ground were unclean, to show that those men are morally so who are wholly given to the cares of this world; those with benders above their feet, in our version called “legs,” those with crouching joints to stoop and spring with, as locusts and grasshoppers, for the opposite reason are clean. The Baptist lived principally upon locusts in the wilderness.J.A.M.

Lev 11:26-47

Unclean, creeping, and dead things.

It is evident, from the concluding verses of this chapter (see Lev 11:43, Lev 11:44), that these laws were designed to teach the nature of the holiness of God. It therefore follows, unless that holiness consist in not eating the flesh or touching the carcasses of certain creatures, which it would be absurd to suppose, these creatures must in their habits represent evils which men should abominate, and clean creatures, on the contrary, virtues which they should cultivate. Let us therefore seek the spiritual lessons from

I. THE UNCLEAN CHEEPING THINGS THAT CREEP. These are opposed to creeping things that leap, some of which are clean (see Lev 11:21, Lev 11:22). Their steady attachment to the earth, never rising above it, represents an inveterate worldliness which a holy people must hold in abhorrence. Samples are given under the following groupings (see Lev 11:42), viz.:

1. Those that have no feet, “Whatsoever goeth upon the belly.”

(1) Serpents, snakes, vipers, and worms of all kinds are included under this description. The serpent has given its name to Satan ever since he enshrined himself in a creature of that kind (see Gen 3:1; 2Co 11:3; Rev 12:9; Rev 20:2). And wicked men are the “children of the devil,” and so are described as the “seed of the serpent,” and a “generation of vipers” (Gen 3:15; Mat 3:7).

(2) Serpents are abominable for their unclean habits, lurking in the dust or mire, and eating their meat from the dust (Gen 3:14; Isa 65:25; Mic 7:17). Worms are bred in corruption and feast upon carrion (Exo 16:20; Job 7:5; Job 19:24; Act 12:23). What a picture of those who wallow in sin! Serpents are double-tongued (Psa 140:3), teaching us to abhor deception. They nourish poison, which is deadly (Num 21:9), teaching us to detest malignity. The worm of the damned dieth not.

2. Those that have four feet, “Whatsoever goeth upon all four.”

(1) The weasel and the ferret are remarkable for their stealthy sliding motion in closing upon their prey. They teach us that slyness and treachery arc an aggravation of violence, which should be held in abomination. The” mouse” (Lev 11:29) is to be taken as the representative of everything of the mus kind; but it is difficult to say what animal is meant by the word () rendered” tortoise.” By some it is thought to be the crocodile; by others the toad. Its name indicates some habit of swelling, and may teach us to abominate all impudence, ostentation, and vanity.

(2) The animal called “chameleon” (Lev 11:30) is by some thought to be the mongoose, a creature which eats snakes, rats, mice, and other vermin; while Bochart concludes that the chameleon is intended by the word we translate “mole.” Creatures of the lizard kind, excepting the aquatic sort, such as the crocodile, live on flies. God makes some unclean creatures useful in exterminating others; so he deals amongst wicked nations, punishing them by one another in their turn.

3. Those that have more feet.

(1) Under this description we have centipedes, caterpillars, perhaps, and innumerable creatures, with legs more in number than four. Amongst these there is scope for naturalists to describe qualities all which will convey moral lessons.

(2) The one thing we mark in creatures that “multiply feet,” as the Hebrew expresses it, is the slowness yet steadiness and stillness of their progress. The stealthy, insinuating false teachers who troubled the early Churches, and who have their representatives ha modern times, are compared to these creeping things (see 2Ti 3:6; Jud 2Ti 1:4).

II. THE LAWS OF CONTAMINATION. These are ranged under two heads:

1. The polluting of persons.

(1) This is done by their touching the carcass of an unclean creature. Whatsoever is unfit for food must not be touched (see Gen 3:3). Whom we cannot commune with we must avoid.

(2) It may be done by their touching the carcass of a creature originally clean that has died of itself. Because in this case it could not be a type of Christ, who died voluntarily, for he had no sin of his own to doom him to die. All intercourse of Christians should be in Christ, who is our life.

2. The polluting of things.

(1) Vessels of any sort are rendered unclean by contact with the carcass of an unclean thing. These represent human beings in the capacity of servants, whether to God or man (Rom 9:21; 2Ti 2:20, 2Ti 2:21). Some being polluted are to be broken, to show that sin leads to destruction (Rom 9:22). Others may be purified by water, to show that sin may be removed by the sanctifying grace of the Spirit of God. There is a happy time coming (see Zec 14:20, Zec 14:21).

(2) Clean meat may become polluted by contact with anything unclean. This law teaches that “evil communications corrupt good manners.”

(3) If an unclean thing fall into a fountain or well in which there is plenty of water, it does not render the water unclean (Lev 11:36). The living water is an emblem of the Holy Spirit, who cannot be rendered unholy by anything that sinners may do. For a like reason, perhaps, seed that is to be sown, which is a figure of Christ, cannot be rendered impure (Lev 11:37). But if water be put upon the seed for any other purpose, the figure is changed and the case is altered (Lev 11:38).J.A.M.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Lev 11:11-13

The abominable thing.

All the “unclean” animals were spoken of as “abominable.” The Israelites were to learn to regard all creatures which were forbidden for food as offensive in their sight. Many of those prohibited were, for one reason or another, objects of natural aversion; fitting, therefore, to be types and pictures of” that abominable thing which God hates” (Jer 44:4). Probably nothing in nature affords such a vivid conception of that which is loathsome and disgusting as certain members of the animal world. “The ugliness and spitefulness of the camel the filthy sensuality of the hog, the voracious appetency of the dog, the wolf, and the hyena, the savage ferocity of the tiger, the sluggishness of the sloth, the eagle clutching innocence in its talons, the vulture gorging on putrescence, the slimy fish that creeps among the mud, the snake watching in the grass, the scaly thing that crawls on all the land and in all the sea;”here we have a striking and almost terrible picture of the repulsiveness of sin. The training of the Hebrew mind to look on “unclean” animals with greatest aversion helped them to view sin in the light in which God would have us regard it, viz.

I. AS A THING WHICH HE HATES UTTERLY, “It is even an abomination unto him,” it is “that abominable thing which he hates.” He is “of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity.” The falseness, the impurity, the grossness, the oppression, the selfishness, the profanity, the ingratitude of human nature, are as unendurable in God’s sightthings from which he turns with as pained and troubled an eyeas are the most revolting actions of the unclean among the beasts of the field or the reptiles that crawl on the earth, in our esteem. Language fails to express the idea; the vilest habits of the lowest creatures will alone convey the thought of the repulsiveness of sin in the sight of God.

II. As A THING WHICH THE HOLY HATE. Holy angels, the “spirits of just men made perfect,” holy men on earth,all holy spirits, like the Holy One himself, hate sin, shrink from the sight of it, regard it “even as an abomination.” David records for us his intolerance of iniquity (Psa 101:1-8). Peter tells us of the vexation of Lot’s righteous soul with the unlawful deeds and filthy conversation of the wicked (2Pe 2:7, 2Pe 2:8). The message that comes from the attitude of the holy is, “Ye that love the Lord, hate evil” (Psa 97:10).

III. AS A THING WHICH WE MUST LEARN TO HATE.

1. If we are numbered among the holy, we are hating sin; as far as our spirit is sanctified by the truth and by the Spirit of God, so far sin is to us “that abominable thing.”

2. But we need to learn more of its hideousness, and to shrink from it with more of Divine repugnance.

3. And if we are practicing any evil habit, and therefore cherishing it, and not only enduring but even loving it, there must come a time of disenchantment when the evil thing will assume to our eye its own hateful aspect. It is

(1) a painful thing to consider that we may be, with so many others, liking that which we should be loathing; choosing and cherishing that which we should be indignantly repelling or expelling.

(2) A needful thing to keep an open eye to see that to which we may now be blind; to be willing to learn that which our true friends may have to teach us; to be ready and eager to receive enlightenment from God (Psa 139:23).

(3) A fearful thine to think how many live and die in the love of that which is loathsome, and will only learn in retributive scenes what an abominable thing is sin.C.

Lev 11:3

Health a duty as wall as a blessing.

Undoubtedly there were moral and religious grounds for the legislation of this chapter (see subsequent Homilies). It was designed to express and convey religious truth. But we may well believe that the Divine purpose therein was, in part, sanitary. It was chiefly as the Father of their spirits and Sovereign of their souls that God thus spoke on the “clean and the unclean;” but it was also as the Author of their bodily frames. He desired that those who were to be known for ever as his people should be healthy in frame as well as pure in heart. The injunctions given in this chapter tended to that result. Those animals there allowed are the best fitted for food. Human science confirms, here as elsewhere, Divine instruction. “The grain-eating and ruminative animals, which divide the hoof and chew the cud, are altogether the most healthful and delightful for the table.” The flesh of swine, interdicted by sacred Law, has been proved to be the source of hurtful and repulsive maladies. No nation on earth has been healthier than the Hebrew. While providing for the religious education and moral security of his people, God was concerning himself for their bodily well being.
Health is the greatest of earthly blessings. Without it we can do little and enjoy nothing. With it we can accomplish much and triumph over almost every obstacle in our way. A sound constitution is a thing to be profoundly thankful for. But it is for us not only to accept this great gift thankfully, but also to guard it diligently and religiously, There are four reasons why we should regard it as a sacred duty to preserve the health of our body by those obvious means which are within our reach (activity, moderation, cleanliness, contentedness, etc.).

I. BECAUSE THE HUMAN BODY IS THE FAIR WORKMANSHIP OF GOD. That which our heavenly Father has made so exquisitely (Psa 139:14) we should treat as a thing to be protected, to be preserved in its excellency. “Everything is beautiful in its season;” every period and phase of our humanitysmiling infancy, blithe childhood, sunny youth, vigorous young manhood, grave prime, headed-headed age, etc.

II. BECAUSE THE HUMAN BODY IS THE HOME AND ORGAN OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT. In our bodies we ourselves dwellour thinking, reasoning, loving, hoping, striving selves. Our bodily faculties are the organs of our spiritual activities; therefore they are sacred.

III. BECAUSE THE HUMAN BODY IS THE DWELLING–PLACE OF THE HOLY GHOST. (1Co 3:16, 1Co 3:17; 1Co 6:19, 1Co 6:20; 2Co 6:16).

IV. BECAUSE HEALTH IS A CONDITION OF USEFULNESS. It is true that men have been found (like Richard Baxter) to work for years in sickness and pain, but it is only a few rare spirits that can triumph thus over bodily infirmity. If we desire to bear the fullest possible witness and to do the noblest possible work for our God and our generation, we must not be indifferent to the state of our body. The stronger and healthier we are in our physical frame the more cheerful will be the tone of our spirit, the more attractive will be the aspect of our life, the more strenuous and the longer continued gill be the labours of our hand.C.

Lev 11:4-47

Clean and unclean-a lesson on sin.

Why all these minute distinctions? Why disallow many creatures for food, the flesh of which is not unwholesome? What means all this elaborate system of the clean and the unclean, of that which may be taken and that which must be strictly and piously shunned? It was

I. AN EARLY LESSON IN A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL. The people of God were in process of spiritual cultivation; they were being thus trained for our benefit, that they might give to all lands and times a body of sacred truth which it took them long to learn. God would, with this end in view, implant within them, deeply rooted, the idea of holiness. This distinction of clean from unclean was a daily lesson in sanctity, in the conception of separateness of the pure from the impure, of that which might be partaken of from that which might not be touched, of that which could be liked and chosen from that which was to be detested and avoided. They could not fail to understand, they could not fail to be profoundly impressed with the thought, that all around them were things which, for God’s sake, in obedience to his plain commandment, they must shrink from and shun. So the idea of holiness, of sacred separation, of freedom from that which defiles (Lev 11:44), was planted within the soul, and grew in the nation; and it was ready when the time came for the great redeeming purpose of God to be revealed. There was a people well schooled in the essential idea of holiness.

II. A REMINDER OF THE PREVALENCE OF SIN. Connecting uncleanness, defilement, with so many living creatures, there would be before their eyes continual reminders of that which was evil; they would be constantly or frequently put in remembrance that they lived in a world of sin and danger. “All living nature transmuted into a thousand tongues to remind and warn of sin and uncleanness. The living monitor would meet the devout Jew at every point, and call to him in words of sacred admonition from every direction, Looking out at his door, the passing of a camel or a bird of prey would be a memorial to him to guard the approaches of uncleanness. Sitting down under his vine or fig tree, or going forth to gather flowers, the insects crawling on the leaves would be monitors of the presence of evil,” etc. (Seiss).

III. A PICTURE OF THE MANY–SIDED NATURE OF SIN. The unclean animals being associated in his mind with sin, the Jew would naturally connect particular sins with those animals whose habits suggested the thought: the fox would remind him of the evil of treachery and low cunning; the tiger, of ferocity; the hog, of sensuality; the vulture, of gluttony, etc.; he would see before him living pictures of various forms of sin, and would be reminded that evil in every form, temptation in every phase, were about him, and that vigilance was needful at every hour of his life, at every step of his course.

We may learn from these thoughts:

1. That holiness includes, if it is not contained in, separateness of soul and life from that which is evil. Though not minute legal precepts, yet other voices say clearly, forcibly, imperatively to us, “Be ye separate; touch not the unclean thing.”

2. That sin, with its taint and temptation, is on every hand; and not only all around us but, what is more and worse, within us. “Watch and pray,” say the heavenly voices.

3. That sin is multiform in our day and land as it was in theirs. It approaches by every avenue, drapes itself in every costume, assumes every air and attitude, must be promptly recognized, wisely parried, stoutly fought, patiently and repeatedly subdued.C.

Lev 11:4-47

Clean and unclean-three side truths.

I. THAT GOD DOES SOME THINGS TO PROVE US. There were plain, palpable reasons of a sanitary or moral nature for many of these prohibitions; for many others there were, doubtless, valid reasons which escape our view. Probably some remain for which there was no reason in the nature of the ease, but it seemed good to the Divine Ruler of Israel to issue them as tests of obedience. Such was the prohibition of the forbidden fruit in Eden. Such were certain statutes on other subjects. Occasionally these laws regulating the dietary must have been severely testing. The fisherman, e.g; must have been sometimes tried when he landed fine palatable fish which were forbidden, and which had to be cast again into the sea. God’s dealing may seem arbitrary to us. Enough that he, our Father, who has given us so much, who has indeed given us everything we are and have, and to whom we are looking for everything we shall be and shall enjoy in the furthest future, holds out of reach or takes back again that which we would fain have or keep. God tries us, and we must submit with filial trustfulness and cheerfulness.

II. THAT IN DOUBTFUL CASES WE DO WELL TO ABSTAIN. “There was a difficulty in determining the case of the camel whether or not it really divides the hoof wholly, and the case of the hare whether it really chews the cud.” These, however, are prohibited. We are often placed in circumstances in which we are doubtful as to, the legality of pleasures to be enjoyed or profits to be realized. In such cases it is well to keep our “hands off.” Abstinence will result in an infinitesimal loss; indulgence might end in serious mischief (see 1Th 5:22).

III. THAT WE ARE MOST IMPORTANTLY AFFECTED BY THE THINGS WHICH WE APPROPRIATE. Stringent and detailed dietary laws may seem to us to be a redundant part of revelation. They would not have been added, probably, but for the direct religious aspect they wore. But, apart from their primary object, they teach us the valuable lesson that it is a matter of serious if not supreme importance to be appropriating right things every day.

1. Right food for the body. Many men are less devout, less useful, less excellent and admirable in heart and life, because of the unguarded and intemperate way in which they eat and drink. We may be neither gluttons nor drunkards; yet we may lower our character and lessen our influence by ill-regulated appetite in eating and drinking. Profoundly true and urgently demanded as were the words of our Lord (Mat 15:11), “not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man,” we may be sure that Jesus Christ would have us exercise such self-restraint, and, if need be, such self-denial as will keep us from all grossness of thought and habit, from all degeneracy of spirit (Mat 16:24; see 1Co 10:31).

2. Right thoughts for the mind. That which the mind is appropriating, day by day, is determining its nature. It makes all the difference whether, mentally, we are eating and drinking that which is pure, wholesome, clean, refining, or that which is gross, noxious, unclean, deteriorating. How immeasurably important the companions we choose, the books we read, the conversations in which we indulge!

3. Right resolutions for the soul. The soul is entertaining desires and coming to conclusions, on larger and lesser things, every day. If these be unworthy, it is growing in evil; if these be honourable and excellent, it is growing in rectitude, in spiritual beauty, in usefulness, as the days and months go by.C.

Lev 11:46, Lev 11:47

Clean and unclean-the abolition of the law.

“This is the law” (Lev 11:46). But “it is the law” no longer; consider

I. THE FACT THAT THIS LEVITICAL LAW HAS BEEN SET ASIDE.

1. Perhaps by the word of our Lord in Mar 7:15, especially taking the translation of Mar 7:19, “This he said, making all meats pure”.

2. Certainly by the heavenly voice and the apostolic conduct (Act 10:14, Act 10:48).

3. By united apostolic agreement (Act 15:22-29).

4. By inspired Epistles (1Co 8:8; Rom 14:4; 1Ti 4:3, 1Ti 4:4). Clearly we are not under any obligation to observe these statutes. We learn from this our immunity

II. THAT SUCH PICTORIAL TEACHING IS NOT NOW NEEDED. What moral and spiritual lessons were to be conveyed by these injunctions and by the habits of thought and deed they created, have been learnt; the rudimentary lesson is no longer needed. We are supposed to understand or to be able to learn in other ways what God means by holiness, how hateful sin is in his sight, how prevalent it is, how manifold in its shapes and colours, how sedulously it is to be avoided.

III. THAT GOD TRUSTS US TO ACT ARIGHT IN THIS MATTER OF BODILY NOURISH MEET. The Law treated the race as if it were in its religious childhood; the gospel as if it had attained to manhood (Gal 4:1, Gal 4:23). Christ our Lord trusts us to act wisely and faithfully. We must honour his Divine confidence in us. We shall do so by:

1. Intelligent study of what is really wholesome and health-giving.

2. Moderation in the use of that which is “good for food.”

3. Endeavour to make the body the active servant of the soul.C.

Lev 11:24-28, Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40

The significance of death.

“Whosoever toucheth the carcass shall be unclean.” What is the meaning of these minute and stringent regulations touching the dead bodies of animals, both clean (Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40) and unclean (Lev 11:24-28)? The answer to this question is in the fourfold consideration

I. HOW MUCH GOD MAKES OF DEATH. Death is the key-note of very much of sacred Scripture. “Thou shalt die” is a constantly recurring refrain. “And he died” is a continually repeated statement. It was the death of the slain victim at the altar that made expiation for the sinner. It is the death upon the cross which constitutes the sacrifice for the world’s sin. The death of the soul is the awful punishment of guilt hereafter as it is on earth. It was the death of these animals that made their caresses unclean. In the Old Testament and New, God makes much of death.

II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DEATH. Death is odious and intolerable in God’s sight: it must be made to seem so in man’s; for:

1. It is the consequence of sin in man.

2. It is the picture of sin in man.

3. It is a reminder of the painful and hateful presence of sin in man.

III. THE AVOIDABLENESS OF SIN. The fact that the dead carcass could be and must be avoided, and that contraction of ceremonial defilement could be prevented, indicated to the Jew and now intimates to us that sin may be and must be shunned. Two things were and are necessary:

1. Carefulness: scrupulous regard to the known laws (Lev 11:32, Lev 11:34, Lev 11:38).

2. Self-sacrifice: things made unclean must be broken up, disused, cast away, at whatever cost (Lev 11:33, Lev 11:35).

IV. THE REMOVAL OF THE STAIN OF SIN. “It must be put into water; so it shall be cleansed” (Lev 11:32). “There is a fountain filled with blood,” etc.C.

Lev 11:44

Sacred separation.

“Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves.” The root-thought of sanctity is separateness. A man sanctifies himself when he separates himself from that which is evil and impure; so with a nation or a family. These strict laws concerning the clean and the unclean had important reference to

I. NATIONAL SEPARATION.

1. God purposed to establish a holy nation. He designed, by various methods, to separate for himself a people free from the idolatry and the immorality of the race.

2. He therefore determined to separate Israel from international intercourse. The people of God were not to have any outside social relations, were not to intermarry with neighbouring nations.

3. Therefore, beside geographical obstacles and positive prohibitions, God interposed a precise and separating dietary. This created a strong barrier between his people and all others. The laws of food affect us powerfully in our social relations. Free intercourse is impossible without hospitality, and hospitality is impossible where distinctions as to eating and drinking are not only numerous but sacred and binding. A Hebrew could not sit down to the table of an Egyptian or an Arab without offending his host and sinning against his God. Moreover, such distinctions would generate and foster feelings of moral aversion toward those who did not observe them, and this would be another strong fence, helping to maintain separateness. The Jews may have carried this far beyond the original intention of the Divine Legislator; but at that point in the religious history of the world, all considerations were second, longo intervallo, to the one supreme end of keeping Israel separate and pure. God has, in his providence, divided the human race into nations by separating seas and mountains; there are many obvious advantages in this: it makes government, and therefore order and security, a possible thing. It makes possible national influence for good. How much of benefit and blessing to Europe and the world has arisen and will arise from the fact that he who is Lord of the sea and the rock has cut a channel and filled it with the dividing waters between the continent and this Heaven-taught land of ours (Psa 147:20)!

II. FAMILY SEPARATION. “God setteth the solitary in families” (Psa 68:6). But he thereby not only makes the lonely to be social and joyous; he separates one small group of souls from all others. The family unites its members into one fellowship; it also divides the nation into separate circles. It is a fence which shuts out as well as it shuts in. It is one of the most imperative and sacred duties which God lays upon us who are parents to see that no injurious, no poisonous, no ruinous element, in the shape of’ a contaminating human soul, is admitted within the gates of family life.

III. INDIVIDUAL SEPARATION. With us (speaking generally) God wills how separate the nation shall be; the human parent determines how separate the family shall be; each individual soul must decide how separate he and his life shall be. There is a sin-stained, corrupted world encompassing us; we must choose, for ourselves, how far we will enter it, how free our intercourse with it shall be. There are, however, some general principles.

1. We must have something to do with it (Joh 17:15; 1Co 5:9).

2. We must impose some restraints on ourselves; we must draw some lines of limitation; we must “sanctify (separate) ourselves.”

3. We should refrain from familiar association with the openly ungodly; for by such familiarity we should identify ourselves with their principles and countenance their evil ways.

4. We should avoid intimacy with the irreligious and undecided; for if we mingle continually with those who walk on lower spiritual ground, we shall surely fall to their level (Pro 13:20).C.

Lev 11:45

High reasons for holiness.

The height of human character depends on the nature of the motives by which men allow themselves to be governed. It is certain

(1) that we are all actuated by a great variety of motives;

(2) that we are affected by many considerations in our choice of the better path;

(3) that of the right motives which actuate us some are much higher than others;

(4) that while it is well to be moved by every honourable impulse, we should seek to be mainly moved by the highest and best of all.

Here we have three of the highest possible motives for the best possible estate, three high reasons for holiness.

I. GOD, IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY, COMMANDS IT, AND IT IS OUR HIGHEST DUTY TO OBEY HIM. “I am your God: ye shall.” Duty is one of the highest of all considerations, if not positively the very highest. Our duty to obey God when he says “ye shall” is clearly the highest of all duties.

II. GOD HIMSELF IS THE HOLY ONE, AND IT IS OUR HIGHEST HONOUR TO BE LIKE HIM. “Ye shall be holy; for I am holy.” He is the “Holy One of Israel,” the “holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts.” “He is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” There is no conceivable ambition man can cherish that is so high as the aspiration to be like God, the righteous Father of souls (see Mat 5:48).

III. GOD, OUR REDEEMER, DESIRES IT, AND IT IS OUR HIGHEST SATISFACTION TO PLEASE HIM. “I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt.” If there were anything we desired to withhold from him who is “our God,” the God from whom we came, to whom we belong, and before whom we stand, still there can be nothing we will keep back from him who is our Redeemer, who has “brought us out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” “To Jesus, our Atoning Priest,” we bring

(1) our promptest and devoutest attention,

(2) our unquestioning faith,

(3) our most cheerful obedience. We run to keep his commandments.C.

HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE

Lev 11:45

Holiness and its requirements.

When a man has purified himself and taken upon himself vows of devotedness to God, then is he prepared to be the recipient of Divine communications. After Aaron’s consecration, he is instructed both separately, and conjointly with Moses (Lev 10:8; Lev 11:1). The legislator and the priest act in harmony under a theocracy; the laws of God are the statutes of the nation.

I. THE SANCTIFICATION REQUIRED OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD.

1. It is a necessary consequence of his character and of the relationship they sustain to him. What the Master loves, the servant must love; what the King is, that his subjects become. Sanctity is the glory of God. To be untarnished, free from taint, this is his prerogative and separates him from all idol gods. Holiness is not so much one special attribute as the all-embracing purity, the bright cloud that invests his excellences with spotless splendour. Evil flies from his presence. Unless, therefore, his people manifest this separation from impurity, how can be take delight in them and bless them? Unless they reflect something of his image, how can he acknowledge them as his children? He says, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.”

2. The intention of God has been signified in delivering his people from bondage, He declares himself Jehovah, the bringer-up of the Israelites from the land of Egypt, in order to be to them for a God (Elohim). This same design is expressed in Le Lev 20:26, “I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.” To what purpose was the yoke of idolatrous sinful Egypt broken, if Israel remained impure and unholy? The intent of Jehovah would be frustrated. A similar line of argument is pursued in 1Pe 1:15-19, where the precept of the text is enforced by reference to the cost of redemptionnot corruptible things, but the precious blood of Christ being the price of our ransom. We make the grace of God and the gift of his Son of none effect if we continue in the former sins.

3. This same deliverance is appealed to as a claim upon his people’s gratitude and obedience. The very kindness of Jehovah in emancipating the nation and guiding them through the wilderness constituted a valid reason for abstaining from all that God forbade Unworthy are they of being the recipients of mercy who do not feel themselves bound thereby to please this merciful Lord. Shall not the love of Christ constrain us to live unto him, acknowledging that we are henceforth not our own? Conduct actuated by such motives is not servitude. It accords with the dictates of reason, conscience, and emotion. Compared with the bondage from which Christ releases us his yoke is easy, and his burden light indeed.

II. WHAT THIS SANCTIFICATION INVOLVES.

1. Adherence to distinctions unknown to the world in general. Some animals were to be regarded as totally unfit for food, others unclean under certain conditions. It was not the business of these teachers to make the distinctions, but to explain and enforce them. The popular classification was adoptedit would be the only one intelligible. Even in trivial waiters God’s people are to be distinguished from the heathen. These distinctions were not simply arbitrary; they depended on considerations sanitary, ethical, and instinctive. Thankful for the relief the gospel affords us from the burdensome ceremonies of the Law, knowing that “every creature of God is good,” we have yet to do all, whether we eat or drink, to the glory of God. His gifts are to be received with thanksgiving, sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. We are not “subject to ordinances that perish with the using,” yet are we to set our affection on things above, and to mortify our members which are upon the earth; observances which the majority of mankind practice not. The line of division between things pure and defiling is plainly marked if we apply our eyes to survey it. Others may call us bigoted, narrow-minded, straight-laced, but we prefer the commendation of our Master to the good-will of men.

2. Possible loss of property. How vexatious to an Israelite to be obliged to destroy a vessel because it was polluted (verse 33), or a cooking-range (verse 35), or some moistened seed (verse 38)! Many like a religion that costs them nothing, that is not particular about trifles. Yet real is that man’s religion who refuses to employ ill-gotten gain or dishonest measures, and who would renounce connection with a firm rather than be a party to unjust proceedings. Pity that so much evil should be condoned and defiling association suffered for sake of the profit it brings! If thy hand or thy foot cause thee to stumble, cast it off.

3. Continual care and trouble. To touch a dead animal necessitated ablution of the clothes, and the vessel which should be accidentally made “unclean” must be thoroughly washed, and both man and utensil remained ceremonially unclean till the evening. At any moment an Israelite might be compelled to repair the inroads of pollution, and constant caution was requisite to abstain from needlessly incurring stain. The sanctity God desires is a life-long work, and lovers of case had better not undertake it. To be like him who was “holy, undefiled, separate from sinners,” is to take up the cross and deny one’s self. “Watch and pray unceasingly” must be our motto. Thanks be to him who hath opened a “fountain for sin and uncleanness,” wherein at all seasons we may bathe and come forth white as snow! Thus shall we show forth the praises of him who hath called us. Let us learn to welcome the opportunity of testifying our love to him who gave himself for us.S.R.A.

Lev 11:1-47

Holiness.

Lev 11:45, “For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”

I. THE BASIS ON WHICH HOLINESS RESTS. The Divine call.

1. All religion must find its real strength as well as its root in Divine love. “We love him because he first loved us.” A redeemed life must be holy. “He that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” We begin our holiness with the cross of Christ. He has cleansed us with his blood, therefore we must be clean.

2. The deliverance effected by God for his people is made the pledge of an eternal life by the special covenant, which separated them from all others. We must have fact and positive revelation and direct premise to fall back upon. He also calls us to himself, declares himself our God. He says, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” Likeness to God is our rule; fellowship with God is our strength and joy.

II. THE NATURE AND METHOD OF HOLINESS.

1. The holiness which God requires is personal holinessholiness in life, manners, habits, food, everything which concerns the man himself. The distinctions of clean and unclean animals, etc; refer to natural laws of health and life.

2. Holiness must be the characteristic of God’s people as a community. The laws of cleanliness separated the nation as a whole from other nations. They applied to all classes, and to every individual. The Church must be a holy Church. The lack of discipline is a terrible hindrance to the advance of religion. We must keep off the unclean. The covenant blessing will not be given unless the covenant law be observed, “Let a man examine himself.” Defilement of sacred things is judgment to ourselves.

3. The holiness of this world’s life is a promise and prediction of the higher holiness of the everlasting life. The clean and unclean animals were distinguished that the taint of death might be removed in the case of those fit for food. The distinction itself seemed to say all would be clean to you if it were not for death. When we are above the conditions of earthly life, then to be holy will be to be really like Godnot in a mere negative purity of not being contaminated, not sinning; but being spiritually created afresh, with immortal natures, with perfect hearts to serve God, with life interpenetrated by his Divine glory. The holiness of the best Christian on earth is but an imperfect thing, largely a holiness of external regulation and separation from the unclean; but the holiness of the angelic nature will be a real and positive participation of the Divine.R.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

PART III UNCLEANNESS, CEREMONIAL AND MORAL: ITS REMOVAL OR ITS PUNISHMENT

SECTION I

EXPOSITION

THE two preceding parts having made manifest the way of approach to God by means of sacrifice and the appointed priesthood of mediation, there follows a part having for its subject that which keeps man apart from God, namely, uncleanness, whether ceremonial uncleanness, which may be removed by ceremonial observances, or moral uncleanness, that is, unrighteousness, which, so far as it is a ceremonial offense, may be also dealt with ceremonially, but in respect to its moral character demands punishment. This part consists of four sections. The first section, comprising chapters 11-15, treats of ceremonial uncleanness, caused

(1) by unclean food (Lev 11:1-47);

(2) by childbirth (Lev 12:1-8.);

(3) by the leprosy of man and of garments and of houses (Lev 13:1-59, Lev 14:1-57);

(4) by issues (Lev 15:1-33).

The second section deals with the uncleanness contracted every year by the whole congregation, to be annually atoned for on the great Day of Atonement (Lev 16:1-34), followed by a parenthetical chapter as to the place in which sacrifice is to be offeredsacrifice being the means by which purification from uncleanness is to be effected (Lev 17:1-16). The third section is on moral uncleanness, or sin (Lev 18:1-30, Lev 19:1-37), and its punishment (Lev 20:1-27). The fourth relates to the ceremonial and moral uncleanness of priests (Lev 21:1-24, Lev 22:1-33).

The idea underlying ceremonial uncleanness is not peculiar to the Jews. With the Greeks the idea of moral beauty was borrowed from physical beauty, and the standard of moral excellence was the beautiful. With the Hebrews physical ugliness is taken as the symbol of moral ugliness or deformity: whatever is foul is the type of what is evil. That which we have a natural admiration for is good, said the Greek; that which we have a natural repugnance for represents to us what is evil, said the Hebrew. In either case, taste appears to take the place of moral judgment; but in Greek philosophy, moral taste and moral judgment had come to be identical, while the Hebrew knew that what taste condemned was not therefore of itself evil, but only symbolical and representative of evil.
Another principle underlies the Hebrew theory of uncleanness. It is that whatever is itself foul, and therefore symbolical of sin, conveys the quality of foulness, and therefore of ceremonial uncleanness to any one it comes in contact with, and often to anything which it touches. Thus a dead body, quickly assuming a loathsome appearance in the East, where the setting in of corruption is very rapid, is unclean itself, and conveys uncleanness to those who touch it. The leper is unclean, and transmits uncleanness by his touch; and certain foul diseases and fluxes from the human body have the same effect. These and such like things, being always repulsive, always cause uncleanness; but there are others which, while in some associations they are utterly repellent, in others are not so. For example, there are some vermin and insects which are pretty to the eye, but the thought of eating them creates a natural feeling of disgust. These, in so far as they are not repulsive, that is, as creeping or flying creatures, are not unclean, nor does their touch produce uncleanness, but as objects of food they are “an abomination.”

Hence we are able to explain the distinction of clean and unclean animals. It does not rest upon a sanitary basis, though the prohibition to eat carnivorous and other animals repulsive to the taste is probably in accordance with the rules of health. Nor is it based on political reasons, though it is probable that the distinction kept the Jews apart kern other nations, and so served an important political purpose. Nor is the injunction in the main theological, though we know that in later times the favourite interpretation was that the clean animals represented the Jews, and the unclean animals the Gentiles (Act 10:28). Rather it was that certain creatures were forbidden because they were offensive to the taste, and, being so offensive, they were symbolical of vicious things, which must be avoided, lest they make those that partake of them or touch them to become vicious like themselves.

Lev 15:2-8 contain the regulations relating to the eating of quadrupeds; Lev 15:9-12, those relating to fish; Lev 15:13-19, those relating to birds; Lev 15:20-23, those relating to flying insects; Lev 15:29, Lev 15:30, those relating to unwinged creeping things; verses 41-44, those relating to vermin. Lev 15:23-28 and Lev 15:31 -40 extend the defiling effect to the simple touch of the dead carouses of animals, whether edible or not.

Lev 11:1

The Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron. Aaron, having now been consecrated high priest, is joined with Moses as the recipient of the laws on cleanness and uncleanness in Le Lev 11:1; Lev 13:1; Lev 14:33; Lev 15:1. His name is not mentioned in Le Lev 12:1; Lev 14:1; Lev 17:1; Lev 18:1; Lev 19:1; Lev 20:1; Lev 21:1, Lev 21:16; Lev 22:1, Lev 22:17, Lev 22:26. Probably there is no signification in these omissions.

Lev 11:2

These are the beasts that ye shall eat. In order that the Israelites might know how to avoid the uncleanness arising from the consumption of unclean flesh, plain rules are given them by which they may distinguish what flesh is clean and what is unclean. The first rule is that anything that dies of itself is unclean, whether it be beast, bird, or fish. The reasons of this are plain: for

(1) the flesh still retains the blood, which no Israelite might eat; and

(2) there is something loathsome in the idea of eating such flesh. Next, as to beasts, a class is marked off as edible by two plainly discernible characteristics, and instances are given to show that where there is any doubt owing to the animals possessing one of the characteristic marks only, the rule is to be construed strictly. As to fish and insects, equally plain rules, one in each case, are laid down; but as birds are not readily distinguished into large classes, the names of those that are unclean are given one by one, the remainder being all of them permissible. Thus the simple Israelite would run no risk of incurring uncleanness by inadvertently eating unclean food, whether of beast, bird, fish, or insect. The object of the regulations being to exclude all meats naturally offensive to the human taste, all carnivorous quadrupeds are shut out by the rule of chewing the cud (Lev 11:3), with the same purpose, birds of prey and birds that eat offal are prohibited (Lev 11:13-19), and scaleless fish on account of their repulsive appearance (Lev 11:9-12), as well as beetles, maggots, and vermin of all sorts. In the case of beasts and fish, the rules laid down to mark off those things that are offensive, being general in their application, are such as to include in the forbidden class some few which do not appear naturally loathsome. This is owing partly to the difficulty of classification, partly to a change of feeling which experience has wrought in the sentiments of mankind with regard to such edibles as swine’s flesh and shell-fish.

Lev 11:3, Lev 11:4

Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, should rather be translated, Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and completely divides it, The camel parts but does not wholly divide the hoof, as there is ball at the back of the foot, of the nature of a heel.

Lev 11:5

The coney, Hebrew, shaphan; the Hyrax Syriacus, or wabr, still called in Southern Arabia tsofun, a little animal similar to but not identical with the rabbit. “They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa 104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings of their caves, and extremely timid, as they are quite defenseless (Pro 30:26). They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish-gray or brownish-yellow color, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests” (Keil).

Lev 11:6

The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, There is little doubt that the same animal as our hare is meant. Neither the hare, however, nor the hyrax chews the cud in the strict sense of the words. But they have the appearance of doing so. The rule respecting chewing the cud was given to and by Moses as a legislator, not as an anatomist, to serve as a sign by which animals might be known to be clean for food. Phenomenal not scientific language is used here, as in Jos 10:12, “as we might speak of whales and their congeners as fish, when there is no need of scientific accuracy” (Clark). “All these marks of distinction in the Levitical law are wisely and even necessarily made on the basis of popular observation and belief, not on that of anatomical exactness. Otherwise the people would have been continually liable to error. Scientifically, the camel would be said to divide the hoof, and the hare does not chew the cud. But laws for popular use must necessarily employ terms as they are popularly understood. These matters are often referred to as scientific errors; whereas they were simply descriptions, necessarily popular, for the understanding and enforcement of the law” (Gardiner).

Lev 11:7

The swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted. Here, again, the description is not according to anatomical analysis, but to ordinary appearance. The pig appears to be cloven-footed, and it would be misleading to give any other account of his foot in ordinary speech, but scientifically speaking, he has four toes. The prohibition of the use of swine’s flesh does not arise from the fear of trichinosis or other disease, but from the disgust caused by the carnivorous and filthy habits of the Eastern pig. The repulsion originally felt for swine’s flesh was natural, and, where the animal is carnivorous, is still natural, but where its habits are changed, and it has become simply graminivorous, the feeling has ceased to exist.

Lev 11:8

Of their carcass shall ye not touch. This prohibition is founded upon the same feeling of disgust as the prohibition of eating their flesh. Whatever is foal must be avoided.

Lev 11:9-12

Whatsoever hath fins and scales. The absence of fins and scales, or their apparent absencefor phenomenal language is used, as beforegives to fish a repulsive look, on which is grounded the prohibition to eat them. Eels and shell-fish are thus forbidden, though a long course of experience has now taken away the feeling of repulsion with which they were once looked upon. The flesh of the beasts for, bidden to be eaten is only described as unclean, but that of the prohibited fish, birds, insects, and vermin, is designated as an abomination unto you.

Lev 11:13-19

The unclean birds are those which are gross feeders, devourers of flesh or offal, and therefore offensive to the taste, beginning with the eagle and vulture tribe. It is probable that the words translated owl (Lev 11:16), night hawk (Lev 11:16), cuckow (Lev 11:16) should be rendered, ostrich, owl, gull, and perhaps for swan (Lev 11:18), heron (Lev 11:19), lapwing (Lev 11:19), should be substituted ibis, great plover, hoopoe. In the case of the bat, we have again phenomenal language used. Being generally regarded as a bird, it is classed with birds.

Lev 11:20-23

All fowls that creep should rather be rendered all winged creeping things, that is, all flying insects. None are allowed except the Saltatoria, or locust family. The word translated beetle signifies a sort of locust, like the other three words. That the locust was a regular article of food in Palestine is amply proved. “It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity, both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greek thought the cicadas very agreeable in flavour (Arist. ‘Hist. An.,’ 5:30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure, and they are also dried and kept in bags for winter use. They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal, and make cakes of them” (Keil). (Cf. Mat 3:4.) The expression goeth upon all four, means groveling or going in a horizontal position, in contrast with two-legged birds, just spoken of.

Lev 11:24-28

These verses contain an expansion of the warning contained in Lev 11:8, to the effect that the touch of the dead bodies of the forbidden animals was defiling, as well as the consumption of their flesh. A further mark of an unclean animal is added in Lev 11:27. Whatsoever goeth upon his paws; that is, whatever has not hoofs, but goes stealthily, like beasts of prey of the eat kind. It includes also dogs.

Lev 11:29, Lev 11:30

The creeping things that creep upon the earth. This class contains things that go on their belly, but have not wings, like the previous class of creeping things (Lev 11:20-23). By the words translated tortoise, ferret, chameleon, lizard, snail, mole, different varieties of the lizard are probably meant. The mouse is joined by Isaiah with “eating swine’s flesh and the abomination” (Isa 66:17).

Lev 11:31-38

As the little animals just mentionedweasels, mice, and lizardsare more likely than those of a larger size to be found dead in domestic utensils and clothes, a further warning as to their defiling character is added, with tales for daily use. The words translated ranges for pots (Lev 11:35) should rather be rendered covered pots, that is, pots or kettles with lids to them. Seed which is to be sown, that is, seed corn, is not defiled by contact with these dead animals, unless it has been wetted by water being put on it, in which case the moisture would convey the corruption into the seeds.

Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40

The loathsomeness of the bodies of even clean animals that have died a natural death, makes them also the means of conveying defilement to any one who touches them.

Lev 11:41-43

The last class is that of vermin, which constitute a part of the un-winged creeping class already spoken of (Lev 11:29, Lev 11:30). Whatsoever goeth upon the belly indicates snakes, worms, maggots: whatsoever goeth upon all four, things that grovel, as moles, rats, hedgehogs; whatsoever hath more feet, or doth multiply feet, centipedes, caterpillars, spiders.

Lev 11:44-47

These concluding verses give a religious sanction to the previous regulations, and make them matters of sacred, not merely sanitary or political, obligation. They were to sanctify themselves, that is, to avoid uncleanness, because God is holy, and they were God’s. They were thus taught that ceremonial cleanness of the body was a symbol of holiness of heart, and a means of attaining to the latter. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt. It is possible that Egypt may be named as being the laud of animal-worship. To be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. The only way by which there can be communion between God and man is the way of holiness.

Jewish industry and care has counted the number of letters in the Pentateuch, and marked by the use of the letter in larger type, in the word , which occurs in Lev 11:42, that that letter is the middle letter of the whole work from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Deuteronomy. It is easy to see what a protection to the text such minute and scrupulous care must be.

HOMILETICS

Lev 12:6

Generation, conception, and birth, not having anything sinful necessarily connected with them, the sin offering in this case is rather an intimation of original sin than an atonement for actual sin; the “sorrow” attached to childbirth being especially connected with the fall of man as a result of Eve’s share in bringing it about (Gen 3:16). There is nothing in the Bible to countenance ascetic or Manichaean views of marriage intercourse. Where any prohibitory injunctions are given on the subject, the purpose is to avoid ceremonial, not moral, uncleanness (Exo 19:15; 1Sa 21:4; cf. Le 1Sa 15:18).

Lev 12:8

Some fifteen hundred years after this law of purification after childbirth had been given to and by Moses, a man child was born in a country which did not at the time of the legislation of Moses belong to the Israelites, and which those whom Moses addressed had never seen. The country was Palestine, the city Bethlehem. The birth took place in a stable, for the mother was poor. For eight days she remained unclean, and on the eighth day the child was circumcised, and “his name was called Jesus” (Luk 2:21). For thirty-three days longer she continued “in the blood of her purifying” (Lev 12:4), and then “when the days of their purification according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, and to offer a sacrifice, according to that which is said in the Law of the Lord” (Luk 2:22, Luk 2:24). Had the mother been wealthy, she would have offered a lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or turtle-dove, for a sin offering, but though of the house and lineage of David, she was poor, and her sacrifice was therefore “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons”one of the birds being for a burnt offering, betokening the devotion of her life afresh to God after the peril that she had gone through; the other for a sin offering, recognizing her share in the penalty of Eve as partaker in original sin. “On bringing her offering, she would enter the temple through ‘the gate of the firstborn,’ and stand in waiting at the gate of Nicanor, from the time that the incense was kindled on the golden altar. Behind her, in the court of the women, was the crowd of worshippers, while she herself, at the top of the Levites’ steps, which led up to the great court, would witness all that passed in the sanctuary. At last one of the officiating priests would come to her at the gate of Nicanor, and take from her hand the poor’s offering, which she had brought. The morning sacrifice was ended, and but few would linger behind while the offering for her purification was actually made. She who brought it mingled prayer and thanksgiving with the service. And now the priest once more approached her, and, sprinkling her with the sacrificial blood, declared her cleansed. Her ‘firstborn’ was next redeemed at the hand of the priest with five shekels of silver; two benedictions being at the same time pronouncedone for the happy event which had enriched the family with a firstborn, the other for the law of redemption” (Edersheim, ‘Temple Service ‘). It was probably as she descended the steps that Simeon took the babe from her arms, and blessed God and them, and that Anna “gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luk 2:38). “And when they had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth” (Luk 2:39). Thus obediently did the virgin mother of the Lord submit herself to the regulations of the Levitical Law, and thus humbly and graciously did the infant Saviour begin from the day of his birth to “fulfill all righteousness” (Mat 3:15) in his own person, though by the hands of others.

Lessons

1. To obey the positive laws and to submit to the positive institutions of the religious community to which we belong,

2. To take measures, when we have even involuntarily and without sin on our part ceased to be in open communion with God and God’s people, to recover that communion.

3. To see that the measures which we take with this end are appointed by God or by his authority, and are in accordance with his will.

4. To be sure that such steps as we take be accompanied by an acknowledgment of sin and a throwing ourselves for acceptance on the merits of the sacrifice of the cross (which is our sin offering), and a consecration of ourselves to God’s service (which is our burnt offering).

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

Lev 12:1-8

The purification of the Church.

At the commencement of his treatise on this Book of Leviticus, Cyril of Alexandria truly says, that as the Word of God came into the world arrayed in flesh, in which bodily appearance he was seen of all, while his divinity was seen only by the elect; so has the written Word a letter, or outward sense, which is obvious to ordinary perception, and an inward meaning which must be spiritually discerned. According to this rule, the purification of the Church is the subject of the text, which is presented under two aspects. It is

I. DISTRIBUTIVELY CONSIDERED. The necessity of the spiritual birth may be collected:

1. From the impurity of the natural.

(1) This is expressed in the ceremonial uncleanness of the mother. In case of the birth of a son, she had to remain forty days in a state of impurity. During this period she must not touch any hallowed thing, else it became polluted; and she must not enter the holy place of the temple. In case her child were a daughter, the term of this uncleanness was doubled. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”

(2) Her uncleanness is in her blood, which is the same as saying it is in her nature. To be “born of blood” is therefore a periphrasis for a natural birth in depravity, and it is consequently opposed to the spiritual birth (see Joh 1:13).

(3) This maternal uncleanness is also described as her “infirmity,” in allusion to the pain, sorrow, and weakness through which she passes; and calls to remembrance the curse upon the original offense (Gen 3:16). The birth amidst this “infirmity” shows the utter helplessness and sorrowfulness of our moral state by nature.

(4) No wonder, then, that the child also should be accounted unclean. Until the eighth day he had no sign of the covenant upon him. But an infant could not have “sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression;” therefore this exclusion from the covenant from the birth evinces hereditary depravity and guilt (Psa 51:5; Eph 2:3).

2. From the rite of circumcision.

(1) It was the sign of introduction into the covenant of God (Gen 17:9-14). This supposes a spiritual birth, since the pollutions of the natural birth excluded the child from the favour of God.

(2) The sign expressed this moral change to be the cutting off all that was forward in fleshly desires (see Deu 10:16; Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29; Php 3:3). These, however necessary to the natural man, must not rule us here; for when the seven days of the world are over, they will be no more (see Mat 22:30; 1Co 15:50; 2Co 5:2-4; see also Homiletic notes on 2Co 9:1-7).

(3) Hence, the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is another way for expressing the “circumcision of the heart,” and therefore it is called the “circumcision of Christ,” or of Christianity (Col 2:11, Col 2:12). By parity of reason, the “baptism of water” corresponds to the “circumcision which is outward in the flesh.”

(4) Circumcision was proper to express the necessity of a spiritual birth in the dispensation of the covenant before Christ came, as it figured his sacrificial death (the “cutting off” of the” Holy Seed”), through which we claim the blessings of salvation. Now he has come, the type is fittingly abolished, and the baptismal water introduced, which is the emblem of the purifying spirit of the gospel.

II. COLLECTIVELY CONSIDERED.

1. The Church is the mother of the children of God.

(1) Every man was intended to be a figure of Christ. The first man was such (Rom 5:14). This privilege is shared by his male descendants (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27; 1Co 11:7). So every woman was intended to be a figure of the Church of God (1Co 11:7-9). The marriage union, therefore, represents the union between Christ and his Church (Eph 5:22-32). And the fruit of marriage should represent the children of God (see Isa 54:1-8; Isa 49:20-23; Gal 4:25-31).

(2) But all this may be reversed. Men, through perversity, may come to represent Belial rather than Christ. Women may become idolatrous, and represent an anti-Christian rather than a Christian Church. Thus Jezebel, who demoralized Ahab, became a type of those anti-Christian State Churches which demoralize the kings of the nations (see Rev 2:20-23; Rev 17:1-18.).

2. In her present state she is impure.

(1) Under the Law she was far from perfect. The elaborate system of ceremonial purifications imposed upon her evinced this. Her history and the judgments she suffered go to the same conclusion. The uncleanness of the mother in the text is not an exaggerated picture,

(2) Nor is she perfect under the gospel. The saints are in her. Many of her children have experienced the circumcision of the heart. But many more have only had that which is outward in the flesh. The “tares”hypocrites and unbelieversare mingled with the “wheat,” a state of things which is destined to continue “until the harvest” (Mat 13:30, Mat 13:39).

3. But she is in the process of her purification.

(1) The first stage in this process was marked by the rite of circumcision. During the time prior to that event, she was in her “separation,” viz. from her husband and friends, and those in necessary attendance upon her were unclean. This indicates the great difference which the cutting off of the Great Purifier of his people makes to the spiritual liberty of the Church (Rom 7:1-4).

(2) Still the period of her uncleanness was extended to forty days from the beginning. Her “separation” terminated on the eighth day, but during the whole period she must not eat the Passover, nor the peace offerings, nor come into the sanctuary (verse 4). These forty days may be presumed to be similar in typical expression to the forty years of the Church in the wilderness before it was fit to enter Canaan (see Deu 8:2, Deu 8:16).

(3) In the case of the birth of a female this period of forty days was doubled. This may be designed to show that under the gospel, where the distinction of male and female is abolished (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), still the wilderness state of the Church is continued. Our Lord was forty days upon earth before he entered into his glory, and in that state represented the state of the Church that is spiritually risen with him, but not yet glorified.

(4) The entrance of the mother into the temple when her purification was perfected represented the state of the Church in heaven (see Eph 5:27). The offerings with which she entered showed that her happiness is the purchase of the Redeemer’s passion. Her feasting upon the holy things expressed those joys of the heavenly state elsewhere described as “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7-9).J.A.M.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR

Lev 12:1-8

Born in sin.

cf. Gen 3:16; Psa 51:5; Luk 2:21; 1Ti 2:15. From the division of the animals into clean and unclean, and the sanctity thereby inculcated, we are invited to proceed to those personal liabilities to uncleanness for which due rites were provided. The first of these takes life at its fountain-head, and refers to the uncleanness connected with birth. Motherhood involved a longer or shorter period of ceremonial separationforty days in the case of a son, seventy days in the case of a daughter, after which a burnt offering and a sin offering are to be presented to the Lord, and atonement made for her that she may be clean.

I. LET US START WITH THE PHYSICAL FACT THAT NATURE HAS ASSOCIATED WITH CHILDBIRTH A SENSE ON THE MOTHER‘S PART OF PERSONAL UNCLEANNESS. The “issue of her blood” (1Ti 2:7) stamps the physical process with defilement. No mother can avoid this sense of personal uncleanness, not even the blessed Virgin (Luk 3:22-24). Upon the fact it is needless to dwell.

II. THE MORAL COUNTERPART TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT SIN IS TRANSMITTED BY ORDINARY GENERATION. As David puts it in Psa 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” From generation to generation is the legacy of evil transmitted. Hereditary sin must be recognized as a much wider phenomenon than “hereditary genius.” The law of heredity must be accepted as at the bottom of human experience, if the mother, in spite of all her fondness for her babe, finds that she has transmitted sinful qualities; if this is the universal experience in ordinary generation, then the sense of uncleanness, physically induced, contracts a moral significance.

III. THERE IS AT THE SAME TIME A SENSE OF JOY AND TRIUMPH ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIRTH OF CHILDREN. If there is an element of sorrow and of judgment, as God indicates by his utterance at the Fall (Gen 3:16), there is also an element of triumph, caught from the “protevangelium,” which speaks of victory through the woman’s seed (Gen 3:15). Our Lord even speaks of it as an appropriate figure of the coming apostolic joy: “A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world” (Joh 16:21). The sorrow is the preliminary of joy, the joy is its crown.

IV. THE TWO ELEMENTS OF JOY AND JUDGMENT HAD THEIR EXPRESSION IN THE BURNT AND SIN OFFERING THE MOTHER WAS DIRECTED TO PRESENT TO THE LORD. The ritual is the same whether it be a son or a daughter. The difference in the time of separation was due to a supposed physical fact that “a female child causes the mother more labour and a longer illness. This belief,” continues Ewald, “, was itself caused by the well-known primitive disfavour with which the birth of a girl was regarded.” No moral significance is to be attached, therefore, to the difference in the duration of the mother’s separation. But at the end of either period there is to be brought a burnt offering and a sin offering. The burnt offering is to be, if the mother can afford it, “a lamb of the first year,” while the sin offering is only to be “a young pigeon” or a “turtledove.” It is evident, therefore, that, while a poor mother might bring as her burnt offering a “turtledove” or “young pigeon,” the ritual attaches emphasis to the burnt offering rather than to the sin offering. It has even been supposed that the burnt offering took precedence in the order of time in this particular instance. At all events, the joy of consecration, which the burnt offering expresses, is more emphatic in this ritual than the atonement for unavoidable defilement, which is expressed by the sin offering. The undertone of judgment is certainly discernible, but high above it sound the notes of grateful, holy joy. The mother rejoiced that, though unavoidably unclean in her child-bearing, the Lord had put away her uncleanness, and she was ready to dedicate herself and her child unto the Lord in the rite of the burnt offering.

V. THIS RITUAL RECEIVES PECULIAR EMPHASIS FROM ITS CELEBRATION BY THE ‘VIRGIN‘ MOTHER. Mary had the usual physical concomitants in the birth of Jesus, we have every reason to believe, the termination of which this ritual of purification was intended to celebrate. The sense of uncleanness was manifestly hers, since she enters upon the ritual as no exception to the general rule and law. Not only so, but Luke boldly states, “when the days of their purification, according to the Law of Moses, were fulfilled” ( , not ), including Jesus along with Mary, for Oosterzee’s notion that it is Joseph and Mary, not Jesus and Mary, will not satisfy the case. In what sense, then, was Jesus associated with his mother in a ritual of purification? It is certain that there was not transmitted to Jesus any sinful disposition or qualities, as in ordinary generation. His whole life belied this idea. He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” But this does not prevent the idea being accepted that there was transmitted in his extraordinary generation responsibility for human sin. In other words, Jesus Christ was born with a liability on account of the sins of others. Having entered into the human family, having condescended to be born, he became liable for the responsibilities and debts of the human family, and the ritual so regarded him. Not only so, but our Lord had entered upon his “bloody passion” when at eight days old he had passed through the painful operation of circumcision. The rites in the temple thirty-three days after only expressed in legal form the liability on account of human sin upon which he had already entered. But if the atonement of the sin offering has thus a distinctive meaning in this exceptional case, the burnt offering had also its fulfillment. Mary dedicated, not only herself, but her Son, according to the Law of the Lord, “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” Simeon and Anna recognized in the infant the dedicated Messiah. Thus did Mary, as mother of Jesus, fulfill all righteousness.

VI. WE ARE SURELY TAUGHT HERE THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS THROUGH SORROW AND HUMILIATION THAT TRIUMPH IS REACHED. The hope of a triumphant woman’s seed sustained Jewish mothers in their sorrow. They looked for salvation through child-bearing, according to the idea of the apostle (1Ti 2:15). God’s meaning was through the child-bearing ( ), that is, the motherhood of the Virgin. Yet the hope sustained multitudes of mothers in their agonies. At length the Conqueror of the devil appeared. He came as an infant, and braved the dangers of development, and became “the Man of sorrows,” and passed through death to victory. To the same law we must constantly conform. Humiliation is the price of exaltation in the case of Jesus and of all his people. The apostles had their season of sorrow in connection with Christ’s crucifixion, and so sore it was that our Lord does not hesitate to compare it to a woman’s travail; but at Pentecost they got the joy and exhilaration which compensated for all. The law of the kingdom is that we enter it through much tribulation. “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luk 14:11). When we humble ourselves under a sense of sin, when we humble ourselves under a sense of unprofitableness, then are we treading the path which leads to power and triumph.R.M.E.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Lev 12:1-8

The statutes on maternity.

We may seek

I. THE EXPLANATION or THIS STATUTE. And we shall find the explanation

(1) not in the notion that any actual sin is involved in it;

(2) but in the fact that there is connected with it that which is painfully suggestive of sin. (There was nothing actually “unclean” in the camel or hare, but it was constituted so because it was fairly suggestive of it.)

1. The sorrow of maternity (Joh 16:21) points clearly to the primeval curse, and therefore to the primeval sin (Gen 3:16).

2. The birth of a human child means the entrance into the world of one in whom are the germs of sin (Psa 51:5; Psa 58:3; Eph 2:3).

3. Maternity suggests the sexual relation, and that suggests the abounding and baneful sin of impurity. Hence sin is associated with the birth of the human infant, and the physical condition (Lev 12:7) attending it is typical of sin, constitutes “uncleanness,” and necessitates purification.

II. THE THOUGHTS WE GAIN FROM THIS STATUTE. We learn:

1. The communicativeness of sin. We transmit our follies, our errors, our iniquities, by ordinary generation. Our children, because they are our children, will go astray, and will be in danger of those very errors into which we ourselves have fallen. Those who become parents must take the responsibility of bringing into the world children like themselves, who will inherit their dispositions, their habits of thought, their character. Sin is communicated from generation to generation through heredity, and also through the contagiousness of evil example. There is nothing more diffusive.

2. The extension of the consequences of sin. How sin sends forth its stream of sorrow! The pangs of maternity, answered by the opening cry of the infant as it enters the worlddo these not speak the truth, that a world of sin is a world of sorrow, that succeeding generations of sinners are succeeding generations of sufferers, and that this will he so to the end of the world?

3. The removableness of guilt from the sight of God. The “uncleanness” of the mother was not irremovable. It did temporarily but did not permanently separate her from the sanctuary (Lev 12:4). After a limited retirement she might come with her sin offering and her burnt offering to “the door of the tabernacle” (Lev 12:6). If she were poor she might bring an offering within the reach of the poorest (Lev 12:8), and the priest would “make atonement,” and she would “be clean” (Lev 12:8). Whatever guilt we contract, whether in communicating evil to others or as the indirect consequence of the sin of others, by whatsoever our souls have been defiled, our lives stained and corrupted, we may all come to the cross of the Redeemer, and through his atoning sacrifice be made clean in the sight of God. And thus coming, our sin offering will not be unaccompanied by a burnt offering; the forgiveness of our sin will be followed by the dedication of our whole selves to the service of the Lord.C.

HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE

Lev 12:2-7

Woman under the Law and under the gospel.

Every childbirth re-echoes in the ears of woman the sentence passed upon her ancestress Eve. That such a season of rejoicing should be attended with such throes of agony speaks loudly of the curse entailed by sin. There is no earthly pleasure entirely free from its shadow, pain. Great movements of society, deep thoughts, even inspiring melodies, are not ushered into the world without the pangs of travail.

I. THE LAW REMINDS US HERE OF WOMAN‘S CONNECTION WITH THE PRIMAL SIN.

1. She is to be considered “unclean” for a fixed period after bringing forth a child. In the first part of “separation for her infirmity,” she communicates defilement to whatever she touches, and must therefore, as far as possible, remain apart. But in the succeeding thirty-three or sixty-six “days of her purifying,” she may fulfill her domestic duties, only she must not come into contact with hallowed things, not partake of sacrificial meals, nor enter the sanctuary, Thus the fulfillment of her maternal hopes renders her unfit for a season to join in the worship of the holy God. She is led to rejoice with trembling; she is at once exalted and depressed. She sees that the new life is not separate from corruption, is allied to uncleanness and death, and in order to be redeemed requires hallowing by obedience to God’s ordinances.

2. To cleanse the mother from the stains of childbirth and to allow of restored fellowship with God, atonement is requisite. First a burnt offering, that the life spared and secluded temporarily may be wholly surrendered in spirit to the Author and Sustainer of life. Then a sin offering to expiate all ceremonial offenses connected with the begetting of children. If these rites appertain simply to the parent, yet must the knowledge of them afterwards acquaint the child with the state of separation from God into which it was the unwitting instrument of introducing the parent, and there is at least a hint that the origin of life is not free from taint.

II. THE LAW INDICATES THE INFERIOR ESTEEM IN WHICH WOMAN WAS ANCIENTLY HELD.

1. The uncleanness contracted by bearing a female child lasted twice as long as when a boy was born. This has indeed been explained on physiological grounds, as formerly maintained, But there is ample warrant for the other view (see 1Sa 1:11; Jer 20:15, and Joh 16:21, for the joy caused by the birth of a male child). In Le Lev 27:5, the female is esteemed at half the price of the male. Each mother of a male might cherish the hope that to her was granted the promised seedthe Messiah.

2. No rite of initiation into the covenant for the female. The Jews regarded circumcision as the badge of honour, the mark of privilege and blessing. Woman entered the nation without special recognition. She was not capable of becoming the head of a family, on whose proved nationality so much depended, for if she married she became a member of her husband’s family.

III. THE GOSPEL DIGNIFIES THE POSITION OF WOMAN.

1. It abolishes before the Lord distinctions of sex. “There is neither male nor female; ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” “There is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision.” Woman has equal rights with man, saving only what natural modesty forbids her claiming, and what is the general law promulgated from the first (Gen 3:16), that the husband shall rule over her. Both men and women are baptized (Act 8:12) and endowed with the Spirit.

2. It is the glory of woman to have been the medium of the incarnation of the Son of God. Her shame is removed. Even the poverty of woman is ennobled by the example of the Virgin Mary bringing her “pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

3. Woman’s quick appreciation of truth and steadfast fidelity are specially notable under the preaching of Christ and the apostles. Ready to adore the Lord. as an intent, to supply his wants during his ministry, to bathe his feet with repentant, grateful tears, to anoint him before his burial, to follow him on the road to Calvary, to be nearest to him at the cross, and the first at his grave on the Resurrection morn, woman occupies a place in the gospel records alike conspicuous and honourable. Nor are the faith and love and devotion of woman less marked in the Acts and the Epistles. Well has woman striven to erase the stigma of the first transgression. Eighteen centuries of the continually progressive elevation of woman in the social and mental scale have only attested the cardinal principles of Christianity. The position of woman in any nation now serves as an index to the stage of civilization which it has reached.S.R.A.

HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD

Chapters 12-15

Ceremonial purifications,

For defilement from secretions and from leprosy. The double objectto exalt the sacred laws, to honour the natural laws of health and cleanliness. Thus we are taught

I. RELIGION PRESERVES, PURIFIES, EXALTS HUMAN NATURE. The facts of family life are to be connected with the sanctuary. The more we think of both the joyful and the sorrowful events of our individual and social life as intimately bound up with our religion, the better we shall be prepared to find God’s blessing always both preserving and sanctifying.

II. ALL REGULATIONS WHICH CONCERN THE BODILY LIFE AND THE TEMPORAL HAPPINESS OF MEN SHOULD BE SURROUNDED WITH RELIGIOUS REVERENCE. Science is a curse to the world unless it is the handmaid to religion. Oar bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost. Our earthly life is the threshold of eternity.

III. TYPICALLY. Leprosy represents human depravity and misery. We see it brought into relation to the cleansing blood of atonement. The sin which works death both by the individual acts and by contact with others, both in person and in condition, is cleansed away both in guilt and in power. The leper is not excluded from mercy, but is dealt with by the priest as having his place in the covenant. Our vileness does not shut us out from the love or’ God, but his love is revealed as an atoning love. “He is able to save unto the uttermost,” but it is “those who come unto God by him.”R.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Lev 11:1. And the Lord spake unto Mosessaying The use of wine having been forbidden the priests, that they might be able, at all times, to distinguish between clean and unclean, ch. Lev 10:10 a more particular account of such distinctions is given in the following chapters. In this chapter the sacred writer treats of unclean meats: in the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th, of unclean persons, garments, and dwellings; in the 17th of the principal sacrifice, whereby all manner of uncleanness was to be expiated: and then, having mentioned some general laws, he resumes the same subject at the end of the 17th chapter; the 18th treats of unclean marriages: and after a repetition of sundry laws in the 19th, the 20th treats of some greater uncleannesses; the 21st, of priests who were unclean; and the 22nd, of sacrifices not fit to be offered.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

FIRST SECTION
Laws of Clean and Unclean Food

The Cleanness of the Sacrificeor the Contrast of the Clean and Unclean Animals.Lange

Lev 11:1-47

1And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts [animals1] which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed [and completely separates the hoof2], and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5And the coney,3 because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed [and completely separates the hoof4], yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

59These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 612Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle,7 and the ossifrage,8 and the 14ospray,8 and the vulture, 9 and the kite10 after his kind; 11 15every raven after his kind; 16and the owl [ostrich12], and the night hawk [owl13], and the cuckow [gull14], and the hawk after his kind, 17and the little owl,15 and the cormorant, and the great 18owl,16 and the swan,17 and the pelican, and the gier eagle [vulture18], 19and the stork,19 the20 heron21 after her kind, and the lapwing [hoopoe22], and the bat.

20All11 fowls that creep [all winged creeping things23], going upon all four, shall bean abomination unto you. 21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have24 legs above their feet, to leap withal25 upon 22the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust26 after his kind, and the beetle26 after his kind, and the grasshopper after his 23kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. 24And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even. 25And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven footed, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them27 shall be unclean. 27And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts28 that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even. 28And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.

29These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel,29 and the mouse, and the tortoise [the great lizard30] after his kind, 30and the ferret [gecko31], and the chameleon [strong lizard32], and the lizard [climbing lizard33], and the snail [lizard34], and the mole [chameleon35]. 31These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. 32And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel [thing36] of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel [thing35] it be, wherein [wherewith35] any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. 33And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it. 34Of all meat [food37] which may be eaten, that on which such [om. such38] water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be 35unclean. And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges39 for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. 36Nevertheless a fountain40 or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which41 toucheth their 37carcase shall be unclean. And if any part of their carcase fall upon any42 sowing 38seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean. But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you.

39And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof43 shall be unclean until the even. 40And he that eateth of the carcase of it42 shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it42 shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

41And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. 42Whatsoever goeth upon the belly,44 and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them 43ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall 44ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping 45thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the Lord45 that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

46This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast46 that may be eaten and the beast45 that may not be eaten.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lev 11:2. is a different word from in the following clause, and the difference should be recognized in the translation, as it is in the Semitic versions. The former is the more general term, the latter (comp. Gen 1:24) refers to the quadrupeds included in this section (Lev 11:1-8) in contradistinction from birds and reptiles.

Lev 11:3. . The idea is that of not merely partially (like the camel), but completely dividing the hoof. The Sam., LXX., Syr. and nine MSS. make this still more indefinite by inserting =two before the last word.

Lev 11:5. . The animal is indicated here as one that chews the cud (or appears to do so), in Psa 104:18; Pro 30:26, as living in the rocks, and in the latter as being very weak. It occurs elsewhere only in the parallel place, Deu 14:7. Here the LXX. renders it , Aq. ; in Deu 14:7, the LXX. has =bristly animal, which is adopted by the Vulg. in both places. The Sam. translates it Vabr, the Hyrax Syriacus, which is said to be still called tsofun in Southern Arabia. First says: The Targ. points to the same animal when it translates , , (leaper) since the Vabr goes by leaps. The Duke of Argyle (Reign of Law, p. 264) speaks of a specimen of it in the Zoological Gardens, and states that in the structure of the teeth and the foot it is assimilated to the rhinoceros. Cuvier classed it with the pachyderms. The Rabbins understood it to be a rabbit, and were followed by Luther and the A. V. in the old word Coney. Bochart (Hieroz. Lib. III., c. 33) understands it of the Jerboa or bear-mouse, and so Gesenius, Geddes and others. Although the word in the A. V. is certainly wrong, yet as it is obsolete, it seems unnecessary to make a change which could only be either to the Heb. word, or to the scientific name.

Lev 11:7. The construction is the same as in Lev 11:3. See note2.

Lev 11:9. The Sam., one MS., the LXX. and Syr. prefix the conjunction .

Lev 11:12. The same, with fourteen MSS., here prefix the conjunction.

Lev 11:13. is uniformly translated eagle in the A. V., in the LXX., and aquila in the Vulg. Kalisch says this is beyond a doubt. The same meaning is given by Frst and Gesenius, although both would include also the sense of vulture. Clark’s proposed emendation, the great vulture, seems therefore unnecessary.

Lev 11:13. . Both, by preponderance of authority, species of eagles, and the former sufficiently well described by ossifrage; the latter species is not certainly identified, the word occurring only here and in the parallel, Deu 14:12. The LXX. renders =sea eagle, Frst prefers Valeria, the black eagle. Kalisch prefers the sense vulture. Gesen. (Thesaur.), black eagle.

Lev 11:14. , a word, . . In the parallel passage, Deu 14:13, it is . Its etymology indicates a ravenous bird of swift flight. LXX. =vulture, Vulg. milvus=kite. Bochart considers it a species of hawk or falcon. So Kalisch. In Deu 14:13 there is mentioned also , making twenty-one varieties of birds; but that word in Deut. is omitted by the Sam. and four MSS.

Lev 11:14. is only to be identified by the fact that it here stands for the name of a classafter his Kind, and that in Job 28:7 it is spoken of for its great keenness of sight. The LXX. renders here kite, in Deut. and Job vulture. Clark makes it milvus regalis.

Lev 11:15 and Lev 11:20. The Sam., many MSS. and versions prefix the conjunction.

Lev 11:16. . LXX. . The word is uniformly rendered owl in the text of the A. V.; but in the marg. of Job 30:29; Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13; Isa 43:20, it is rendered ostrich in accordance with the Targ., LXX., Vulg. and Syr., and there can be no doubt that this is the true sense. The fem. stands for the bird collectively, of both sexes. Rosen.: Vox, , apposita est ex more quodam Orientalium, qui nomina pater, mater, fuius, filia, animalium quoruneam nominibns prfigrere solent sine respectu tatis et sexus. Bochart, however, thinks it means distinctively the female.

Lev 11:16. (from , to do violence), interpreted by Bochar., and others on his authority, of the male ostrich; but this is now generally rejected. The Targ. Onk. has , and Targ. Jerus. swallow. Others (Knobel) consider it the cuckoo; but the rendering of the LXX. and Vulg., owl, is now adopted more generally than any other.

Lev 11:16. occurs only here and in Deu 14:15. Knobel understands it of a species of hawk trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, etc.; but most other interpreters understand it of a sea bird, whether the stormy petrel (Bochart) or more generally the sea gull alter the Vulg. and LXX. .

Lev 11:17. . There seems no sufficient reason to question the accuracy of the A. V., which is substantially that of the ancient versions. Tristram identities it with the Athene meridionalis common in Syria. Bochart, however, would render Pelican, and Riggs Night-hawk.

Lev 11:17. The A. V. is probably right. The LXX., Vulg. and Targ. Onk. have Ibis. which seems to have arisen from a misplacement of the words of the text, rather than from a different translation of . They are followed by Riggs and others.

Lev 11:18. . The same word is used, Lev 11:30, for mole (probably chameleon): here it refers to a bird, and it is likely that this is the word for which Ibis stands in the LXX. and Vulg. But it is not probable that the Israelites would have come much in contact with the Ibis. The preponderance of authority (see Frst) is for some variety of owl, according to the Chald., Syr. and Sam.; but there does not appear to be sufficient certainty to warrant a change in the text of the A. V.

Lev 11:18. LXX. rendering doubtful. The best authorities agree that some species of vulture is meant. Gesenius (thesaur.) would make it a very small species, of the size of a crow. Others consider it most probably the large Egyptian vulture, Neophron percnopterus. Perhaps something of this kind was meant by gier eagie. Kalisch, governed only by the order of the birds, would translate pelican.

Lev 11:19. , LXX., Aq., Symm., Theod., heron, but LXX. in Job 39:13 stork. Either bird answers well enough to the etymology and to the passages when it occurs, and stork is as likely to be right as heron.

Lev 11:19. The Sam. and sixteen MSS. prefix the conjunction which is found in the parallel place in Deut. For the want of it Knobel would connect the word with the preceding as an adjective; but it seems better to consider it as an accidental omission.

Lev 11:19. . The meaning of the rendering in Targ. Onk. is unknown, Syr. retains the Heb. word, LXX. , a bird chiefly remarkable for its greediness. The Heb. etymology is uncertain. Clark identifies it with the great plover (Charadrius dicnemus). Frst defines it Parrot, and so Gesen. Bochart, following the etymology of the Rabbits, defines it the angry bird, and considers it some species of eagle. It seems probable that the A. V. is wrong, but difficult to determine upon a substitute.

Lev 11:19. . The bird intended has not been certainly identified; but the authority of the LXX., , and Vulg., upupa, is here followed. The Arab. adopts it, and it is followed by Riggs. Bochart would render mountain cock alter the Chald.

Lev 11:20. . The idea of fowls that creep is not less strange and grotesque in Heb. than in English. The word by its etymology means those creatures that multiply abundantly, swarm, whence it came to be applied to very much the same creatures as we mean by vermin. It can hardly be better expressed than by creeping things. Going upon all four does not necessarily mean having just lour feet, but going with the body in a horizontal position.

Lev 11:21. For the of the text the kri has , and so the Sam. and many MSS. So it must necessarily be understood, as it is in the versions.

Lev 11:21. For the Sam. and thirty-seven MSS. have .

Lev 11:22. Beetle is certainly wrong; for this, like the rest, must have been one of the leaping insects. There are no means of identifying these four varieties. Each of them stands for a class after his kind. Two of them, the and the , do not occur elsewhere. The others are of frequent occurrence, and are uniformly translated in the A. V. the first, locust, the last grasshopper. It would probably be better in the other cases to follow the example of the older English and most modern versions in giving simply the Hebrew names without attempting translation.

Lev 11:26. Six MSS. and the LXX. specify, what is sufficiently plain, their carcases.

Lev 11:27. See note1 on Lev 11:2.

Lev 11:29. occurs nowhere else. The A. V. seems justified in following the LXX. and Targ., although Bochart would render mole, which is still called Chuld by the Arabs.

Lev 11:29. , a word in this sense, . . There seems no doubt that this and all the names following in Lev 11:30 indicate various species of lizard. So Riggs. This particular one is called by the LXX. =land crocodile, and so St. Jerome. Bochart considers it a kind of large lizard abounding in Syria, often two feet long. Tristam identifies it with the uromastix spinipes. The translation proposed by Clark, the great lizard, is probably as good as can be had.

Lev 11:30. in this sense only here. LXX. =shrew mouse; Onk. =hedge hog; the other oriental versions by various names of lizard. Almost all the authorities concur in making it some variety of lizard. Knobel is certainly wrong in identifying it with the Lacerta Nilotica, an animal four feet long. Frst only so far defines it as a reptile with a long narrow neck. The translation of Rosenmller, lacerta gecko, seems as probable as any.

Lev 11:30. , a word of frequent occurrence for strength, power, but as a name of an animal occurring only here. The etymology seems to indicate a characteristic of strength (although Furst makes it the slimy), and the connection, same variety of lizard. The translation chameleon is derived from the LXX., and is probably wrong. Keil shows that Knobel (followed by Clark) is in error in translating by frog. The uncertainty is too great to substitute another word for that of the A. V., which yet must be changed, because the last name belongs to the chameleon. The etymology simply is therefore indicated.

Lev 11:30. , another word, . . LXX. , Vulg. stellio. Knobel makes it a crawling, and Fuerst a climbing lizard. The latter is adopted as a probable sense in order to avoid confusion in the text.

Lev 11:30. , also . . LXX. , Vulg. lacerta, and so also the Syr. The A. V. comes from the Targ. Jesus, and Rabbinical authorities. Otherwise there is a general agreement with Bochart that it should be rendered lizard.

Lev 11:30. , has already occurred, Lev 11:18, as the name of a bird. Here it is some variety of lizard, and from its etymology, to breathe, to draw in airthere is a good degree of unanimity in understanding it of the chameleon, either as inflating itself, or as popularly supposed to live on air.

Lev 11:32. is evidently here used, as in Exo 22:6 (7), in its most comprehensive sense. It is only limited by the clause wherewith any work is done. This change of course makes it necessary to translate , wherewith, instead of wherein.

Lev 11:34. means any kind of food, especially cereal. The English meat is now so altered in sense that it is better to change it.

Lev 11:34. The word such is unfortunately inserted in the A. V. The idea is (comp. Lev 11:38) that all meat prepared with water should be rendered unclean by the falling of any of these animals upon it.

Lev 11:35. occurs only here, and there is much question as to its meaning. According to Keil it can only signify, when used in the dual, a vessel consisting of two parts, i.e. a pan or pot with a lid. So Knobel and the Targums; others a support for the pot like a pair of bricks, LXX. ; others, as Frst, a cooking furnace, probably consisting of two ranges of stones which met together in a sharp angle.

Lev 11:36. The Sam. and LXX. add of waters.

Lev 11:36. Rosenmller, Keil, and others understand this in the masculine, he who, viz. in removing the carcase. The meaning, however, seems to be more general: the person or the thing touching the carcase, in removing it or otherwise.

Lev 11:37. The Sam., two MSS., and Vulg. omit any; but two MSS. and the LXX. insert it before seed in the following verse.

Lev 11:39-40. Several MSS. and the LXX. have the plural in these places.

Lev 11:42. The letter in =belly is printed in larger type in the Heb. Bibles to indicate that it is the middle letter of the Pentateuch.

Lev 11:45. The Sam., two MSS. and the Syr. add, as in Lev 11:44, your God.

Lev 11:47. See note on Lev 11:2.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The whole of Langes Exegetical is here given in full, the remarks of the translator being added in square brackets.
Cleanness as a condition of the sacrificesthe cleanness of the sacrificial animals, and the cleanness to be regained through the purification of men and of human conditions. Leviticus 11-15. These are regarded in the law as defiling: the use of certain animals, and the touching a carcase (Leviticus 11); the confinement of a woman (Leviticus 12); the leprosy (Lev 13:14); the issue of seed of a man (Lev 15:1-15); the involuntary emission of semen (ib. Lev 15:15-16); the carnal conjunction of the sexes (ib. Lev 15:18); the menses of a woman (ib. Lev 15:19-24); and the lasting issue of blood of the same (ib. Lev 15:25-30); to which Num 19:11-22 adds the touching the dead; but the things mentioned do not all give the same uncleanness, etc. Knobel, p. 432. The priests were to administer the laws of cleanness and of purification, so to speak, as the religious district physicians of the theocracy. On the laws of the Gentiles about cleanness, see Knobel, pp. 43640; on the animals, pp. 443 ss. (the detailed presentation).

Chap. 11. The cleanness of the sacrifice, or the contrast of the clean and unclean animals. The clean sacrificial animal is marked out from the four-footed beasts by two characteristics: cleaving the hoof and chewing the cud. The cloven hoof distinguishes the slow-moving, tame animal, naturally adapted to domestication, from the single-hoofed animal, naturally wild, although sometimes capable of being tamed. The rumination characterizes quiet, dispassionate, graminivorous animals, as opposed to the carnivorous beasts of prey, and the unclean omnivorous beasts.
Thus especially are the one-hoofed excluded, although they chew the cud; the camel, and (as stated) the rock badger, the hare. And so with those that cleave the hoof and do not chew the cudthe swine. And, of course, the four-footed creatures which lack both characteristics.

In regard to all unclean animals, the use of their meat and the touching of their carcase is forbidden. That they certainly might not be offered in sacrifice is therewith presupposed. Lev 11:1-8.

[From this general view of the chapter, and from several of the particulars, a dissent must be expressed. Although, as has been shown in the preliminary note, the original distinction between clean and unclean animals was in regard to their fitness or unfitness for sacrifice; yet here there is no immediate reference to sacrifice at all, and the animals are classified solely in relation to their being allowed or forbidden for food. Again, in the detail, while among the animals reared by man it may be true that the cloven hoof distinguishes the slow-moving tame animal; yet this certainly could not apply to the gazelle and other kinds of deer, which are equally included among the clean animals. Probably Langes remark was made because his mind was already fixed upon the classification of animals for sacrifice, although even then it would but imperfectly apply to the goat. Also, on the other side, the single-hoofed animal, naturally wild, but sometimes capable of being tamed, is quite insufficient in its description, for the single-hoofed horse is quite as much a domestic animal as the bull or the goat, and it fails altogether to include the many-toed domestic cat and dog, which were eminently unclean.
[The first and larger half of this book is concerned with the means of approach to God. First of all came the laws of sacrifice, chaps. 17.; then followed the consecration of the priests by whom the sacrifices were to be offered, with an account of their entrance upon their office, and the connected events, chaps. 810; now follow the laws of purity, chaps. 1115., and of these first, the laws of clean and unclean food, contained in the present chapter. In this connection also the uncleanness produced by contact with the dead bodies of animals unclean for food is emphatically set forth, and thus this chapter is intimately connected with the laws of purification in the following chapters. In all the nations and all the religions of antiquity we find the contrast between clean and unclean, which was developed in a dualistic form, it is true, in many of the religious systems, but had its primary root in the corruption that had entered the world through sin. This contrast was limited in the Mosaic law to the animal food of the Israelites, to contact with dead animals and human corpses, and to certain bodily conditions and diseases that are associated with decomposition. Keil.

[Lev 11:1-8 are concerned with the larger quadrupeds. The distinction is so made among these that the Israelites might be in no mistake about them. To an anatomist it might have been enough to say either parteth the hoof, or cheweth the cud; but since several animals apparently had one of these characteristics without the other, or were popularly supposed to have them, for the sake of clearness both are given, and also some animals are excluded, as the camel, which apparently lacked one of them, although anatomically it might be considered as possessing both.

[Lev 11:1. Both Moses, as the lawgiver, and Aaron, as the now fully consecrated high-priest, to whom would especially pertain the enforcement of the laws of purity, are now addressed together.

[Lev 11:3. No enumeration is here made of the animals possessing these qualifications; but there is such an enumeration in the parallel passage, Deu 14:4-5.

[Lev 11:4. The camel has a ball behind the cleft of the foot on which it treads. It comes, therefore, under the class of those with hoofs not completely cloven. So also the swine in Lev 11:7 is spoken of as dividing the hoof, because he does so in all common acceptation, and is so spoken of at this day, although anatomically he has four toes. Correspondingly in Lev 11:5-6 animals are spoken of which appear to the eye to chew the cud, although they do not really; because otherwise the people, guided by the appearance, would be led into transgression. All these animals, it is needless to say, were eaten among surrounding people, some by one nation, some by another.F. G.]

Lev 11:9-12. The clean aquatic animals are distinguished likewise by two characteristicsthey must have fins and scales. All aquatic animals, on the other hand, which have not these characteristics, should be not only unclean to them, but an abomination. The fish nature must thus appear distinctly marked. Of fitness for sacrifice, nevertheless, nothing is said here [obviously because fish were not included among sacrificial animals at all]; as food for fast days, fish could not possibly have been used by the Jews. [In this, as in the preceding law, the marks of distinction are to be understood of obvious ones: fins and scales that were apparent to the eye. As the law covers all that are in the waters, the crustacea, lobsters, crabs, etc., and the mollusks, oysters, etc., are wholly forbidden.F. G.]

Lev 11:13-19. With reference to birds, the unclean varieties are named at length: eagles, hawks, fish-hawks, vultures, kites, and every thing of that kind, all kinds of ravens, the ostrich, the night-owl, the cuckoo, the kinds of sparrow-hawk, the eared owl, the swan, the horned owl, the bat, the bittern, stork, heron, jay, hoopoe, swallow. The clean kinds are not named; they are limited to a few examples. Pigeons and turtle-doves, however, were more especially made use of for sacrifice. [Pigeons and turtle-doves were the only birds used for sacrifice, but they are not mentioned here, because this chapter is not concerned with sacrifice. For the birds intended by this list of twenty Hebrew names, see the Textual notes. All the birds mentioned, so far as they can be identified, feed more or less exclusively upon animal food; but no general characteristic is given. The list is probably only meant to include those prohibited birds with which the Israelites were likely to come in contact. All not included in it, however, would have been lawful under a strict construction of the law. The bat is included in the prohibited list on the general principle of this whole nomenclature; it was popularly regarded as a bird.F. G.]

Lev 11:20-25. A remarkable exception is made by the varieties of locusts appended to the birds (locusts, crickets, grasshoppers, green grasshoppers). It is as if these animals were to be an important object of game for the theocracy. [It is evident that they did, as in the case of John the Baptist, become an important item of food for the poorer classes, and as they are still in the desert regions adjoining Palestine.F. G.] But besides these, all winged (four-footed) insects are described as things to be avoided (not abominable). [This is a general prohibition of all small flying creatures, having more than two feet. Creeping things in the original means also things that swarm or multiply in great numbers. Going upon all four seems intended, in contrast to birds which have only two feet, to include all that have more than two feet, and consequently creep in a horizontal position. It is so understood by Jewish writers. From this general prohibition the saltatoria are excepted, which are still, as they have always been, used as an article of food by the poorer classes in the East. These have, like the common grasshopper, very long hind legs for leaping. With this exception, this whole class of creatures is described in Lev 11:23-25 as abominable. Yet the living animal communicated no uncleanness by contactonly its dead body. This is a declaration immediately afterwards (Lev 11:27-28) extended also to the bodies of unclean quadrupeds, and also (Lev 11:39-40) to the bodies of even clean animals that have died of themselves. Washing of the clothes (Lev 11:25; Lev 11:28) required of those who bore their carcases was evidently because contact with the clothes could hardly be avoided in doing this.F. G.]

Lev 11:26-28. Once more the characteristics are enjoinedto which, however, the definition is added that also all beasts which go on paws (the stealthy-going beasts of prey) are to be considered unclean.

Lev 11:29-38. Moreover there is still a crowd of little animals named in which there is no attempt at a natural history classification, as a resemblance has already appeared in the four-footed flying creatures. Mammalia: mole and mouse; amphibia: the lizard, the Egyptian lizard, the frog, the tortoise, the snail, the chameleon. This division of various animals is more especially prominent because the individuals that compose it could easily make clean objects unclean. First, the dead body of all these creatures is, and makes, unclean; secondly, the water with which one has purified either himself or any object from them; thirdly, utensils, meats and drinks which these creatures [i.e., their dead bodies] have touched, Lev 11:29-35. On the other hand, these animals cannot defile the spring, the cistern, or the seeds intended for sowing. The case is different with seed intended for food when wet with water, Lev 11:36-38. [The names of these creatures have already been treated in the Textual notes. It appears that, except the first mentioned weasel (or mole) and the mouse, they are all of the lizard family. But in Lev 11:32-38 the uncleanness produced by contact with their dead bodies is carried much further than in regard to the animals previously named, doubtless for the reason suggested by Lange that there was more likelihood of contact from them. Any thing of which use was made in doing work (Lev 11:32) must be soaked in water. Skin included in the list refers to the skins used for churning, for holding wine and other liquids, and for a variety of purposes. The earthen vessel (Lev 11:33) into which any of their bodies fell must be broken on the same principle, but with an opposite application, as in Lev 6:28. The ground in both cases is the absorbent character of unglazed earthenware; there it must be broken lest what it had absorbed of the most holy offering should be defiled; here lest the defilement it had itself absorbed should be communicated. In Lev 11:34; Lev 11:38 it is provided that if their carcase fell upon any food or seed in a dry state, it should not communicate defilement; but if these were wet, they should be defiled. The reason of the distinction is evidentthe moisture would act as a conveyor of the defilement. In Lev 11:35 the strong contamination of these dead bodies is still further expressed; but in Lev 11:36 an exception is made in favor of any large collection of water in fountains or cisterns, on the general principle that God will have mercy rather than sacrifice.F. G.]

Lev 11:39-40. Finally comes into consideration the carcase of the clean animal that has died a natural death. This also makes unclean (a) by contact, (b) by unconscious using thereof, (c) through carrying and throwing it away. The one defiled must wash his clothes and hold himself unclean until evening. [Yet from Lev 7:24 it is evident that this precept applied to the dead body as a whole, not to the fat, or probably to the skin, when it had been separated. The reason for the uncleanness of the carcase was evidently that its blood had not been poured out, but was still in the veins and arteries, and spread about in the flesh. This would not apply to the separate fat, nor to the skin, when properly cleaned. The provision for purification of one who had eaten of the flesh may apply not only to unconscious eating (Lange), but also to eating in cases of necessity. It did not constitute a sin, but only a ceremonial defilement, for which purification was provided.F. G.]

Lev 11:41-42. At last the true vermin are spoken of. Every thing that crawls, that goes on the belly (in addition to the division already given), four-footed vermin, and those having more than four feet (beetles). [It was a curious conceit, adopted from Mnster by some of the older writers, that flies and worms living upon fruit and vegetables are not here prohibited because they do not creep upon the earth. The text evidently intends to forbid all creeping things, and is especially comprehensive in Lev 11:43. The Talmudists also exclude from the operation of the law all the minute creatures supposed by them to be spontaneously generated in vegetables, fruits, cheese, etc., and all the minute parasitic animals. It is plain enough, however, that the law, making its distinctions by obvious and popularly recognized marks, does not enter at all into minuti of this sort.]

Lev 11:43-45. [Ye shall not make yourselves abominable.Lit.] Ye shall not make your souls an abominationa strong expression, but the key to this legislation. From the educational standpoint of the law for this morally infant people, purification must be made from all beastly conditions by a strong exclusion of all the lower animal forms, and the people thus be elevated to a consciousness of personal dignity. Therefore it is also further said that this is in conformity with the character of Jehovah your God. Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holyi.e., become sanctified personalities; for I am holyi.e., the absolute sanctified Personality. They could thus, by the defilement of their body, defile also their souls. This also is made prominent: that Jehovah bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, the country defiled by animal worship.

Lev 11:46-47. This is the law.Although it is not specifically extended over the whole animal kingdom, it is still a general regulating principle according to which the distinctions are to be made. In principle, with this, the distinction is also introduced in regard to the vegetable kingdom, the contrast of edible and inedible plants. Yet the application of this to the manner of living, to the usages, is left untold.

In regard to the law of clean animals, we have to distinguish different classes: the specifically clean, or cleanest animals, are those used in sacrificeold and young cattle, sheep and goats, turtle-doves, and (young) pigeons. These animals form the common food of Jehovah and His people; the symbolical food of Jehovah, and the actual food of the Israelitesa mark of the divine dignity of man, and of his designation as the image of God. Of the vegetables: with this animal centre correspond the cereals, especially barley and wheat, incense, wine, and oil; of the mineral kingdom, salt. The second class is made up of the clean animals which men were allowed to eat, but which were not fitted for sacrifice. The third class is made up of the unclean animals, the touch of which,so long as they are living.does not make men unclean, but of which they are not allowed to eat, and whose carcase defiles them, (not the fat of the slain animals). In the fourth class, finally, are the repulsive animals, which even while living are repulsive at least to men, the creeping and crawling animals. That this classification was to be symbolic of spiritual conditions is shown to us very clearly in the vision of Peter in Acts 10; but that the ordinary symbolism is limited by extraordinary symbolical requirements is shown to us by the appearance of the eagle in the forms of the Cherubim. With the New Testament this symbolism generally has reached its end, that is, face to face with Christian knowledge. But yet. conditionally, it remains in the New Testament era proportionately through the Christian national customs, as this can be deduced from the prohibition of the eating of blood, and of things strangled (Acts 15). The condition of natural abhorrence towards all repulsive objects certainly remains more or less ineradicable, although even in this respect, necessity can break iron.

We should distinguish here most carefully between the theocratic teleological rules, which have a divine and ideal force, and their exemplification, which belongs to the Jewish sensus communis, and its product, popular usage; as is shown here, particularly by the example of the unruminating animals, the badger and hare (which seemed to the people to ruminate to some extent). Obstinacy in valuing the literal inspiration would certainly make here an irreconcilable conflict between theology, or even nominal belief, and natural science, and the hare would become the favorite wild game of negation as Balaams ass is its favorite charger.

In regard to the animals mentioned here, we must refer to the detailed treatment of Knobel and Keil, the quoted literature of the latter, and the natural history of Calwer and others.
[It is to be observed that there is no defilement whatever produced by the contact with any living animal. The distinction between animals which are attractive and those which are repulsive to man is not at all recognized; nor indeed, judging from the habits of different nations, would it be easy to draw any line of distinction on this ground. The law simply prescribes what animals shall be, and what shall not be used for foodbetween the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten, Lev 11:47. The distinction is nevertheless symbolical, as the line of separation is plainly so taken as to exclude from the list of the clean all carnivora, except in the case of fish whose habits are to a great extent hidden under the waves from common observation. But while no living animal defiled, the bodies of all dead animals, not properly slaughtered, did defile. The peculiar care with which defilement is guarded against in the case of the carcasses of certain of the smaller animals (Lev 11:29-38), seems to be due to the greater liability to contact with them. The degree of uncleanness occasioned by contact with the dead body of any animal which died of itself, was the same in all cases, Lev 11:25; Lev 11:28; Lev 11:31; Lev 11:40, even in that of animals otherwise fit for food. The only exception is in case of sacrificial or food animals when properly slaughtered, an exception obviously necessary unless sacrifices and animal food were to be prohibited. The Apostle has expressly taught that there is nothing unclean of itself (Rom 14:14); and we must look therefore for the ground of the distinctions made in this chapter, not directly to anything in the nature of the various animals themselves, but to the educational object of the law. That educational object, however, was of course best sub-served by having regard to such characteristics of the animals as should make the lessons to be taught most impressive and most easily apprehended.F. G.].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

I. The doctrinal significance of the distinction between animals clean and unclean for food, must be considered in view of two facts: first, that as far as food is concerned, this is distinctly a part of that law which was added because of transgressions. It limited an earlier freedom, and it passed away when the law was superseded by a higher revelation. Secondly, that for the time while the law was in forcethe whole period of Israels national existencethese precepts were elevated into distinctly religious duties, resting upon the holiness which should characterize the people of a holy God (Lev 11:44-45). These two facts can only be brought into harmony in view of the educational purpose of the law. The people, in their spiritual infancy, could only be taught purity by sensible symbols, and among these there was nothing which entered more thoroughly into all the arrangements of daily life than the selection of food. By this, therefore, they were taught to keep themselves pure from all defilement which God had forbidden.

II. The evil consequences attending a neglect of the precepts in this chapter are represented in a twofold aspect: First, there was sin in disobedience to these as to any other divine commands, and this is described as making yourselves abominable, (Lev 11:43). This phrase precisely is applied only to the eating of creeping things, but is implied in regard to the others (Lev 11:11; Lev 11:13; Lev 11:23). It carries with it the idea that he who offended in these matters put himself in that relation towards God in which these things intended to stand towards man:he had sinned by transgression, and thus made himself an abomination. The other aspect is that of the violation of the theocratic order, and here the penalty is very light. The kind of un cleanness contracted in any of these instances found a sufficient purification in any case by the washing of the clothes and remaining unclean until the evening. In cases of a secondary defilement of other things, they also must be similarly purified, or be destroyed. Even the eating of a clean animal which had died a natural death required no deeper purification. Here, then, the line is very distinctly drawn between ceremonial defilement and moral sin, even when both were incurred by the same act.

III. All commands to holiness, whether expressed by symbolical act, or to be wrought out in the efforts of the spirit, rest upon the same ground, For I am the Lord your God, . I am holy.This is the teaching alike of the Old and the New Testaments, and again brings out in a striking way the impossibility of any true communion between God and man except on the basis of mans restoration to holiness. This teaching has been already seen to be the object of the Levitical law in regard to sacrifices, and it is here none the less so when the law enters into the details of mans daily life.

IV. While the uncleannesses here enumerated were purged simply and speedily if attended to at once, if neglected, they required (v. 2) the more serious expiation of the sin offering. Such is the nature of sin; like leaven, it is ever prone to spread and intensify its effects.
V. The cleanness of the animals for sacrifice and the purification of the sacrificer. Chaps. 1116.
Through sacrifice Israel is made holy, i.e., they become in the fellowship of a personal God, a people of personal dignity belonging to God. The preliminary condition of sanctification by fire is the purification especially produced by water and blood. Only clean, or rather, purified men can serve as sacrificers in the presentation of clean animals.

Clean men must be circumcised, sanctified by the symbol of circumcision to the new birth under the power of Jehovah, and thus especially taken out from the confusion of the unclean world; and so, too, the clean animals, as animals of civilization, form a contrast to the unclean creation, as the elite of domestic animals, some of which are too human, too sympathetic (horse, ass, and dog), while swine are too brutally unclean to become domestic animals for the Israelites.
Cleanness is the negative side of holiness, and so purification is the negative side of sanctification. Lange, Dogmatik zum Lev.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The homiletical teaching of this chapter may be briefly summed up in the weighty words of the Apostolic proverb (1Co 15:33) Evil communications corrupt good manners. It is easy to deceive ourselves here. It is easy to work out plausible reasons why particular divine commands may not be founded in the nature of things, and hence may not be of binding force upon us. But all Gods commands are binding, and he who chooses to violate them, however unimportant they may seem to him to be, incurs the risk of making himself an abomination.

Sins in matters of little importance, intrinsically and inadvertently committed, may, through the means which God has provided, be readily put away on repentance, and a true seeking of restored communion; but if neglected, or passed over because they seem of little moment, they lead to a heavier guiltiness.

The defiling effect of personal contact with that which is unclean is set forth in this chapter. Origen, in treating of it, calls attention to the corresponding effect of contact with that which is holy as illustrated by the restoration to life of the body of the man which touched the bones of Elisha (2Ki 13:21), and of the woman whose issue of blood was staunched when she had touched the hem of the Saviours garment (Mat 9:20). Both serve to show the influence exerted upon us by our associations; the spirit as surely as the body is defiled by contact with the unclean, and elevated by association with the pure.

Certain moral qualities of men are commonly described by reference to the animal creation. As this is frequently done in the New Testament (Mat 7:15; Mat 10:16; Mat 23:33; Luk 13:32; Php 3:2; 2Pe 2:22, etc.), so it appears always to have been common among mankind. Therefore, in the classification as clean, of those animals associated with excellent qualities, and as unclean of those associated with evil qualities, a praise of virtue and a condemnation of evil was introduced into the domestic associations of the daily life. The necessity of such teaching has passed away with the coming of the clearer light of the Gospel.

Parting the hoof and chewing the cud are two marks of the clean animal which go together, and must both be found; though one may be apparently possessed, yet if the other is wanting, the animal is unclean. This Origen applies to one who meditates upon and understands the Scriptures, but does not order his life in accordance with their teaching. So it may be applied to faith and works; neither can truly exist without the other, and the semblance of either alone is unavailing.
Positive Divine laws, simply as laws, and even without regard to their immediate object, have a high moral value from their educationary power. From the garden of Eden down, man has been always subjected to such laws. As disobedience to them has resulted in harm, and placed the transgressor in an attitude of opposition to God; so has the faithful effort to obey them resulted in blessing, and brought those who have undertaken it into nearer relations to God. Whether the ground of the command could be understood, or whether the act enjoined or forbidden might seem to man morally colorless, yet the simple habit of obedience has always had a most salutary effect. A law, the fitness and utility of which we cannot discover by our natural reason, is more a test of the spirit of obedience than a moral requirement that commends itself to our judgment as good and proper; because our compliance with the latter may be but a compliment to our own intelligence, and not at all an act of deference to the divine authority. Hallam. The multitude of daily demands made upon the obedience of the Israelites offered to them a great opportunity of blessing, and is repeatedly declared to have been a test whether they had a heart to do Gods will or no. Under the higher dispensation of the Gospel we are allowed to see more clearly the grounds of the Divine commands; nevertheless, the opportunities of rendering obedience, simply as obedience, without seeing the grounds upon which the command rests, is by no means entirely withdrawn from the Christian. Such opportunities improved are means of blessing, and become to us one of the many ways in which we walk by faith and not by sight.

Footnotes:

[1]Lev 11:2. is a different word from in the following clause, and the difference should be recognized in the translation, as it is in the Semitic versions. The former is the more general term, the latter (comp. Gen 1:24) refers to the quadrupeds included in this section (Lev 11:1-8) in contradistinction from birds and reptiles.

[2]Lev 11:3. . The idea is that of not merely partially (like the camel), but completely dividing the hoof. The Sam., LXX., Syr. and nine MSS. make this still more indefinite by inserting =two before the last word.

[3]Lev 11:5. . The animal is indicated here as one that chews the cud (or appears to do so), in Psa 104:18; Pro 30:26, as living in the rocks, and in the latter as being very weak. It occurs elsewhere only in the parallel place, Deu 14:7. Here the LXX. renders it , Aq. ; in Deu 14:7, the LXX. has =bristly animal, which is adopted by the Vulg. in both places. The Sam. translates it Vabr, the Hyrax Syriacus, which is said to be still called tsofun in Southern Arabia. First says: The Targ. points to the same animal when it translates , , (leaper) since the Vabr goes by leaps. The Duke of Argyle (Reign of Law, p. 264) speaks of a specimen of it in the Zoological Gardens, and states that in the structure of the teeth and the foot it is assimilated to the rhinoceros. Cuvier classed it with the pachyderms. The Rabbins understood it to be a rabbit, and were followed by Luther and the A. V. in the old word Coney. Bochart (Hieroz. Lib. III., c. 33) understands it of the Jerboa or bear-mouse, and so Gesenius, Geddes and others. Although the word in the A. V. is certainly wrong, yet as it is obsolete, it seems unnecessary to make a change which could only be either to the Heb. word, or to the scientific name.

[4]Lev 11:7. The construction is the same as in Lev 11:3. See note2.

[5]Lev 11:9. The Sam., one MS., the LXX. and Syr. prefix the conjunction .

[6]Lev 11:12. The same, with fourteen MSS., here prefix the conjunction.

[7]Lev 11:13. is uniformly translated eagle in the A. V., in the LXX., and aquila in the Vulg. Kalisch says this is beyond a doubt. The same meaning is given by Frst and Gesenius, although both would include also the sense of vulture. Clark’s proposed emendation, the great vulture, seems therefore unnecessary.

[8]Lev 11:13. . Both, by preponderance of authority, species of eagles, and the former sufficiently well described by ossifrage; the latter species is not certainly identified, the word occurring only here and in the parallel, Deu 14:12. The LXX. renders =sea eagle, Frst prefers Valeria, the black eagle. Kalisch prefers the sense vulture. Gesen. (Thesaur.), black eagle.

[9]Lev 11:14. , a word, . . In the parallel passage, Deu 14:13, it is . Its etymology indicates a ravenous bird of swift flight. LXX. =vulture, Vulg. milvus=kite. Bochart considers it a species of hawk or falcon. So Kalisch. In Deu 14:13 there is mentioned also , making twenty-one varieties of birds; but that word in Deut. is omitted by the Sam. and four MSS.

[10]Lev 11:14. is only to be identified by the fact that it here stands for the name of a classafter his Kind, and that in Job 28:7 it is spoken of for its great keenness of sight. The LXX. renders here kite, in Deut. and Job vulture. Clark makes it milvus regalis.

[11]Lev 11:15 and Lev 11:20. The Sam., many MSS. and versions prefix the conjunction.

[12]Lev 11:16. . LXX. . The word is uniformly rendered owl in the text of the A. V.; but in the marg. of Job 30:29; Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13; Isa 43:20, it is rendered ostrich in accordance with the Targ., LXX., Vulg. and Syr., and there can be no doubt that this is the true sense. The fem. stands for the bird collectively, of both sexes. Rosen.: Vox, , apposita est ex more quodam Orientalium, qui nomina pater, mater, fuius, filia, animalium quoruneam nominibns prfigrere solent sine respectu tatis et sexus. Bochart, however, thinks it means distinctively the female.

[13]Lev 11:16. (from , to do violence), interpreted by Bochar., and others on his authority, of the male ostrich; but this is now generally rejected. The Targ. Onk. has , and Targ. Jerus. swallow. Others (Knobel) consider it the cuckoo; but the rendering of the LXX. and Vulg., owl, is now adopted more generally than any other.

[14]Lev 11:16. occurs only here and in Deu 14:15. Knobel understands it of a species of hawk trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, etc.; but most other interpreters understand it of a sea bird, whether the stormy petrel (Bochart) or more generally the sea gull alter the Vulg. and LXX. .

[15]Lev 11:17. . There seems no sufficient reason to question the accuracy of the A. V., which is substantially that of the ancient versions. Tristram identities it with the Athene meridionalis common in Syria. Bochart, however, would render Pelican, and Riggs Night-hawk.

[16]Lev 11:17. The A. V. is probably right. The LXX., Vulg. and Targ. Onk. have Ibis. which seems to have arisen from a misplacement of the words of the text, rather than from a different translation of . They are followed by Riggs and others.

[17]Lev 11:18. . The same word is used, Lev 11:30, for mole (probably chameleon): here it refers to a bird, and it is likely that this is the word for which Ibis stands in the LXX. and Vulg. But it is not probable that the Israelites would have come much in contact with the Ibis. The preponderance of authority (see Frst) is for some variety of owl, according to the Chald., Syr. and Sam.; but there does not appear to be sufficient certainty to warrant a change in the text of the A. V.

[18]Lev 11:18. LXX. rendering doubtful. The best authorities agree that some species of vulture is meant. Gesenius (thesaur.) would make it a very small species, of the size of a crow. Others consider it most probably the large Egyptian vulture, Neophron percnopterus. Perhaps something of this kind was meant by gier eagie. Kalisch, governed only by the order of the birds, would translate pelican.

[19]Lev 11:19. , LXX., Aq., Symm., Theod., heron, but LXX. in Job 39:13 stork. Either bird answers well enough to the etymology and to the passages when it occurs, and stork is as likely to be right as heron.

[20]Lev 11:19. The Sam. and sixteen MSS. prefix the conjunction which is found in the parallel place in Deut. For the want of it Knobel would connect the word with the preceding as an adjective; but it seems better to consider it as an accidental omission.

[21]Lev 11:19. . The meaning of the rendering in Targ. Onk. is unknown, Syr. retains the Heb. word, LXX. , a bird chiefly remarkable for its greediness. The Heb. etymology is uncertain. Clark identifies it with the great plover (Charadrius dicnemus). Frst defines it Parrot, and so Gesen. Bochart, following the etymology of the Rabbits, defines it the angry bird, and considers it some species of eagle. It seems probable that the A. V. is wrong, but difficult to determine upon a substitute.

[22]Lev 11:19. . The bird intended has not been certainly identified; but the authority of the LXX., , and Vulg., upupa, is here followed. The Arab. adopts it, and it is followed by Riggs. Bochart would render mountain cock alter the Chald.

[23]Lev 11:20. . The idea of fowls that creep is not less strange and grotesque in Heb. than in English. The word by its etymology means those creatures that multiply abundantly, swarm, whence it came to be applied to very much the same creatures as we mean by vermin. It can hardly be better expressed than by creeping things. Going upon all four does not necessarily mean having just lour feet, but going with the body in a horizontal position.

[24]Lev 11:21. For the of the text the kri has , and so the Sam. and many MSS. So it must necessarily be understood, as it is in the versions.

[25]Lev 11:21. For the Sam. and thirty-seven MSS. have .

[26]Lev 11:22. Beetle is certainly wrong; for this, like the rest, must have been one of the leaping insects. There are no means of identifying these four varieties. Each of them stands for a class after his kind. Two of them, the and the , do not occur elsewhere. The others are of frequent occurrence, and are uniformly translated in the A. V. the first, locust, the last grasshopper. It would probably be better in the other cases to follow the example of the older English and most modern versions in giving simply the Hebrew names without attempting translation.

[27]Lev 11:26. Six MSS. and the LXX. specify, what is sufficiently plain, their carcases.

[28]Lev 11:27. See note1 on Lev 11:2.

[29]Lev 11:29. occurs nowhere else. The A. V. seems justified in following the LXX. and Targ., although Bochart would render mole, which is still called Chuld by the Arabs.

[30]Lev 11:29. , a word in this sense, . . There seems no doubt that this and all the names following in Lev 11:30 indicate various species of lizard. So Riggs. This particular one is called by the LXX. =land crocodile, and so St. Jerome. Bochart considers it a kind of large lizard abounding in Syria, often two feet long. Tristam identifies it with the uromastix spinipes. The translation proposed by Clark, the great lizard, is probably as good as can be had.

[31]Lev 11:30. in this sense only here. LXX. =shrew mouse; Onk. =hedge hog; the other oriental versions by various names of lizard. Almost all the authorities concur in making it some variety of lizard. Knobel is certainly wrong in identifying it with the Lacerta Nilotica, an animal four feet long. Frst only so far defines it as a reptile with a long narrow neck. The translation of Rosenmller, lacerta gecko, seems as probable as any.

[32]Lev 11:30. , a word of frequent occurrence for strength, power, but as a name of an animal occurring only here. The etymology seems to indicate a characteristic of strength (although Furst makes it the slimy), and the connection, same variety of lizard. The translation chameleon is derived from the LXX., and is probably wrong. Keil shows that Knobel (followed by Clark) is in error in translating by frog. The uncertainty is too great to substitute another word for that of the A. V., which yet must be changed, because the last name belongs to the chameleon. The etymology simply is therefore indicated.

[33]Lev 11:30. , another word, . . LXX. , Vulg. stellio. Knobel makes it a crawling, and Fuerst a climbing lizard. The latter is adopted as a probable sense in order to avoid confusion in the text.

[34]Lev 11:30. , also . . LXX. , Vulg. lacerta, and so also the Syr. The A. V. comes from the Targ. Jesus, and Rabbinical authorities. Otherwise there is a general agreement with Bochart that it should be rendered lizard.

[35]Lev 11:30. , has already occurred, Lev 11:18, as the name of a bird. Here it is some variety of lizard, and from its etymology, to breathe, to draw in airthere is a good degree of unanimity in understanding it of the chameleon, either as inflating itself, or as popularly supposed to live on air.

[36]Lev 11:32. is evidently here used, as in Exo 22:6 (7), in its most comprehensive sense. It is only limited by the clause wherewith any work is done. This change of course makes it necessary to translate , wherewith, instead of wherein.

[37]Lev 11:34. means any kind of food, especially cereal. The English meat is now so altered in sense that it is better to change it.

[38]Lev 11:34. The word such is unfortunately inserted in the A. V. The idea is (comp. Lev 11:38) that all meat prepared with water should be rendered unclean by the falling of any of these animals upon it.

[39]Lev 11:35. occurs only here, and there is much question as to its meaning. According to Keil it can only signify, when used in the dual, a vessel consisting of two parts, i.e. a pan or pot with a lid. So Knobel and the Targums; others a support for the pot like a pair of bricks, LXX. ; others, as Frst, a cooking furnace, probably consisting of two ranges of stones which met together in a sharp angle.

[40]Lev 11:36. The Sam. and LXX. add of waters.

[41]Lev 11:36. Rosenmller, Keil, and others understand this in the masculine, he who, viz. in removing the carcase. The meaning, however, seems to be more general: the person or the thing touching the carcase, in removing it or otherwise.

[42]Lev 11:37. The Sam., two MSS., and Vulg. omit any; but two MSS. and the LXX. insert it before seed in the following verse.

[43]Lev 11:39-40. Several MSS. and the LXX. have the plural in these places.

[44]Lev 11:42. The letter in =belly is printed in larger type in the Heb. Bibles to indicate that it is the middle letter of the Pentateuch.

[45]Lev 11:45. The Sam., two MSS. and the Syr. add, as in Lev 11:44, your God.

[46]Lev 11:47. See note on Lev 11:2.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The sacred historian in this Chapter, enters upon the subject of clean and unclean beasts, and shows what may be eaten and what may not. As the Israelites were to be separated and distinguished from all nations of the earth; the LORD was pleased to mark them also respecting their diet, in the flesh of beasts, of fishes, of birds, and of creeping things.

Lev 11:1

At the very entrance on the perusal of this chapter, I would beg the Reader to attend to what the apostle saith on the general subject of Jewish meats, by way of pointing out the blessed privileges to which we are brought by the gospel, Heb 9:9-10 . And connect with this what the same apostle saith elsewhere, Rom 14:17 ; 1Ti 4:4-5 ; Col 2:16-17 ; 1Co 10:31 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Animals Permitted and Forbidden for Food

Lev 11

It appears from this chapter that laws were not bounded by local circumstances. In that one fact is a divine philosophy, and in that one fact there is a law which, if seized by us and applied to our daily life, will save us from infinite trouble. If the law had been bounded by local circumstances hardly one word of all this elaborate chapter could have been written. The animals that are permitted and that are forbidden had hardly any existence in the wilderness in which the immediate life of Israel was then being spent. The people might have said, Why permit us to eat animals which are not at hand? Why forbid us to eat food which is not within our reach? Why, in a great desert, lay down rules and regulations about the fish in the sea? Why not confine legislation to immediate environment? That is the rude questioning of human ignorance and impatience. Men of impatient temper will insist upon limiting everything by the exigency of the immediate moment. What wonder if such men have no heaven, no immortality, no future, no sky above their little earth? The philosophy is the same all through and through. Here is the solemn lesson that we are to provide for all life, for all the possibilities of life, for all the yet unknown contingencies of life, as far as they can be forecast and ruled by inspired prudence. Thus in Leviticus we are called to larger life. A very few rules would have done for the local wilderness; the simplicity of the occasion rendered intricate legislation perfectly needless made it, indeed, quite a burden of superfluity. But life is not all lived in one place; life is not bounded by one little day. It is not enough to look at the immediate point: we must endeavour to bring within our purview all possibilities and argue out the logic of our life upon broad bases, and be sometimes apparently losing our life that we may in the issue the more certainly gain it. Beware of all extemporised law! The very fact of its suddenness deprives it of its dignity. There is no need to make laws under panic Certain adaptations of law may have to be made suddenly; but the law itself the abiding and substantial quantity may be settled an eternity before any direct application becomes necessary. This is the meaning of predestination, foreknowledge, pre-arrangement. The Lamb was slain before Adam fell: sin was provided for before it was committed. The surprise was not in heaven: in heaven eternity rules in all its infinite serenity, its ineffable calm. The very hairs of our head are all numbered. We may easily be thrown into spasm and racked by keen surprise and troubled with many an unexpected tumult; but the Lord liveth in infinite peace; he knoweth the end from the beginning; in the wilderness he legislates for the city; in heaven he legislates for earth; it was in eternity that he settled the balances in which time’s affairs were to be weighed and settled. Better take the long view; you will be saved from surprise and from the action which may be impaired or perverted by being called upon for instant and unprepared reply. So now in the little world of time men may settle their eternal affairs; even in this wilderness they can begin their heaven; close by the graveside they can sing hymns of immortality. There is no need for haste, or panic, or sore distress of soul, to those who have entered into the divine foresight such as is revealed in this chapter, and who from the beginning have, by the Divine Spirit, settled the issue of all life, and have anticipated and passed not only the bitterness of death, but the solemnity and sternness of judgment.

Suppose we deny the whole of the eleventh chapter of Leviticus, speaking of its pedantry, its frivolity, its unworthiness of a mind infinite and a sovereignty eternal, suppose we erase the whole chapter What then? Here, too, is a grand philosophy: deny the letter, yet there is the chapter as a spirit in the consciousness of every man. To destroy the merely literal chapter is nothing: we leave the fact behind. We do elect and we do reject. With what, then, do we quarrel? Simply with the paper and ink and shaped letter with the law as impressed upon the record by iron. The frivolity, then, is upon our part. If Leviticus were closed, we still turn away from some food with revulsion from some suggestions with positive disgust; or we yield to other appetences and preferences as if borne towards them by a divine and gentle pressure. Of what avail is it to differ with the letter to wonder whether the Eternal God would stoop to give directions about this animal and that animal in relation to human consumption when there is written upon the very surface of life the same law, and we ourselves every day obey an instinct which, indeed, we find it all but impossible to suppress? This reflection would be stripped of most of its value if it related only to the matter of human eating and drinking; but even this suggestion touches the whole circle of human thought and the practical expression of the human will. We deny the supernatural; yet we obey. We all really confess the supernatural: some in solemn testimony well-argued and expressed with great precision of language: others in surprise, in fear, in cowardice for which no preparation had been made, in times of conscience rising to assert itself and making “cowards of us all.” It is possible to carry faith in the supernatural clear through the whole line of life; but who ever found it possible to have nothing supernatural through all the undulation and all the uncalculated variety of life? Who has not sometimes been suddenly blanched by what might have been a ghostly presence in the air? Who has not sometimes almost so faltered as to fall upon his knees in attitude of supplication? Who has carried reason, pure and simple, without horizon, without ghostliness, without fear, right through the whole quantity of life? I have never met that man. Though we quibble in argument about the supernatural, we obey; though we discuss in high controversy about faith, yet we live a faith-life, and cannot help it. The atheist walks by faith and not by sight. The very men who are quibbling about the place of faith in the development and education of the human race cease their quibbling that they may obey the necessities of the universe. We suggest objections to the doctrine of the innocent suffering for the guilty, and when we have closed our wordy fray we go out to do the very thing which we had just declared to be impossible: the debater illustrates the fallacy of his own argument. All through life the innocent are as a matter of fact suffering for the guilty: the son of man is dying for the sons of men. The principle of vicariousness rules the whole economy of human development and progress. Our denials, therefore, are always but in terms: in our own life we re-affirm the doctrine which in our intellectual vanity we had questioned. Thus is God Master: even thus do circumstances make men theologians and force them into truth which they could never accept in merely formal proposition. Hence the axiom for such it almost is, not only in its terseness but in its truthfulness that “some men are better than their creed.” This is God’s interpretation of our life. Were he to be judging by our words, he could convict us of solecism and contradiction amounting to falsehood, and of irony amounting to profanity; but he looks upon the heart, and about many a man he may be saying, in effect, “Poor soul! how he foams in argument, yet how noble he is in suffering! Poor half-wild creature! how he vexes himself by the misuse of terms, but how complete he is in patience! How he troubles himself about the philosophy of prayer not knowing that the very sigh he heaves after his vexation is itself a noble cry to the Unseen and Infinite.” Thus many may come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and be made members of the kingdom of heaven who in mere words have been ranked among the opposition, the sceptical and those who have had no certitude of religious position and hope. Cheer your hearts, then, about your sons and your daughters! Lift up your heads, for you may not have lost from the Church so many as in your unworthy fear you had supposed. God is the Judge. Behind the denial in words he may find the confirmation in feeling and in action.

Judging by this schedule of regulations as to eating and not eating, it would appear that uses and values are not to be determined along one line only. Some things mentioned here are not to be eaten; yet they may be useful. The “not” is a very small limitation: it refers to one direction only. Some animals are to be eaten; yet they are not therefore to be despised. Who can foretell their destiny? eaten by the poet, they may become poetry; sanctified by the eater, they may be lifted into new significance. There is no one exclusive standard by which value is to be determined in these matters. This is a very wide law like the others. This mac is not a scholar; but he is a genius; he has no information, but he has inspiration. Do not misjudge him. The other man is not a genius, but he is a scholar; he is useful: he abounds in knowledge: he can correct a thousand mistakes: he can direct life upon an upward road. We must, therefore, such seems to be the spirit of the law not confine our judgment to one direction or to another, but remember that as we are many members yet one body, so we in our higher relations represent a great diversity, yet a most solid and gracious unity. Let us be careful about these matters. This is the infirmity of the critic: that he can see in one direction only. The glory of the judge is that he takes in the whole case, balancing, distributing, arranging, and estimating the entire situation, with the calmness of wisdom and with the penetration of an upright and unbiassed mind.

A very popular argument is upset by this chapter. There is an argument which runs in this fashion: Why should we not eat and drink these things, for they are all good creatures of God? The temptation of man is to find a “good creature of God” wherever he wants to find one. The doctor, yielding to human infirmity, permits, rather than sanctions or commands, certain little indulgences, and the receiver of the permission instantly turns the permission into a statute and commandment and seals it with the doctorial seal! We are easily led in the direction of our preferences. All the animals in this chapter were good creatures of God, in the sense of having been created by the Almighty. “And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.” Who made these? God. Then are they not good creatures of God? Possibly so; but they are forbidden in that particular use. You do not depose the creature from any dignity to which it is entitled as a creation of God: you do but discern the right use and purpose of the creature in the intent of God. This argument must be applied by every man according to his own circumstances The argument of the chapter does not end in itself. What does end in itself? There are educational beginnings; there are points to start with. The argument is cumulative and becomes stronger and stronger as the instances are plied in illustration of its meaning. Is God so careful about the body and has he written no schedule of directions about the feeding of the mind? May the body not eat of this, but the soul eat of everything? Are there poisons which take away the life of the body, and no poisons that take away the life of the spirit, the mind, the soul? That is the chapter magnified by spirituality. This is an instance of how things may be made symbols of truth infinitely greater than themselves. It is impossible to believe that God, who takes care of the body, pays no attention to the soul. He who feeds the fowls of the air will feed his children is an argument we do well to reiterate, because we feel at once how true it is and gracious. Why not be consistent with our own reasoning? The very fact that God could take such pains in keeping us back from the use of such animals, begins the infinite argument that his anxiety is to save the soul from poison, corruption, death. “Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die?” Let your soul delight itself in fatness; Wisdom hath prepared her feast: the viands are heaven-tasted and are all approved: sit down, eat and drink, yea, eat and drink abundantly; there is no poison in the bread, there is no death in the pot, and the banner over the feast is Love. May a man eat lies, may a man devour false teaching, and be none the worse for the meal which the soul has eaten ravenously? Has a man to be very critical and dainty about the food which his body consumes, and is he to sit down at every table spread for his intellectual satisfaction and to eat and drink whatever comes without exercising the spirit of criticism and discernment? It is an insult to reason to suggest a vanity so evident and so complete. You are particular about the cleanness of your body, and you are right; but being faithful to that daintiness you must go further and see that the soul is unspotted pure as heaven’s purity. You are most careful not to eat and to drink what will injure and disturb and unsettle you, or subject you to momentary inconvenience: so far you are right; but being right there, do not play the fool in the heedless satisfaction of your mind or in the glutting of your soul beware what is offered for the spirit’s consumption for the Lord has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” Bread of Life, feed me! Lord, evermore give us this living bread. We would eat of thy flesh and drink of thy blood, and so escape the tyranny and the bitterness of death. We would accept the hospitality of Heaven. We bless thee that thou hast saved us by instinct and by law from eating and drinking that which would injure us: now, Lord, give us the intuition, the inspiration, which will enable us to see in a moment what is false, what is impure, what is unworthy of our soul’s inner purpose, and having seen what is so unworthy, may we touch not, taste not, handle not, the unclean thing, but ever keep within our Father’s house, where there is bread enough and to spare.

Note

It is noteworthy that the practical effect of the rule laid down is to exclude all the carnivora among quadrupeds, and, so far as we can interpret the nomenclature, the raptores among birds. This suggests the question whether they were excluded as being not averse to human carcases, and in most Eastern countries acting as the servitors of the battlefield and the gibbet. Even swine have been known so to feed; and further, by their constant runcation among whatever lies on the ground, suggest impurity, even if they were not generally foul feeders. Amongst fish those which were allowed contain unquestionably the most wholesome varieties, save that they exclude the oyster. Probably, however, sea-fishing was little practised by the Israelites; and the Levitical rules must be understood as referring backwards to their experience of the produce of the Nile, and forwards to their enjoyment of the Jordan and its upper lakes. The exclusion of the camel and the hare from allowable meats is less easy to account for, save that the former never was in common use, and is generally spoken of in reference to the semi-barbarous desert tribes on the eastern or southern borderland, some of whom certainly had no insuperable repugnance to his flesh; although it is so impossible to substitute any other creature for the camel as “the ship of the desert,” that to eat him, especially where so many other creatures give meat so much preferable, would be the worst economy possible in an Eastern commissariat that of destroying the best, or rather the only conveyance, in order to obtain the most indifferent food. The hare was long supposed, even by eminent naturalists, to ruminate, and certainly was eaten by the Egyptians…. As regards the animals allowed for food, comparing them with those forbidden, there can be no doubt on which side the balance of wholesomeness lies. Nor would any dietetic economist fail to pronounce in favour of the Levitical dietary code as a whole, as ensuring the maximum of public health and yet of national distinctness, procured, however, by a minimum of the inconvenience arising from restriction.

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

VI

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN

Leviticus 11-15

The scope of Leviticus 11-15.

The minds of commentators, Bible students, and people generally have been very much perplexed to account for this feature of the Levitical law. In other words, that only certain animals must be used for food, and then, uncleanness coming from three other directions, one of which is exceedingly delicate; that, you will have to read about and not have the discussion of it. First, the sexual uncleanness of man or woman; and second, the touching of dead bodies, whether they are clean or unclean; and third, leprosy. And when you have taken those three, you have taken all except what is based on the distinction between the clean and the unclean animals. This applies in two directions, viz.: as to use in sacrifices and more largely as to use in eating. This Levitical distinction between the clean and the unclean and remedies for removing uncleanness have perplexed the minds of more Bible students, perhaps, than any other one thing. And their difficulty is, to account for the principle which determines such legislation, and various opinions have been entertained as to the principle which accounts for this Levitical legislation. I am quite sure that no man could rationally account for the principles that were in the Divine Mind as to these distinctions apart from what the Divine Mind has said. He may attempt philosophically to account for the state which depended only upon the law, but that does not account for the reason or principle underlying it. And there is always a reason for every law. Whether that reason is assigned or not, there is a reason. My own mind is pretty well settled on the subject, though I have tried hard enough to confuse it by reading the literature of various men that have tried to account for it in various ways.

There are certain antecedent facts that are necessary to a settlement of the question, and the first fact is that as God made man before he was a sinner he was a vegetarian. I mean to say that he was permitted to eat only fruits, cereals, and salads and things of that kind. This is the first fact. The second significant fact on the eating question is found in the beginning of Gen 9 . When Noah came out of the ark, this language is used: “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” You see this is an entirely new race commission. The first race commission begins with Adam. Now the race starts anew with an entirely new head. “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth . . .” Now comes the clause, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.” Now, the reference there, “as I have given you the green herb,” refers to the first law on the subject, the law of Eden. I quote: “And God said, Behold I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food” (Gen 1:29 ).

Now, that is the original commission about what man must eat, but in this more enlarged commission given to the race through Noah in chapter 9 before there were any Jews, Noah and his family standing for the race, God says, “As I gave you the green herb for food so now I give you every living thing that moveth.” In no discussion that I have ever seen are the facts brought out that I am giving you now. So you see the race is spoken of, Noah being the head of the race; there is no legislation against what you shall eat, either vegetable or animal food, no clean or unclean animals.

Now, the third fact, and I am discussing only the eating now, is that when God gave to Peter the key to the kingdom of heaven that opened the door to the Gentiles, as recorded in Act 10 , he let down a great ark or white sheet from heaven and in that ark were all the animals, whether brutes, that is, beasts, or birds, or creeping things; and he says, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” Peter says “Not so, Lord; I have never been accustomed to eat anything unclean.” And God says, “What I have cleansed call thou not common.” The import of all which is, that whatever legislation was made by Moses with reference to distinction of meats in eating, stops with the Jews; and hence the apostle Paul elaborately argues his liberty to eat anything if it is received with thankfulness. So that it is a fact that in the New Testament the Levitical law as to the distinction between clean and unclean animals is abrogated.

Now, notice the bearing of this fact on the New Testament, i.e., the principle that led to the legislation. When you come to the New Testament times and the kingdom of God is taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, again there is no limitation. These facts force us to look for a reason in the Divine Mind that applied to this people, that is, the Jews as a people in order to get at the distinction. Now I venture to say that you never get beyond the reach of these facts.

The next thing is the distinction between clean and unclean, not as to eating, but as to sacrifice. When did that originate? It did not originate with Noah, as far as sacrifices are concerned, for God commissioned Noah to take into the ark with him one pair of unclean animals and birds and seven pairs of clean animals and birds, as if Noah understood it, and Noah did understand it. And so when Noah came out of the ark he took of the animals and offered sacrifice to God; so this question is forced upon us: Where did the distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originate? Not with Adam, not with Noah. Now I will give you the origin. It is equal to a plain statement. It originated as soon as man sinned; when he was expelled from the garden and the symbolical, or typical, method of approach to God was appointed. We know this to be true. In Gen 4 , when one of Adam’s sons brought the clean beast from the flock and God received it, and the other offered simply the produce from his farm, his was rejected; so that I offer to you as the conviction of my mind that the distinction between clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originated when man sinned.

Now, when an issue stands perfectly clear in my own mind, I am on pretty sure ground and my conviction is very clear so far as clean and unclean animals are concerned, that it originated when man sinned, by the appointment of God and would necessarily cease when the Antitype came. So that we find God’s own distinction in animals for sacrifice going back to the sin of man, further back than we carry the distinction of eating. Now, these facts will help us to get at the origin of the distinction between the clean and the unclean in the Divine Mind establishing this regulation. So I point out, first, that the distinction between clean and unclean animals both as to sacrifice and eating was to symbolize certain great spiritual truths and when the symbol was fulfilled, the obligation to continue would then cease. That is principle one. Principle two is for hygienic reasons, sanitary reasons. You know what “hygienic” means. You have studied medicine enough to know that. Sanitary reasons had something to do with it but modern scientists claim that it had everything to do with this distinction between the unclean and the clean animals. Now it is a sad truth that they consider only one principle and that is the sanitary reason, claiming that, as far as eating is concerned, it is the only one worth discussing. I admit the sanitary reason, but I do not give it the prominence that they do, since the commission to Noah did not include it as a race commission. Therefore, the sanitary reason for the whole race does not explain it.

It is wise to use those foods, the use of which is the least dangerous to human health. God knew that this law would last only until the Messiah came and that it applied to the Jews, and that the Jews would simply be around the Mediterranean Sea, in a tropical country, and if I were living in that country now, I wouldn’t eat swine meat, for sanitary reasons. In the tropics it is not best to eat hog meat, and this law proscribes some food that can’t be eaten. Whether in the tropics or out of it, it is not best to eat blood. Statistics have been carefully gathered, that to me are intensely significant. You take the Jews living now in any country of the world, and where they follow the regimen of diet prescribed in the book of Leviticus, these Jews average a longer life than other people, better health than other people and less liable to contagious diseases than other people. Read an account of an epidemic sweeping clear over the country and it is astonishing how very few Jews have it. Now, that fact shows that the food we eat has a great deal to do with the health of the body. Look at those people in the camp life in the wilderness, in the blazing hot country, and for sanitary reasons, these Levitical reasons, they were forbidden to eat certain things. I mention that as the second principle.

Now the third principle. It was the purpose of God to isolate Israel from all the nations of the earth; and in order to isolate Israel) her worship was to be separated from that of other people. .For if they came to the table with the Gentiles, then intermarriage is permitted, and with intermarriage comes the idolatry of the heathen. The history, as you will see when you study Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, shows the introduction of idolatry to come with the association of the Jews with the heathen. A Jewish king with a heathen wife came near blotting religion from the world, and in it all Elijah stood alone with the exception of 7,000 people that had not bowed their knees to Baal. But he thought he was alone in the world and asked God to take him out of the world. So these people must be kept separate from the other people, there must be things that separate them; things that would not permit that degree of intimate association that permits marriage. So these things were given to make a line of demarcation between the Jews and the Gentiles. But when the Jewish policy had served its purpose, then the same God that drew that line tore it down and blotted out the distinction between the clean and the unclean. Those are the three reasons that are satisfactory to my mind, and while I might cite fifty others, advocated by commentators, none of them seems to be of any force but these three. Now note carefully: First, the distinction was made in order to symbolize certain great spiritual truths that would be brought out; second, hygienic or sanitary reasons led to this distinction, and third, this legislation was to isolate Israel and tend to keep it as a separate and particular people.

I come now to another feature of the case, viz.: the touching of dead bodies. If one was defiled, there was a ritual prescribed by which he could become clean ceremonially, before God. It is easy to see in that case the spiritual truth that is embodied in that symbolism. Death is the wages of sin, and the body without the spirit is dead. Now then, in order to make these people realize the necessity of holiness, they must keep apart from the dead. “Let the dead bury their dead.” And if propriety would admit of the discussion of the sexual feature of it, I could make that explanation perfectly satisfactory to you also.

Now we come to the case of leprosy. Why was leprosy and no other form of sickness selected? The commentaries discuss much whether the leprosy of Leviticus is the leprosy of modern times as we understand it. I say to you that it is. I have not time to prove it, but you may just take my assurance that when Leviticus says leprosy it means leprosy in its most loathsome form. Why, now, was leprosy put along beside the bodies of dead men? Simply because one declared to be leprous was as one dead. It was a living death. As it progressed and disfigured the body, it would eat away the nose and the different parts of the body. In other words, -the soul was confined in the charnel house of corruption. He must be segregated, he must hide himself, must not allow other people to come near him. The law commanded him to cover his upper lip, and when he saw any one coming toward him he must cry out, “Unclean, unclean, unclean!” Therefore we find leprosy selected both in the Old and the New Testaments as expressive of sin, and the healing of leprosy as the exercise of the power of God. Medicine cannot cure leprosy when it gets to a certain stage.

A great many things commence like leprosy, and such cases had to be tested, therefore some of these regulations. A man is segregated and the high priest examines him and keeps him segregated until it is known not to be leprosy. Here are the symptoms: First, if the skin turns perfectly white, this is the first step; second, there appear growing out of that spot hairs that are white; that man is pronounced a leper, and then that last fearful sloughing off, eating form comes. Sometimes people would have this white spot and the white hair appearing in this spot and not have leprosy. It was because it did not develop a case in full, but the high priest was to count them lepers until it was shown not to be leprosy. Lepers regarded leprosy as a stroke from God, and indeed that is the etymological meaning of the word. The Hebrew word means a stroke, that is, stroke from God. When the application was made to the king of Israel to heal Naaman, who was a leper, he says, “They seek occasion against me; am I God, that I can make alive?” He meant that it required supernatural power, divine power, to heal a leper. Some of the most noted sermons that have ever been preached have been sermons on leprosy as a type of sin.

Now we come to consider the distinction, not as to the reason of its appointment, but what the distinction itself was between the clean and the unclean, and that is easy to tell. Of the beasts, there must be two things to make it a clean beast, and it did not merely apply to sacrifices. I will show you the limitation directly. No beast could be offered as sacrifice or be eaten as food, unless it possessed two characteristics, viz.: a cloven hoof and the chewing of the cud. Now, the camel’s hoof is not cloven but it chews the cud; the sheep’s hoof is cloven and it does chew the cud; the hog’s hoof is cloven but it does not chew the cud. A number of wild animals are good for food because they divide the hoof and chew the cud, but only domestic animals that divide the hoof and chew the cud could be used as sacrifice. The others were unclean, but any animal, domestic or otherwise, that chewed the cud and divided the hoof could be eaten, for instance, the antelope, the deer, and all other animals of that kind. Now this is the distinction of beasts.

Now we come to the birds and there the distinction is expressed in classes. Certain birds are mentioned, for instance, the dove, the pigeon. They could be used as sacrifice. They had the characteristic generally attributed to them, of innocence. They were not birds of prey. Certain others are specified. All carnivorous birds were excluded, and some birds eat bad flesh, as you know, and that applied to the beasts. There were graminivorous beasts; that means “grass-eating” beasts. They did not have tusks. They had molars, or grinders. The graminivorous beast perhaps would be clean, but none could be clean that was not a grass-eating beast. The eagle, the vulture, the owl, the bat, the stork, the heron, and the crane are mentioned by name as not clean. The goose, the duck, the chicken, and all the variety of quail could be eaten, but only certain ones could be used as sacrifice.

Now we come to another class, and here is what the Hebrew, literally translated, says about a certain class of things that were clean: First, he must be winged, and second, he must have four legs beside the hind legs used for hopping and jumping; as locusts, crickets, etc. Many people eat them. John the Baptist was a “bug-eater,” and in some countries the locust is a general article of food. Now think of that, fellow. First) he must be able to fly; he must be able to walk on all fours; he must have wings to fly, and his hind legs must be hopping legs. There is, of course, in this country, a great deal of prejudice against eating grasshoppers, but I am sure that if you were over in those countries and did not know what they were, you would eat them. They are dried in the sun and then ground up into flour and baked into a kind of cake. So you would not know what it was. I confess I don’t want any myself.

Now, have you got that perfectly clear? The animal in order to be eaten, must divide the hoof and chew the cud, and in order to be used as a sacrifice, must not only do that but it must be domestic; as, the cow, the sheep, the goat. The birds are specified by classes and must not be carnivorous birds. The grasshopper class must have four legs, two hoppers, and be able to fly. Now, there is one more class and that is the fishes. Two characteristics the fish must have in order to be Levitically fit to eat. It must have fins and it must have scales fins and scales both. The catfish wouldn’t do. It has no scales; but there are others that would not do; as, the oyster. There people didn’t eat many oysters and we leave them out in the hot months. Now suppose it was hot all the time, as it is there; we would eat very few oysters. The rule will not apply to fishes as to birds. The fishes that have fins and scales are carnivorous; for instance, take a big trout. He eats the smaller fish and is carnivorous and voracious. There are four distinctions in fact, and I have discussed the principles.

Now the method of removing uncleanness, and the details are elaborate. I recommend again the volume on Leviticus in the Expositors Bible, as one of the best expositions of the book I ever read, by Kellogg. He is not poisoned by higher criticism, as most of these books are. When I go over a book, I am sure to tell you what books to use. The Expositor’s and the Cambridge Bibles are widely used; while some parts of them you cannot rely on, you can rely on the Leviticus volume of the Expositor’s Bible.

Dr. Wilkinson, of Chicago, came down to Texas to deliver a series of lectures. One of his subjects was “The Book of Leviticus” and all his lectures were on the introduction to the book. He came to me and said, “What have you on Leviticus that is any account?” I said, “Take Kellogg, of the Expositor’s Bible.” He says, “It is in mighty bad company.” But when he brought the book back, he said, “I thank you that you called my attention to that book. I had such a dislike for the Expositor’s Bible that I never thought to look in there for anything good, but it is superb.”

Now, I will tell you of another that will bring out the spiritual, and that is Mackintosh. He is spiritual, though a premillennialist. They do stand foursquare for the truth and I have always loved that kind of a man. If they stand square and do not yield to the higher critics; if they are spiritually minded and their teaching is spiritual, I am going to take them close to my heart and convert them as fast as I can. There are some mighty good people among them. Moody was one. A. C. Dixon, W. B. Riley, and others are among them and they are mighty good people.

Our next lesson is on Lev 17 and we take up the law of holiness in that. That refers to eating, which has been discussed in this study, but solely with reference to the distinction of meats. That law of holiness governs eating in other respects, viz.: the purity of life, the purity in the marriage relation all that comes under the head of this law. The most interesting part of Leviticus after we pass chapter 16 is the times, the set times in which Israel is to appear before God. It follows out this idea viz.: that Leviticus is the developments of that part of the law which is the altar and shows the way of approach to God, through what one shall approach God, through whom he shall approach God, and then gives the inauguration of the service after it has been established, the culmination of that service in regard to the clean and the unclean animals, and the times to come before God, i.e., the set times: First, the evening and the morning; second, the weekly sabbaths; third, the monthly, or lunar sabbaths; fourth, the great annual sabbaths; fifth, the landsabbath, or the seventh-year sabbath; and sixth, the Jubilee sabbath, the seven times seven, or fiftieth-year sabbath, the Jubilee.

QUESTIONS

1. What puzzling question relative to the distinction between, the clean and the unclean in eating and in sacrifice?

2. What is the real difficulty with Bible students on this question?

3. What three divisions of uncleanness as relating to persons?

4. Who two classes, or divisions, as relating to animals?

5. How, then, account for these principles?

6. What antecedent facts necessary to a settlement of this question as it relates to eating?

7. What is the import of the revelation to Peter in. Act 10 ?

8. What, then, does Paul say on this question?

9. What bearing has this principle on New Testament revelation?

10. What do these facts force us to look for?

11. When did the distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originate?

12. Then, when would this distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice necessarily cease?

13. According to these facts, what is principle number one as to the distinction between clean and unclean animals relating to both sacrifice and eating?

14. What, then, is principle number two?

15. What is the contention of modern scientists on this and your reply?

16. How did this principle apply to the Jews?

17. What evidence of its influence on the Jewish life?

18. What is principle number three?

19. What three things were essential to accomplish the isolation of Israel?

20. When were these distinctions blotted out?

21. Why did the touching of a dead body render one unclean?

22. Why was leprosy and no other form of sickness selected?

23. Why was leprosy selected in both Testaments as expressive of sin?

24. What are the symptoms of leprosy?

25. How did lepers regard leprosy and why?

26. What distinction between clean and unclean beasts as to eating?

27. What distinction as to sacrifice?

28. What distinction as to birds?

29. What is said of the grasshopper class?

30. What distinguishes the clean from the unclean in fishes?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible