Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 11:2

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.

Rather, These are the animals which ye may eat out of all the beasts; that is, out of the larger creatures, the quadrupeds, as distinguished from birds and reptiles. See Gen 1:24. Of quadrupeds, those only might be eaten which completely divided the hoof and chew the cud Lev 11:3-8.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Lev 11:2-47

These are the beasts which ye shall eat.

The clean and the unclean

The Mosaic Law attached great importance to meats and drinks: the Christian religion attaches none. The Apostle Peter was shown, by the vision of a sheet let down from heaven, not only that all nations were now to receive the gospel message, but that all kinds of food were now clean, and that all the prohibitions which had formerly been laid upon them for legal purposes were now once for all withdrawn. A Christian may, if he pleases, put himself under restrictions as to these matters. You will remember that the Apostle Paul says, I know and am persuaded of the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. The doctrine of the New Testament is expressly laid down, Every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. And as for the practice enjoined upon believers, All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient. The Levitical law enjoined many precepts as to meats and drinks; but those carnal ordinances were imposed until the time of reformation.

I. It is our firm belief that these distinctions of meats were laid down on purpose to keep the Jews as a distinct people, and that herein they might be a type of the people of God, who are also, throughout all ages, to be a separate people–not of the world, even as Christ was not of the world.

1. But you will ask of me in what respects are you to be distinguished? in a pure consistency always, in a vain eccentricity never. Not by any peculiarity in garments or language are you to be known. Heavenly realities within do not always need to be labelled outside, so that everybody may recognise you and say, There goes a saint. There are other modes of being distinguished from the world than any of these.

2. We ought ever to be distinguished from the world in the great object of our life. As for worldly men, some of them are seeking wealth, others of them fame; some seek after comfort, others after pleasure. Subordinately you may seek after any of these, but your principal motive as a Christian should always be to live for Christ.

3. By your spirit, as well as your aim, you should likewise be distinguished. The spirit of, this world is often selfish; it is always a spirit that forgets God, that ignores the existence of a Creator in His own world. Now, your spirit should be one of unselfish devotion, a spirit always conscious of His presence, bowed down with the weight, or raised up with the cheer of Hagars exclamation, Thou God seest me: a spirit which watcheth humbly before God, and seeketh to know His will and to do it through the grace of God given to you.

4. Your maxims, too, and the rules which regulate you, should be very different from those of others. The believer reads things, not in mans light, in the obscurity of which so many blind bats are willing to fly, but he reads things in the sunlight of heaven. If a thing be right, though he lose by it, it is done; if it be wrong, though he should become as rich as Croesus by allowing it, he scorns the sin for his Masters sake.

5. The Christian should be separate in his actions. I would not give much for your religion unless it can be seen. I know some peoples religion is heard of, but give me the man whose religion is seen.

6. A Christian is distinguished by his conversation. He will often trim a sentence where others would have made it far more luxuriant by a jest which was not altogether clean. Following Herberts advice, He pares his apple–he would cleanly feed. If he would have a jest, he picks the mitre, but leaves the sin; his conversation is not used to levity, but it ministereth grace unto the hearers. How shall I urge you to give more earnest heed to this holy separation? If we do not see to this matter we shall bring sorrow on our own souls; we shall lose all hope of honouring Christ, and we shall sooner or later bring a great disaster on the world.

II. The distinction drawn between clean and unclean animals was, we think, intended by God to keep his people always conscious that they were in the neighbourhood of sin. It is all the prayer that is wanted–Lord, show me myself; Lord, show me Thyself; reveal sin and reveal a Saviour.

III. It was also intended to be a rule of discrmination by which we may judge who are clean and who are unclean-that is, who are saints and who are not. There are two tests, but they must both be united. The beast that was clean was to chew the cud: here is the inner life; every true-hearted man must know how to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the sacred Word. The man who does not feed upon gospel truth, and so feed upon it, too, that he knows the sweetness and relish of it, and seeks out its marrow and fatness, that man is no heir of heaven. You must know a Christian by his inwards, by that which supports his life and sustains his frame. But then the clean creatures were also known by their walk. The Jew at once discovered the unclean animal by its having an undivided hoof; but if the hoof was thoroughly divided, then it was clean, provided that it also chewed the end. So there must be in the true Christian a peculiar walk such as God requires. You cannot tell a man by either of these tests alone; you must have them both. But while you use them upon others, apply them to yourselves. What do you feed on? What is your habit of life? Do you chew the cud by meditation? When your soul feeds on the flesh and blood of Christ have you learned that His flesh is meat indeed, and that His blood is drink indeed? If so, it is well. What about your life? Are your conversation and your daily walk according to the description which is given in the Word of believers in Christ? If not, the first test will not stand alone. You may profess the faith within, but if you do not walk aright without, you belong to the unclean. On the other hand, you may walk aright without, but unless there is the chewing of the cud within, unless there is a real feeding upon precious truth in the heart, all the right walking in the world will not prove you to be a Christian. That holiness which is only outward is moral, not spiritual; it does not save the soul. That religion, on the other hand, which is only inward is but fancy; it cannot save the soul either. But the two together–the inward parts made capable of knowing the lusciousness, the sweetness, the fatness of Christs truth, and the outward parts conformed to Christs image and character–these conjoined point out the true and clean Christian with whom it is blessed to associate here, and for whom a better portion is prepared hereafter. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The clean and unclean

Great surprise and wonder have been expressed by some learned men at the profound acquaintance with the animal kingdom exhibited in this chapter. Our greatest men of modern science have penetrated no deeper into natural history than the author of these laws. Leibnitz, and Buffon, and Cuvier, and Erxleben, and Humboldt, have been unable to make any material advances upon the classifications and distinctions, in the nature, habits, and qualities of animals, here given long before mere human science in these departments was born. And those may well wonder who allow no higher wisdom in these laws than that of mere man. The fact is, that these Mosaic institutes all have upon them such distinct traces of the hand and mind of God, that it becomes the height of folly to refer them to the mere ingenuity of man.

I. I find in this chapter A system of wholesome dietetics. All the animals here pronounced clean are the most valuable, nutritious, and whole some of creatures for human food. It does not follow that none among those forbidden are good for food; but I wish to say that it is certain all the animals here called clean are the best.

II. A. second, and somewhat more direct aim of these arrangements, looked to the keeping of the hebrews entirely distinct from all other people. They were to be the light and truth-bearing nation among the families of man. They were elected to perpetuate a knowledge of the true God, and, by their peculiar training, to prepare the way for Christ and Christianity. To fulfil this mission they needed to be strongly fenced in and barricaded against the subtle inroads of idolatry. And it was, in part, to effect this segregation of the Jewish people that this system of religious dietetics was instituted, Nothing more effectual could be desired to keep one people distinct from another. It causes the difference between them to be ever present to the mind, touching, as it does, at so many points of social and every-day contact; and it is therefore far more powerful in its results, as a rule of distinction, than any difference in doctrine, worship, or morals, which men could entertain. Kitto says that when in Asia he had almost daily occasion to be convinced of the incalculable efficacy of such distinctions in keeping men apart from strangers. A Mahomedan, for instance, might be kind, liberal, indulgent; bat the recurrence of a meal, or any eating, threw him back upon his own distinctive practices and habits, reminding him that you were an unclean person, and that his own purity was endangered by contact with you.

III. A still further and more direct intent of these religious dietetics was to train the understanding to the perception of moral distinctions–to engrave upon the mind an idea of holiness. Indeed, this was one of the leading objects of the entire ceremonial law. There are islands in the sea which would not exist but for the coral reefs upon which they rest; and so there would be no Christianity without these ceremonial regulations, which, by small beginnings, laid in the human mind the foundations upon which all our Christian convictions have been wrought out. Geologists tell us that the physical world is composed of various layers, one on the other, from a deep granite base up to the fertile mould which furnishes us food while we live and graves when we are dead. It is much the same in the moral and religious world. It has been brought forth by degrees. As there have been many geologic eras, so there have been various religious dispensations, each one furnishing the basis for the next succeeding. Each of these successive dispensations furnished a distinct stratum upon which the following one was built. The last could not exist without the first. Each one is a part of the grand whole. Connecting this chapter with the laws concerning offerings and priests, we can easily see how the whole would operate in begetting and establishing the idea of purity and holiness. Dividing off all animated nature into clean and unclean, some would be regarded as better and purer than others. Of this pure kind only could be taken for sacrifices. And even of the better kind only the purest and most spotless individuals were to be selected. The sacrificial victim would hence appear very widely separated from the common herd of living creatures, and very clean and good. A thoroughly cleansed and consecrated officer was then to take it in charge, and wash both it and himself before it could come upon the altar. And when the presentation was to be made to the Lord in the most Holy Place, only the pure blood, in a golden and consecrated bowl, could be brought, and even that with great fear and trembling. Thus, from the clean beast, and the cleaner priest, and the still further cleansing of both, and the most Holy Place, which could be approached only by so holy a personage with such sacred circumspection, the worshipper was taught the idea of holiness, the intense purity of his God, and the necessity of holiness in order to come into His favour. The fact is, that the religious world has derived its idea of moral purity from the Mosaic rights. It was part of their great office to teach mankind moral distinctions, and to open the human understanding and conscience to the idea of sanctity.

IV. Connected with this, then, was the still further intent of these laws to give a picture of sin. We here have the finger of God, pointing out on the great map of living creation the natural and material symbols of depravity. The combined characteristics of the creatures here declared unclean furnish an exact exhibition of what sin is. They constitute a living mirror in which the sinner may look at himself.

1. In the first place he is unclean, filthy, disagreeable, noxious. There may be some good qualities, as there were in many of the unclean creatures; but, upon the whole, he is unclean. Impurity is upon him. He is unfit for holy association, or to come acceptably before God.

2. In the next place he is brutish. His character is typified by the vile and noxious of living things. He was originally made but a little lower than the angels. And what are the effects of sin upon him in whom it reigns? It dethrones intellect, and makes it the slave of mere impulse, nullifies the deductions of wisdom, stifles and overrides the conscience, and makes the man the servant of lust, living only for selfish gratification, and following only the dictates of the baser nature. A brute is a thing bent downward. It goes upon its hands. Its face is towards the ground. And what is a slave of sin but one whose eyes have been diverted from heaven, and whose absorbing attention is directed to what is earthy? A brute is a creature destined to perish. Its spirit goeth downward. Its end is extinction. How like the sinner in his guilt I What hope has he for another world? But he is not only like what all brutes are in common, but also more or less like what the several kinds of unclean creatures are in particular. Sin is the ugliness and spitefulness of the camel; the burrowing, secretive, wily disposition of the coney, the rabbit, and the fox; the filthy sensuality of the hog; the stupid stubbornness of the ass; the voracious appetency of the dog, the wolf, the jackal, and hyena; the savage ferocity and bloodthirstiness of the tiger, the panther, and the lion; the sluggishness of the sloth; the prowling shyness and cruelty of the cat; and the base treachery and mischievousness of multitudes of unclean creatures that roam in darkness. It is the abominable thing which God hateth. It is of all things the most hideous, an uncleanness which cannot be expressed, a filthiness so intense that God cannot look upon it with the least degree of allowance.

3. But it is just as abundant as it is hateful. The unclean creatures are as numerous and abounding as they are base. The air is full of them; the earth is alive with them; the ocean teams with innumerable kinds of them. They cover every mountain, they crowd every plain. The crevices of the rocks are filled with them; the deserts have them as numerous as sands. The trees of the forests are thick with them; every stream and fountain contains them. They move about every street; they play in every field. They are upon the most beautiful flowers, and crawl within the most guarded enclosures. They are in our houses; they come up upon our tables; they creep into our very beds. They are present in every climate. They may be seen at all seasons. They continue with all generations. And as these unclean things abound, so does sin abound; for they are Gods natural types of sin. And looking at the appointments of this chapter as a mere remembrancer of sin, it seems to me very remarkable. How impressive the arrangement I All living nature, by a few simple words, at once transmuted into a thousand tongues to remind and warn of sin and uncleanness! I do not say that there is no good in the world. There are clean as well as unclean. There always have been good and piety in the earth, and some virtuous ones among the base. But, with all, there were more vile than clean. We have not escaped this uncleanness which has gone out over all the earth. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)

Minute enactments

Many people have a notion that there is something unworthy, or, if I may not be misunderstood, undignified, in God descending to such paltry regulations, or, as they would call it, to little things. But may not this be proof of His presence? The truth is, I know not whether God is greatest when He wields and wheels the planets in their orbits, or when He clothes the lily with all its loveliness, and finds its daily food for the ephemeral insect that is born and perishes in a day. Gods greatest glory is often in His ministry to the minutest things. We call them minute because, with considerable self-conceit, we make ourselves the standpoint from which we look at everything; that which is very much above ourselves we think very great, and that which is below ourselves we think very little; whereas the truth is that the microscope has revealed to man far more stupendous wonders in a drop of water than the telescope has revealed in the starry firmament above him; and we have more majestic footprints of infinite wisdom, beneficence, and power, and love, visible in an atom of dust than in the firmament above us. And, therefore, it was not unworthy of God, who ministers to His creatures the bread of life, to lay down what I may call these dietetic precepts, or such regulations for their nutriment as are given in this and parallel chapters. God wants man not only to be happy in heaven, but He wants him to be happy on earth; and He takes the way of making him happy by trying in these rubrics to show him that sin and disobedience to His Word are the spring of misery; that obedience to Gods Word is the source of all true and lasting happiness. The classification that is made here is a most remarkable one. It is not wholly an arbitrary one; but evidently a distinction originally inherent in the animal economy. The distinctions that are drawn here have lasted till now, and are practically acted on. For instance, animals that are called graminivorous and ruminative, and that divide the hoof, are still found to be most wholesome for food. (J. Cumming, D. D.)

Distinguishing the precious from the vile

I. That Gods people, the spiritual Israel, move in a scene of mingled good and evil.

1. In the sphere of daily life we have contact with both.

2. Our contact with them entails the danger of contamination.

3. In such a defiling sphere our duty is to separate the precious from the vile.

II. That in lifes mingled scene the godly must exercise continual vigilance.

1. We enter, by relationship with Christ, into a separated life.

2. Such a separated life must assert itself in habitual avoidance of prohibited things.

3. Minute distinctions are forced upon us by this principle of conduct.

III. That by strictest adherence to divine directions sanctity of life should be maintained.

1. Every godly soul is, to a degree, put in trust with the imparted sanctity.

2. Derived sanctity is no assurance against defilement if we forsake Gods commands. (W. H. Jellie.)

Lessons

1. All the creatures good in themselves.

2. Of the provident care of God toward both the souls and bodies of men.

3. God no respecter of persons (Lev 11:3).

4. Of the difference of sins, and divers degrees of spiritual uncleanness.

5. The doctrine may be good, though the doctors and teachers are evil.

6. Holiness the end of the precepts of the law (Lev 11:44).

7. The virtue of the sacraments depends not on the worthiness of the minister. (A. Willet, D. D.)

Types of manhood

1. Of meditating in the Word of God. Whereas the chewing of the cud was one mark to know a clean beast by: hereby is understood that we should meditate, and, as it were, ruminate on the Word of God (Psa 1:1-2).

2. To the knowledge of the Word, to join practice. Besides chewing the cud, the clean beast was to divide the hoof. Men in their life should discern between good and evil works, and to their profession of the Word add the practice of a good life.

3. Of divers vices to be shunned, shadowed forth in the natural properties of some creatures.

(1) Rich men in this world are compared to camels, and the cumbersome burden of their riches to the bunch on the camels back.

(2) The coney, which undermines and makes holes in the ground, is an emblem of crafty and deceitful men who entrap others by subtle wiles.

(3) The timorous and fearful hare that is afraid of the least noise, is an image of carnal and faint-hearted men, who, in the day of trouble, know not which way to turn.

(4) A swine, always rooting in the ground and wholly occupied in filling his belly, is a true image of worldly-minded men who despise heavenly treasure, and care only for the things of this life.

(5) Whereas there are twenty several fowls counted unclean for meat, it is observed that most of them are such as live by rapine, feed on carrion, or delight in darkness: representing three sorts of unclean persons–covetous, oppressors, and extortioners.

(6) The young eagle first picks out the eye of the carcase: denoting the guile and manner of false teachers and deceivers, that would take away the eye of knowledge and right judgment (Mat 23:13).

(7) The vulture lives altogether on carrion and dead carcases: representing those who wait for other mens death, and fraudulently suborn devised testaments.

(8) The raven is unkind to his young ones, and forsakes his nest: a true type of such as embrace this present world, and leave the society of the saints, and the fellowship of the Church–Demas.

(9) The ostrich signifies hypocrites; having wings, but flying not: so the hypocrite has the spirit of virtue, but not the power.

(10) The owl, who sees in the night, but his eyes dazzle in the day, signifies worldly wise men, who in the matters of the world are quick-sighted enough, but blind in spiritual things (1Co 2:13).

(11) The seagull, who lives and dives in the water, represents men given to pleasure (1Pe 4:3-4).

(12) They write of the pelican, that she nourishes and embraces her young ones, and with the kisses, as it were, of her bill, wounds and so kills them, and afterwards revives them with her own blood: a true resemblance of cockering parents, who make their children wantons, and spoil them through too much indulgence.

(13) The swan is white without and fair to see, but her flesh is black and unwholesome. Hereby are described proud persons, that want inward substance, carrying outwardly goodly shows.

(14) The stork, though much celebrated for her natural affection to her parents, yet is counted an unclean bird, because she feeds on unclean and poisonous meats–as serpents, snakes, and such like: betokening such men as have a show of some civil virtues, and yet have no delight in Gods Word, the wholesome food of the soul.

4. Of the necessity of sanctification.

5. Of separating the clean from the unclean. (A. Willet, D. D.)

Clean and unclean animals

It is of much significance to note, in the first place, that a large part of the animals which are forbidden as food are unclean feeders. It is a well-ascertained fact that even the cleanest animal, if its ,food be unclean, becomes dangerous to health if its flesh be eaten. The flesh of a cow which has drunk water contaminated with typhoid germs, if eaten, especially if insufficiently cooked, may communicate typhoid fever to him who eats it. It is true, indeed, that not all animals that are prohibited are unclean in their food; but the fact remains that, on the other hand, among those which are allowed is to be found no animal whose ordinary habits of life, especially in respect of food, are unclean. But, in the second place, an animal which is not unclean in its habits may yet be dangerous for food, if it be, for any reason, specially liable to disease One of the greatest discoveries of modern science is the fact that a large number of diseases to which animals are liable are due to the presence of low forms of parasitic life. To such diseases those which are unclean in their feeding will be especially exposed, while none will perhaps be found wholly exempt. Another discovery of recent times, which has a no less important bearing on the question raised by this chapter, is the now ascertained fact that many of the parasitic diseases are common to both animals and men and may be communicated from the former to the latter. In the light of such facts as these, it is plain that an ideal dietary law would, as far as possible, exclude from human food all animals which, under given conditions, might be especially liable to these parasitic diseases, and which, if their flesh should be eaten, might thus become a frequent medium of communicating them to men. Now it is a most remarkable and significant fact that the tendency of the most recent investigations of this subject has been to show that the prohibitions and permissions of the Mosaic Law concerning food, as we have seen in this chapter, become apparently explicable in view of the above facts. Not to refer to other authorities, among the latest competent testimonies on this subject is that of Dr. Noel Gueneau de Mussy, in a paper presented to the Paris Academy of Medicine in 1885, in which he is quoted as saying: There is so close a connection between the thinking being and the living organism in man, so intimate a solidarity between moral and material interests, and the useful is so constantly and so necessarily in harmony with the good, that these two elements cannot be separated in hygiene . . . It is this combination which has exercised so great an influence on the preservation of the Israelites, despite the very unfavourable external circumstances in which they have been placed . . . The idea of parasitic and infectious maladies, which has conquered so great a position in modern pathology, appears to have greatly occupied the mind of Moses, and to have dominated all his hygienic rules. He excludes from Hebrew dietary animals particularly liable to parasites; and as it is in the blood that the germs or spores of infectious disease circulate, he orders that they must be drained of their blood before serving for food. It may be added that upon this principle we may also easily explain, in a rational way, the very minute prescriptions of the law with regard to defilement by dead bodies. For immediately upon death begins a process of corruption which produces compounds not only obnoxious to the senses but actively poisonous in character; and what is of still more consequence to observe, in the case of all parasitic and infectious diseases, the energy of the infection is specially intensified when the infected person or animal dies. Hence the careful regulations as to cleansing of those persons or things which had been thus defiled by the dead: either by water, where practicable, or, where the thing could not be thus thoroughly cleansed, by burning the article with fire, the most certain of all disinfectants. But if this be indeed the principle which underlies this law of the clean and the unclean as here given, it will then be urged that since the Hebrews have observed this law with strictness for centuries, they ought to show the evidence of this in a marked immunity from sickness, as compared with other nations, and especially from diseases of an infectious character; and a consequent longevity superior to that of the Gentiles who pay no attention to these laws. Now it is the fact, and one which evidently furnishes another powerful argument for this interpretation, that this is exactly what we see. Even so long ago as the days when the plague was desolating Europe, the Jews so universally escaped infection that, by this their exemption, the popular suspicion was excited into fury, and they were accused of causing the fearful mortality among their Gentile neighbours by poisoning the wells and springs. In our own day, in the recent cholera epidemic in Italy, a correspondent of the Jewish Chronicle testifies that the Jews enjoyed almost absolute immunity, at least from fatal attack. Professor Hosmer says: Throughout the entire history of Israel,. the wisdom of the ancient lawgiver in these respects has been remarkably shown. In times of pestilence the Jews have suffered far less than others; as regards longevity and general health, they have in every age been noteworthy, and, at the present day, in the life-insurance offices, the life of a Jew is said to be worth much more than that of men of other stock. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)

Answers to objections respecting these regulations

It is Very strange that it should have been objected to this view, that since the law declares the reason for these regulations to have been religious, therefore any supposed reference hereinto the principles of hygiene is by that fact excluded. For surely the obligation so to live as to conserve and promote the highest bodily health must be regarded, both from a natural, and a Biblical and Christian point of view, as being no less really a religious obligation than truthfulness or honesty. The central idea of the Levitical holiness was consecration unto God, as the Creator and Redeemer of Israel–consecration in the most unreserved sense, for the most perfect possible service. But the obligation to such a consecration, as the essence of a holy character, surely carried with it, by necessary consequence, then, as now, the obligation to maintain all the powers of mind and body also in the highest possible perfection. That, as regards the body, and, in no small degree, the mind as well, this involves the duty of the preservation of health, so far as in our power; and that this, again, is conditioned by the use of a proper diet, as one factor of prime importance, will be denied by no one. It may be asked, by way of further objection to this interpretation of these laws: Upon this understanding of the immediate purpose of these laws, how can we account for the selection of such test-marks of the clean and the unclean as the chewing of the cud, and the dividing of the hoof, or having scales and fins? What can the presence or absence of these peculiarities have to do with the greater or less freedom from parasitic disease of the animals included or excluded in the several classes? It may fairly be replied, that the object of the law was not to give accurately distributed categories of animals, scientifically arranged, according to hygienic principles, but was purely practical; namely, to secure, so far as possible, the observance by the whole people of such a dietary as in the land of Palestine would, on the whole, best tend to secure perfect bodily health. It may be objected, again, that according to recent researches, it appears that cattle, which occupy the foremost place in the permitted diet of the Hebrews, are found to be especially liable to tubercular disease, and capable, apparently, under certain conditions, of communicating it to those who feed upon their flesh. And it has been even urged that to this source is due a large part of the consumption which is responsible for so large part of our mortality. Two answers may be given. First, and most important, is the observation that we have as yet no statistics as to the prevalence of disease of this kind among cattle in Palestine; and that, presumably, if we may argue from the climatic conditions of its prevalence among men, it would be found far less frequently there among cattle than in Europe and America. Further, it must be remembered that, in the case even of clean cattle, the law very strictly provides elsewhere that the clean animal which is slain for food shall be absolutely free from disease; so that still we see here, no less than elsewhere, the hygienic principles ruling the dietary law. It will be perhaps objected, again, that if all this be true, then, since abstinence from unwholesome food is a moral duty, the law concerning clean and unclean meats should be of universal and perpetual obligation; whereas, in fact, it is explicitly abrogated in the New Testament, and is not held to be now binding on any one. But the abrogation of the law of Moses touching clean and unclean food can be easily explained, in perfect accord with all that has been said as to its nature and intent. In the first place, it is to be remembered that it is a fundamental characteristic of the New Testament law as contrasted with that of the Old, that on all points it leaves much more to the liberty of the individual, allowing him to act according to the exercise of an enlightened judgment, under the law of supreme love to the Lord, in many matters which, in the Old Testament day, were made a subject of specific regulation. But, aside from considerations of this kind, there is a specific reason why these laws of Moses concerning diet and defilement by dead bodies, if hygienic in character, should not have been made, in the New Testament, of universal obligation, however excellent they might be. For it is to be remembered that these laws were delivered for a people few in number, living in a small country, under certain definite climatic conditions. But it is well known that what is unwholesome for food it- one part of the world may be, and often is, necessary to the maintenance of health elsewhere. A class of animals which, under the climatic conditions of Palestine, may be specially liable to certain forms of parasitic disease, under different climatic conditions may be comparatively free from them. Abstinence from fat is commanded in the law of Moses (Lev 3:17), and great moderation in this matter is necessary to health in hot climates; but, on the contrary, to eat fat largely is necessary to life in the polar regions. From such facts as these it would follow, of necessity, that when the Church of God, as under the new dispensation, was now to become a world-wide organisation, still to have insisted on a dietetic law perfectly adapted only to Palestine would have been to defeat the physical object, and by consequence the moral end for which that law was given. Under these conditions, except a special law were to be given for each land and climate, there was and could be, if we have before us the true conception of the ground of these regulations, no alternative bat to abrogate the law. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)

Bodily holiness

It follows, as a present-day lesson of great moment, that the holiness which God requires has to do with the body as well as the soul, even with such commonplace matters as our eating and drinking. This is so, because the body is the instrument and organ of the soul, with which it must do all its work on earth for God, and because, as such, the body, no less than the soul, has been redeemed unto God by the blood of His Son. There is, therefore, no religion in neglecting the body and ignoring the requirements for its health, as ascetics have in all ages imagined. Neither is there religion in pampering, and thus abusing, the body, after the manner of the sensual in all ages. The principle which inspires this chapter is that which is expressed in 1Co 10:31. If, therefore, a man needlessly eats such things, or in such a manner as may be injurious to health, he sins, and has come short of the law of perfect holiness. No less needful is the lesson of this law to many who are at the opposite extreme. For as there are those who are so taken up with the soul and its health, that they ignore its relation to the body, and the bearing of bodily conditions upon character, so there are others who are so preoccupied with questions of bodily health, sanitation and hygiene, regarded merely as prudential measures, from an earthly point of view, that they forget that man has a soul as well as a body, and that such questions of sanitation and hygiene only find their proper place when it is recognised that health and perfection of the body are not to be sought merely that man may become a more perfect animal, but in order that thus, with a sound mind in a sound body, he may the more perfectly serve the Lord in the life of holiness to which we are called. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)

Apologetic value of this law

The question will at once come up in every reflecting mind: Whence came this law? Could it have been merely an invention of crafty Jewish priests? Or is it possible to account for it as the product merely of the mind of Moses? It appears to have been ordered with respect to certain facts, especially regarding various invisible forms of noxious parasitic life, in their bearing on the causation and propagation of disease–facts which, even now, are but just appearing within the horizon of modern science. Is it probable that Moses knew about these things three thousand years ago? Certainly, the more we study the matter the more we must feel that this is not to be supposed. It is common, indeed, to explain much that seems very wise in the law of Moses by referring to the fact that he was a highly educated man, instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. But it is just this fact of his Egyptian education that makes it in the last degree improbable that he should have derived the ideas of this law from Egypt. Could he have taken his ideas with regard, for instance, to defilement by the dead, from a system of education which taught the contrary, and which, so far from regarding those who had to do with the dead as unclean, held them especially sacred? And so with regard to the dietetic laws: these are not the laws of Egypt; nor have we any evidence that those were determined, like these Hebrew laws, by such scientific facts as we have referred to. Whence had this man this unique wisdom three thousand years in advance of his times? The secret will be found, not in the court of Pharaoh, but in the holy tent of meeting: it is all explained if we but assume that which is written in the first verse of this chapter is true: The Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron: (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)

The clean and the unclean

Here we find Jehovah entering, in most marvellous detail, into a description of beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles, and furnishing His people with various marks by which they were to know what was clean and what was unclean. With regard to beasts, two things were essential to render them clean–they should chew the cud and divide the hoof. We pass on to the consideration of that which the Levitical ceremonial taught with respect to all that are in the waters. Here, again, we find the double mark (Lev 11:9-10). Two things were necessary to render a fish ceremonially clean, namely, fins and scales, which, obviously, set forth a certain fitness for the sphere and element in which the creature had to move. But, doubtless, there was more than this. If a fish needs a fin to enable him to move through the water, and scales to resist the action thereof, so does the believer need that spiritual capacity which enables him to move onward through the scene with which he is surrounded, and, at the same time, to resist its influence–to prevent its penetrating–to keep it out. These are precious qualities. From Lev 11:13 to Lev 11:24 of our chapter we have the law with respect to birds. All of the carnivorous kind, that is, all that fed on flesh, were unclean. The omnivorous, or those who could eat anything, were unclean. All those which, though furnished with power to soar into the heavens, would, nevertheless, grovel upon the earth, were unclean. As to the latter class, there were some exceptional cases (Lev 11:21-22); but the general rule, the fixed principle, the standing ordinance, was as distinct as possible; all fowls that creep, going upon all fours, shall be an abomination unto you (Lev 11:20). All this is very simple in its instruction to us. Those fowls that could feed upon flesh; those that could swallow anything or everything; and all grovelling fowls were to be unclean to the Israel of God, because so pronounced by the God of Israel; nor can the spiritual mind have any difficulty in discerning the fitness of such an ordinance. We can not only trace in the habits of the above three classes of fowl the just ground of their being pronounced unclean; but we can also see in the striking exhibition of that, in nature, which is to be strenuously guarded against by every true Christian. Such an one is called to refuse everything of a carnal nature. Moreover, he cannot feed promiscuously upon everything that comes before him. He must try the things that differ. Finally, he must use his wings–rise on the pinions of faith, and find his place in the celestial sphere to which he belongs. As to creeping things (see Lev 11:41). How wonderful to think of the condescending grace of Jehovah! He could stoop to give directions about a crawling reptile. He would not leave His people at a loss as to the most trivial affair. The priests guide-book contained the most ample instructions as to everything. He desired to keep His people free from the defilement consequent upon touching, tasting, or handling aught that was unclean. They were not their own, and hence they were not to do as they pleased. (C. H. Mackintosh.)

The right use of things

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, &c. 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 to every man according to his own circumstances. The argument of the chapter does not 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. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The coney unclean

The coney was a very timid creature, which burrowed in the rocks. Now, there are some people who seem as if they like the gospel truth, and they may be put down in the class in which Moses puts the coney, which appeared to chew the cud, though it did not really do so. They like the gospel, but it must be very cheap. They like to hear it preached, but as to doing anything to extend it, unless it were to lend their tongues an hour, they would not dream of it. The coney, you know, lived in the earth. These people are always scraping. John Bunyans muck-rake is always in their hands. Neither to dig nor to beg are they ashamed. They are as true misers, and as covetous, as if they had no religion at all. And many of these people get into our Churches and are received when they ought not to be. Covetousness ought to exclude a man from Church fellowship as well as fornication, for Paul says, Covetousness, which is idolatry. He puts the brand right on its forehead, and marks what it is. We would not admit an idolater to the Lords table; nor ought we to admit a covetous man; only we cannot always know him. St. Francis de Sales, who had a great many people come to him to confession, makes this note, that he had many men and women come to him who confessed all sorts of most outrageous crimes, but he never had one who confessed covetousness. It is a kind of sin that always comes in at the back door, and it is always entertained at the back part of the house. People do not suspect it as an inmate of their own hearts. Mr. Covetousness has changed his name to Mr. Prudent-Thrifty; and it is quite an insult to call him other than by his adopted name. Old vices, like streets notorious fur vice, get new names given them. Avaricious grasping, they call that only the laws of social economy; screwing down the poor is the natural result of competition; withholding corn until the people curse, oh I that is just the usual regulation of the market. People name the thing prettily, and then they think they have rescued it from the taint. These people, who are all for earth, are like the coneys who, though they chew the cud, burrow in the ground. They love precious truth, and yet they are all for this earth. If there are any such here, despite their fine experience, we pronounce them unclean–they are not heirs of heaven. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The hare unclean

The hare is such a timid creature; she leaveth her food, and fleeth before the passer-by. I would not say a hard thing, but there are some people who appear to chew the cud, they love to hear the gospel preached; their eyes will sparkle sometimes when we are talking of Christ, but they do not divide the hoof. Like the hare, they are too timid to be domesticated among the creatures whom the Lord has pronounced clean. They do not come out from the world, enter into the Church, and manifest themselves wholly on the Lords side. Their conscience tells them they should be united with the people of God, and confess Christ before men–but they are ashamed! One fears lest his wife should know it, and she might ridicule. Some start abashed lest their friends should know it, for the finger of scorn or the breath of raillery could frighten them out of their senses. Others of them are alarmed because the world might, perchance, give them an ill name. Do you know where the fearful go? The fearful that are afraid of being persecuted, mocked, or even laughed at for Christ–do you know where they go? But the fearful and unbelieving shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Have you never read that sentence which says, Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Fathers, and of the holy angels ? There you are, young man! you are ashamed of Christ. You have just come up from the country, and you did not pray to God the other night because there was another young man in the room, and you were ashamed of Him. There are others of you who work in a large shop, and you do not want to be jeered at, as the other young fellow is who works with you, because he is a Christian. You keep your love as a secret, do you, and will not let it out? What! if Christ had only loved you in secret, and had never dared to come on earth to be despised and rejected of men, where would you have been? Do you think that Christ has lit a candle in your hearts that you may hide it? Oh! I pray you, be not like the hare. Let your hoof be so divided from the rest of mankind that they may say, There is a man–he is not as bold as a lion, mayhap, but he is not ashamed to be a follower of Jesus; he does bear the sneer and gibe for Him, and counts it his honour to be thought evil of for Jesus sake. Oh! be not, I pray you, like the timid hare, lest you be found among the unclean! (C. H. Spurgeon.)

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters.—

Clean and unclean fish

It is a well-known fact, that all fish that have both scales and fins are both wholesome and nutritious. This provision, therefore, secured to the people the free use of what was certainly profitable, and kept them back from the uncertainty of choosing among the others what might have injured them. Again, therefore, they were taught that it is better far to lean to the side of abstinence, in doubtful cases, than to run the risk of doing evil. They were trained to the principle, If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth (1Co 8:13). Those without fins or scales are partly creatures of the mud and marsh; whereas the others swim through the clear, limpid waters of seas and rivers. Others of them that are without scales, are such as the voracious shark. Thus they were naturally fitted to exhibit purity. In Lev 11:9 we are to read, in the waters, i.e., whether seas or river. In Lev 11:10, All that move in the waters, is rather, All that crawl in the waters; and even any living thing there that has not the specified qualities. In the same verse, and at Lev 11:11, They shall be an abomination, is more emphatic if read thus–They are an abomination to you, and they shall be an abomination. And it is thus strongly stated, because the people might be ready to neglect the rule in the case of some of the smaller creatures in the water. Many of the forbidden creatures are exceedingly small in size; yet, nevertheless, even that atom is to be abhorred, if the Lord has given the command. It is not the importance of the thing, but the majesty of the lawgiver, that is to be the standard of our obedience. Sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4). There were tribes that were to dwell by the waters. Thus Simeon and Dan had a sea-coast from the river of Egypt up to Joppa. Ephraim and the half tribe of Manasseh had a sea-coast as far as Carmel–the glorious plain of Sharon descending to the waterside. Zebulun and Asher, too, had their creeks and bays; while Napthali, as well as Zebulun and the other half tribe of Manasseh, encircled the lake of Galilee, so plentiful in its supply of fish; and the waters of Merom, no doubt, swarmed with their kinds. Others of the tribes lay near Jordan, or had some lesser streams and lakes at hand. Hence there was not probably one tribe but had some need of these laws and opportunity for exercising faith by attending to them. The Lord also thus evidenced His care over the spiritual health of the seamen and fishers of Israel. It tried their faith when they needed to cast away whatever unclean fish they had enclosed in their net. Some, indeed, might reckon such minute and arbitrary rules as these to be trifling. But the principle involved in obedience or disobedience was none other than the same principle which was tried in Eden at the foot of the forbidden tree. It was really this–Is the Lord to be obeyed in all things whatsoever He commands? Is He a holy Lawgiver? Are His creatures bound to give implicit assent to His will? But this discrimination between holy and unholy penetrated farther. It reached Israels hours of recreation, and kept them, even then, in mind of their Holy One. A wealthy Israelite, who has his villa by the lake of Gennesaret, goes forth on the bosom of the lake. In its clear waters he finds fish, darting on before the slow sailing bark in the strength of their ties, and reflecting back to the surface, from their scales, the light that fell on the waters. All here speaks of purity–conformity to what the law pronounced clean. But at another time he strolls along by some shallow, or is compassing the waters of Merom, and there he finds the crawling reptiles of the mud and marsh–teaching him to draw back in haste from the touch of uncleanness. In like manner, far within their land, at the little brook flowing through the valley of Elah, fringed by its green terebinths, the youth of Judah, in their sports, were taught to keep before them the difference between good and evil, while they scrupulously rejected the unclean minnows, and chose the clean, amid their easy angling at the stream. Holiness to the Lord–obedience to His revealed will–thus pervaded Israels land and Israels families, in public and in secret, in business and in recreation; their youth and their aged men, in their fields and by their riversides, must remember The Holy One of Israel! (A. A. Bonar.)

Among the fowls.

Lessons from the fowls

The eagle, darting down from the hills of Moab or Bashan, or from the heights of Lebanon, would often teach the shepherd who saw his flock thus endangered. Those by the sea shore would have the same lesson taught them when the sight or cry of the sea-eagle and fish-hawk called to their mind that God had made a difference between the clean and unclean even in the fowls of the air. The vulture, in their streets or highways, allured by the scent of death, and the kite, poised on its wings till it found a prey upon which to dart down, and the hoarse, unpleasant note of the raven would constantly recall the same distinctions, while their loathsome qualities would serve to make the feeling of uncleanness more and more detestable to the men of Israel. While in the wilderness, and afterwards on their borders, they would meet with the ostrich, whose disagreeable cries, voracious habits, and parental unkindness, would all contribute to deepen their aversion to whatever was unclean. And not less so the small, but most ravenous night-hawk that flies in at the open windows and seeks the life of infants; and the seagull incessantly watching for its victims, over whom it screams in savage delight; and the hawk, so furious in its attack on the birds of the air; and the owl at evening, awake for designs of destruction. All these, every time they were been, helped to deepen Israels remembrance of the difference between holy and unholy, and to give them intimations of the hateful qualities of sin. (A. A. Bonar.)

The eagle as a type

Reminds one of those people who are conspicuous for certain noble and praiseworthy qualities, but also for qualities ignoble and deserving of the sternest condemnation.

1. Here is a man who is just, but has no mercy.

2. Another man is kind, but ill-tempered.

3. Ill-temper is often associated with earnestness.

4. Another man is moral, but niggardly. (A. F. Forrest.)

The osprey as a type

The osprey has been identified with the sea-eagle. Some species of it is to be found in almost every part of the world. The most noticeable thing about it is its fierce temper. A writer describes its savage scream of anger, when any one approaches the neighbourhood of its nest, its intimidating gestures, and even its attempts to molest individuals who have ventured among its native crags. Like the osprey, some people are most noticeable for their ill-nature.

1. People with bad tempers are terribly numerous.

2. Nothing so much embitters the intercourse of life as the ebullitions of a violent disposition.

3. There are more unhappy homes through bad temper than through any other cause.

4. There is this great peculiarity often about ill-tempered people: they are very good in other respects.

5. Society may be to blame somewhat for the great prevalence of bad temper. It should not be spoken of (as it usually is) as a misfortune, but as a sin.

6. The Bible regards bad temper as a sin, and its denunciations of it are of the most unmistaktable character (see Ecc 8:9; Mat 5:22; 1Jn 3:15).

7. But the punishment of anger is not altogether in the next life–in the future.

(1) The ill-natured man is always a troubled man. Seldom at peace with himself.

(2) Then there is a physical element in the retribution which in this world falls upon the man of great wrath. When anger is excited in the mind, it affects the body instantly and violently in the most vital parts.

8. Anger leads to other and often greater evils.

9. One of the grandest sights is to see a man, under circumstances of provocation and injury, restraining his anger and showing a composed and peaceful spirit.

10. A good practical specific for the treatment of anger is that given by Solomon (Pro 19:11).

11. These ebullitions of temper are not Christlike.

12. Sometimes people attempt to palliate their bad temper on the ground of natural disposition. This is a delusion. (A. F. Forrest.)

The vulture as a type

The vulture is a type of those people who revel in the wreck of their neighbours reputation.

1. These are people you never like to meet. They have nothing good to say of anybody.

2. In their stories they uniformly exaggerate.

3. Their caution is remarkable.

4. The gossip makes a pretence of wishing a thing to be kept a secret. But it is only that he may himself enjoy the monopoly of the scandal, and be the first to tell it to everybody.

5. This depraved habit of evil-speaking may spring from various causes.

(1) Envy.

(2) Revenge.

(3) Pride.

6. Of all bad people, none are so thoroughly as the tale-bearer.

Conclusion:

1. The way to keep the city clean is for every one to sweep before his own door.

2. Expulsive of the feeling which swells in the bosom of the evil-speaker is that charity which thinketh no evil. (A. F. Forrest.)

The kite as a type

1. The kite is remarkable for its very keen sight, and for the immense velocity with which it darts upon its prey. But, its legs and claws being weak, it is withal a cowardly creature. It never attacks large prey, but only insects, mice, and small birds.

2. God would have His people characterised by courage and a spirit of noble heroism.

I. The lowest form of courage is that which meets danger unconscious of fear or flinching:—Bravery. A constitutional quality. Costs no effort.

II. A higher form of courage is that which shrinks not in the presence of danger, not from insensibility to it, but from patriotism, or friendship, or some such noble feeling.

III. A still higher courage is that which adheres to duty–to truth and conscience, in the face of opposition and hardship.

1. How few have the courage of their convictions!

2. Many are cowards only in the matter of avowing and adhering to their religious principles.

3. What you are convinced is right, do, whether the world frowns or smiles, sneers or applauds. Be influenced by no fear but the fear of God.

4. Do you do well to go away? Is it wise to lose heaven to escape from a laugh?

5. What is your cross compared to the cross of those who had, in their adherence to Christ, to brave imprisonment and death? (A. F. Forrest.)

The raven as a type

I take selfishness to be the leading characteristic of the raven. It has no pity and no generosity. With it number one is the only number.

1. God did not mean man to be like the raven. The happiness of the creature, like the happiness of the Creator, was to be in giving, and not in receiving.

2. What happiness thus did God intend for the human race! Nothing to hurt or destroy could even enter a society in which love held undisputed sway.

3. But the unhappy revolt of man from God, and his assertion of independence, effectually prevented the accomplishment of the Divine purpose.

4. Before, therefore, the mischief effected by the Fall of man can be adequately repaired, we must find that which will destroy the selfishness of mans heart.

5. The gospel of Jesus Christ, alone of all religious systems, has recognised this important fact, and proposed to remove the disorder by removing the cause.

6. The sufficiency of this remedy for mans disease has received abundant proof.

7. The early Christian Church affords us just such a spectacle of unselfish enthusiasm on behalf of the race as we would have anticipated from the renewal of mens hearts, and the restoration to them of the lost principle of benevolence.

8. Is it asked why in this age we have not a repetition of Pentecostal phenomena? The explanation is to be found in the character of those who are now entrusted with the commission to preach the gospel. The Christian of this age is only partially restored from his enmity against God, partially cared of his disease. (A. F. Forrest.)

The owl as a type

A melancholy bird. Flies about at night. Children afraid of it. Owl typifies all moping, morose, melancholy people, who have no sunshine in their soul.

1. No Christian should belong to this genus. Inconsistent.

2. The Bible everywhere represents religion as a thing of joy.

3. This joy is entirely independent of worldly conditions. (A. F. Forrest.)

The bat as a type

The bat is a type of those people who seek both to walk in worldliness and to fly in heavenliness. Neither believers nor unbelievers; half for Satan, and half for God.

1. The vast majority of professing Christians belong, probably, to this genus. I have read of a Spanish bishop who took a strange way once of ending a controversy. The clergy in his diocese had been debating together in regard to the fate of Solomon in the other world. Some maintained that he was in heaven; others that he was in hell. They referred the matter at last to this dignitary. He thought he would gratify both parties. Accordingly, he ordered an artist to paint on the walls of his chapel a picture of the Jewish king, representing him as half in hell and half in heaven. Multitudes of people could only be represented in the same way.

2. This state of indecision in religion may arise from various causes.

(1) The fear of the worlds laugh or frown may keep some from making a decided stand for God.

(2) With others, an attachment to some particular form of sin.

(3) The notion that there will be time enough yet to provide for a happy eternity.

3. However caused, this indecision is most unsatisfactory. Those in this state have neither the mirth of the sinner nor the happiness of the saint. Woe to the double mind, says Augustine. Of Gods own they make a share–half to Him and half to the devil. But, indignant at such treatment, the Lord departs; and the devil gets all!

4. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

5. Oh, why do you hesitate?

(1) Is there some sin you are unwilling to abandon? You are paying too dear, surely, for your pleasures, if you are paying for them with your life.

(2) Do you fear the frown or the laugh of the ungodly? Will the frown of God be easier to bear? Or will you wince less under the mockery of Satanic spirits?

(3) Do you put off to another time? Death may intervene. One of the rivers of America had been greatly swollen by the excessive rains. A man, who had gone out in a boat to secure some logs, drifted accidentally into the current. All resistance was useless. Rapidly his boat was making for the great falls a few miles down the river. Destruction stared him in the face. There was only one slight chance of escape. A friend, seeing his danger, leaped on a horse and galloped to a bridge which the skiff would pass under just before reaching the cataract. Getting there in time, be hung a rope over the parapet for the man to clutch the moment he attained the arch. It was his only chance. The man knew his peril. He stood ready to grasp the rope the instant it was within his reach. Suddenly he makes a spring. He has it. The boat glides rapidly from under him and is dashed to pieces on the rocks. He is pulled up by his deliverer and saved. There may be but a step between you and death. Grasp the rope now. (A. F. Forrest.)

Every flying creeping thing.–

Clean and unclean insects

All insects are unclean except four classes; for it is insects that are here meant by the creatures that both fly and creep, using feet in the manner of quadrupeds. All reptiles, worms, and insects, e.g., flies and bees, are thus pronounced unclean–except only the four classes that have springing legs, in addition to the legs used in creeping. The sight of insects without number in their groves, on the leaves of their fig-trees, or the vine-leaves that shaded them–the innumerable hosts that thickened the air at sunset, or that played on the waters, and from time to time alighted on the head of the solemn Jew who marked the sight–could not fail to remind the soul that it was encompassed with unholy things. I remember (while in Palestine in 1839) the vast number of such insects, some of them very beautiful and rare, which we saw one afternoon by the lake of Galilee, near Magdala; and, also, on a previous day at the pools of Solomon, near Bethlehem. They skimmed along the waters, or flew gaily through the air, or kept their seat upon a sappy leaf–and the eye could not but be attracted by them. Now an Israelite would feel in these insects a memorial of sin, however fair the external form appeared. No retirement into quiet seats and bowers could give freedom from the presence of what was unclean. The dragon-fly that wafted itself past their eye, and the many magnificent insects, though fed amid the fragrance of Lebanon and the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, were all made to speak of God having set a mark on this earth as no longer a paradise. These creatures on the wing were like messengers sent to admonish the saints of God that the sweetest spots of earth were polluted, and, therefore, they must watch and keep their garments. The only clean insects were the locusts–the insects so often used by God to punish a guilty land and an unclean people. (A. A. Bonar.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Though every creature of God be good and pure in itself, as appears from Gen 1:31; Mat 15:11; Rom 14:14; yet it pleased God to make a difference between clean and unclean, and to restrain the use of them, which he did in general and in part before the flood, Gen 7:2; but more fully and particularly here for many reasons, as,

1. To assert his own sovereignty over man, and over all the creatures, which men may not use but with Gods leave, and to inure that stiff-necked people to obedience.

2. To keep up the wall of partition between the Jews and other nations, which was very useful and necessary for many great and wise purposes.

3. That by bridling their appetite in things in themselves lawful, and some of them very desirable and delightful for food, they might be better prepared and enabled to deny themselves in things simply and grossly sinful.

4. For the preservation of their health, some of the creatures forbidden being, though used by the neigbbouring nations, of unwholesome nourishment, especially to the Jews, who were very obnoxious to leprosies, which some of these meats are apt to produce and foment.

5. For moral signification, to teach them to abhor that filthiness and all those ill qualities for which some of these creatures are noted.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying,…. For to them only belong the following laws, and not unto the Gentiles, as Jarchi rightly observes; these were parts of the ceremonial law, which was peculiarly given to them, and lay, among other things, in meats and drinks, and now abolished; for it is not what goes into a man that defiles him; nor is anything common or unclean of itself, but every creature of God is good if received with thanksgiving. The sons of Noah had free liberty, without any restraint or limitation, of using for food any living creature that moved upon the face of the earth; in the choice of which they were left to exercise their reason and judgment, and is the case with us now; but as men have not so nice a smell as some animals have, and cannot distinguish by their senses so well as they what food is most wholesome, which makes the exercise of their reason and judgment necessary, and the people of the Jews being a special people, and for whom the Lord had a peculiar regard; for the sake of their health, and to preserve them from diseases they were subject to, such as the leprosy and others, and to direct them to what was most salubrious and healthful, gave them the following laws; and which, though they are not obligatory upon us, yet may be a direction to us, in the use of what may be most suitable and proper food for us, the difference of climates, and of the constitutions of men’s bodies, being considered: not that we are to suppose, that the case of health was the only reason of delivering out these laws to the children of Israel, for other ends, besides that, may be thought to be had in view; as to assert his sovereign right to the creatures, and his disposal of them to them according to his will and pleasure; to lay a restraint on their appetites, to prevent luxury, and to teach them self denial, and compliance with his will; as also to keep them the more from the company and conversation of the Gentiles, by whom they otherwise might be led into idolatry; and to give them an aversion to their idols, to whom the creatures forbidden them to eat, many of them were either now or would be sacred to them; and chiefly to excite to a care for purity, both inward and outward, and create in the man abhorrence of those vices which may be signified by the ill qualities of several of the creatures; and to instruct them in the difference between holy and unholy persons, with whom they should or should not have communion; see

Ac 10:11

these are the beasts that ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth; they are not particularly mentioned here, but they are in De 14:4 and they are these ten; the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois; of all which, [See comments on De 14:4] [See comments on De 14:5]: here only some general things are observed to describe them by, as follow.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

2. These are the beasts which ye shall eat. The holy fathers, before the birth of Moses, knew what animals were unclean; of which fact Noah afforded a manifest proof, when, by God’s command, he took into the ark seven pairs of the clean animals, and offered of them his sacrifice of thanksgiving to God. Certainly he could not have obeyed the command of God, unless he had either been taught by secret inspiration, or unless this tradition had descended to him from his forefathers. But there is nothing absurd in the notion that God, desiring to confirm the traditional distinction, appointed certain marks of difference whereby its observation might be more scrupulously attended to, and lest any transgression of it should creep in through ignorance. For God also consecrated the Sabbath to Himself from the creation of the world, and desired it to be observed by the people before the promulgation of the Law; and yet afterwards the peculiar holiness of the day was more distinctly expressed. Besides, the clean animals are here distinguished from the unclean, by name as well as by signs. The proper names, which are recited, are of little service to us now-a-days; because many species which are common in the East, are unknown elsewhere; and it was therefore easy for Jews (35) who were born and had lived in distant countries, to fall into error about them; whilst, on the other hand, the more bold they are in their conjectures, the less are they to be trusted. As to many of them, I acknowledge that there is no ambiguity, especially as to the tame animals, or those that are to be found everywhere, or that have plain descriptions of them given in the Bible. A positive knowledge then is only to be sought from the signs which are here laid down; viz., that the animals which have cloven hoofs, and which ruminate, are clean: and that those are unclean in which either of these two things is wanting; that either sea or river fish, which have fins and scales, are clean. No such distinction as to birds is given, but only the unclean are named, which it was sinful to eat. Lastly, mention is made of reptiles. As to details, if there be anything worthy of observation, the place to consider them will be further on; let us now remember, in general, what I have before touched upon, viz., that whilst the Gentiles might eat every kind of food, many were forbidden to the Jews, in order that they might learn in their very food to cultivate purity; and this was the object of their separation from ordinary customs. Hence it arose that they use the word חלל, chalal (36) both for “to make common,” and to “contaminate;” and the word, חול, chol, signifies “polluted, ” because it is opposed to anything holy or set apart. It is true, indeed, that the Gentiles, by natural instinct, have regarded with the utmost horror the eating of some of the animals which are here forbidden; still, God would surround His people with barriers, which must separate them from their neighbors.

Those who imagine that God here had regard to their health, as if discharging the office of a Physician, pervert by their vain speculation the whole force and utility of this law. I allow, indeed, that the meats which God permits to be eaten are wholesome, and best adapted for food; but, both from the preface, — in which God admonished them that holiness was to be cultivated by the people whom He had chosen, — as also from the (subsequent) abolition of this law, it is sufficiently plain that this distinction of meats was a part of that elementary instruction (37) under which God kept His ancient people.

“Let no man therefore judge you (says Paul) in meat or in drink, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Col 2:16.)

By which expressions he means, that what was spiritual had been shadowed forth in the external rite of abstaining from meats. To the same effect he elsewhere says, (Rom 14:14) that he knows and is persuaded, (38) that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is nothing unclean; viz., because Christ by his death has redeemed His people from slavish subjection. Hence it follows, that the prohibition of meats must be counted among the ceremonies, which were exercises in the worship of God. But here a question arises, how it is reconcilable that, even from the days of Noah, certain animals were unclean, and yet that all without exception were allowed to be eaten? I cannot agree with some in thinking that the distinction originally made by God grew obsolete by degrees; for God, in excepting the eating of blood only, makes a grant of whatsoever moves upon the earth as the food of the posterity of Noah. I therefore restrict to the sacrifices that uncleanness, with the knowledge of which the hearts of the Patriarchs were then inspired, nor do I doubt but that it was as lawful for Abraham, as well as for them, to eat swine’s flesh as the flesh of oxen. Afterwards, when God imposed the yoke of the Law to repress the licentiousness of the people, He somewhat curtailed this general permission, not because He repented of His liberality; but because it was useful to compel in this way to obedience these almost rude and uncivilized people. But, since before the Law the condition of the saints was the same as our own, it must be remembered, as I said before, that, agreeably to the dictates of nature, they spontaneously avoided certain foods, just as at present no one will hunt wolves or lions for food, nor desire to eat serpents and other venomous animals. But the object of this ordinance was different, viz., lest they who were God’s sacred and peculiar people, should freely and promiscuously communicate with the Gentiles.

(35) “ Rabins Juifs.” — Fr.

(36) חול is rendered by A.V. unholy, Lev 10:10; common, 1Sa 21:5; profane, Eze 22:26, and Eze 42:20, in which last instance common, or public, would have been more suitable. — W

(37) “ Pedagogiae.” — Lat. “ La doctrine puerile.” — Fr.

(38) Vide C. in loco, (Calvin Society Translation,) and Owen’s note. C. evidently does not understand the words in the sense of our translation; “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,” — but rather as I have given them in the text, supposing the Apostle to speak of Christ, not as the author of his persuasion, but as the remover of the uncleanness referred to. The Fr. is “ il sait, et est persuade qu’il n’y a rien impur a ceux, qui croyent en Jesus Christ; “he knows and is persuaded that there is nothing unclean to them that believe in Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(2) These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all . . . Better, These are the animals which ye may eat of all . . . . The dietary laws, which stand first in the general precepts about clean and unclean things, begin with the quadrupeds, or land animals, both domesticated and wild. This is in accordance with the Hebrew division of the animal kingdom into four principal classes :(1) the land animals, (2) the water animals, (3) the birds of the air, and (4) the swarming animals. Though not specified here by name, yet the parallel regulations in Deu. 14:4-5 enumerate the following ten animals :the ox, the sheep, the goat, the hart, the roebuck, the fallow deer, the wild goat, the pygang, the wild ox, and the chamois, with their various kindred species, which are not mentioned. From the expression, These are the animals, the opinion obtained during the second Temple that God actually caused specimens of every animal to pass before Moses and Aaron, in order to show them the veritable creatures which are clean and unclean, just as the Lord caused every species to come to Noah into the ark.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

2 . ) But the great purpose of Jehovah was to insulate the Hebrews from the surrounding idolatrous nations, that they might be witnesses to the unity of the Godhead and the worship of the one true and living God. Intercourse in ancient times, as now, was an interchange of hospitality. The banquet seals friendship. Hence it was most important that so strong a tie should not bind up into social unity the worshippers of Jehovah and the votaries of bloody and lustful gods. The natural effect of such association is not a matter of mere speculation. In Num 25:2-3, we have an historical account of the moral and religious danger of accepting of the hospitality of idolaters. Nothing can be a more effectual barrier between nations than this legislation respecting the diet of the Israelites. It stood in the way of the unifying purpose of the Gospel of Christ, and it was removed from the heart of Peter only by a miraculous trance. Act 10:9-18. Dietetic laws hedge about Mohammedanism, and keep the modern Jews, sojourning in all lands, from national absorption and extinction. This chapter treats of the clean and unclean cattle, fishes, fowls, wild beasts, and reptiles. It pronounces unclean the carcasses of all animals which have died a natural death. It enjoins upon Israel the duty of holiness, as the ground of the distinction in food. Hence the following dietary precepts are given without the assignment of any reasons, they being simple and requiring no exercise of the judgment in their application.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CONCERNING BEASTS, Lev 11:1-8.

2. These are the beasts which ye shall eat See Gen 7:2, note.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Animals That May Or May Not Be Eaten ( Lev 11:2-8 ).

Lev 11:2-3

“Speak to the children of Israel, saying, These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that may you eat.”

The definition of what of animals can be eaten is simple and clear and could be followed by any Israelite. The ‘perfect’ edible animal intended by God as man’s food is the one that parts the hoof, is cloven-footed and chews the cud (or more strictly ‘masticates well’). These therefore may be eaten. This is indeed the kind that God intended to be eaten, for He created them as such (Gen 1:24-25). They are wholesome and can fully satisfy all Israel’s need. For these attributes will determine largely what the animals themselves eat and where they tend to roam. They eat grass and vegetation, and walk and feed in places less likely to be ‘unclean’ or to be infected by parasites and death. They keep their proper place. They are probably seen as themselves generally avoiding eating ‘unclean’ things, or what had been in contact with ‘unclean’ things and especially the ‘abominations’ as described later.

Examples of such clean animals are given in Deu 14:4-6. ‘These are the beasts which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck, and the wild goat, and the ibex, and the antelope, and the mountain sheep.’ These are still ‘eaters of herbs’ (Gen 1:30). A special group among these are those which can be offered in sacrifice; the ox, the goat and the sheep, the cleanest of the clean. But attention is not drawn to this.

(The goat’s sometimes eating habits might be seen to contradict this, but we are to see them as they were seen by the Israelites in their camp, clean grazing animals, eaters of herbs. Their going astray from this was ignored).

But those which are cloven-footed or appear to chew the cud (masticate well), doing one but not both, are less than ‘perfect’ and should therefore not be eaten. They are thereby ‘blemished’ in one or other aspect of their way of living, and do not keep to their proper sphere. And because God’s people are holy, they should therefore eat only what is ‘perfect’.

Thus it is not in the first place a question as to whether they are bad for health, although that might necessarily arise from their lifestyle, it is because the way in which they lack brings them in contact with uncleanness in one way or another, in a way that should not be, and is not so for the clean beasts. For that reason it can be seen that they have not been created for eating purposes for a holy people. They are not ‘cattle’ but ‘beasts of the earth’ (Gen 1:24-25).

This is not put up for debate. It is God’s demand on the basis that Israel are His people. It may be that pork is delicious and provides protein, that hares can be enjoyable, that camel milk has its own tang, but they are forbidden because they were not created with the intention of being eaten, and because their lifestyles bring them constantly in contact with what is ‘unclean’. And as we shall see, wise were those who obeyed given the circumstances of the time. But the basic purpose of the restriction was also to teach obedience. If God said it, that was what they must do.

Lev 11:4-8

“ Nevertheless these shall you not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that part the hoof; the camel, because he chews the cud but does not part the hoof, he is unclean to you. And the rock badger (coney), because he chews the cud but does not part the hoof, he is unclean to you. And the hare, because she chews the cud but does not part the hoof, she is unclean to you. And the pig, because he parts the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but does not chew the cud, he is unclean to you. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.”

Thus they are not to eat the flesh of, or touch the dead carcasses of, the camel, the rock badger, the hare, and the pig. These are all ‘unclean’. They are lacking in one way or the other. They are blemished. And their very adaptation results in their going into unclean places, partaking of unclean things, scrabbling in the dust of death, and thus being generally unclean. They must therefore be avoided.

And as it happens medically the pig, the rock badger and the hare can all commonly contribute to unpleasant diseases of one kind or another through parasitic infection, precisely as a result of their lifestyles, and while making them far safer, even modern methods of treatment can fail to remove totally these parasitic infections. Eating them would not necessarily result in such an infection, but there was a good likelihood that it would be so, far more so than with the clean animals. (We should also note that while the pig and the camel can be identified we are not absolutely certain as to the identity of the shaphan and the ’arnebeth which may be extinct).

As for the camel, as a result of not being cloven-footed it goes into the desert, and all knew that that was a place of death and uncleanness, witness the constant discovery of dry bones there, a place of barrenness. It was a place of wild beasts (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14) and ghosts (Isa 34:14), and thus a land of death and darkness.

The camel can also render better service to man by being alive, for it is a vital means of transport where other creatures find it more difficult to go. Thus it is useful, but not in order to be eaten. It can be used for Israel’s benefit, but it must not be partaken of. Furthermore, its milk is best avoided by those who are not inured to it, (it has devastating effects on the digestion), and its meat is tough and unpleasant to those not used to it. Not being widely eaten its health effects have not been fully analysed, but it is not the most desirable of food to most. The lesson to be learned from the ban, however, was to distinguish between what God had provided for food, and what He had not, and the wisdom of considering the environment from which these things came. They were forbidden because such was God’s appointment, and because they did not remain in the sphere appointed by God for things that might be eaten. Any other benefits were secondary. Bedouin may eat camels. They were not a holy people. But Israelites may not. They were forbidden because of their regular contact with ‘uncleanness’ and unclean spheres which made them continually ‘unclean’.

These then are ‘unclean’. God was undoubtedly concerned to maintain the health and wellbeing of his people by enabling them to avoid contact, not only with ‘death’ (their carcasses you shall not touch), but also with the dirt and dust of unclean places, and with any resulting diseases. But the main point is that each of these animals is lacking in one or other of the essential virtues for an edible animal, virtues that tended to cleanness, and therefore they are ‘blemished’ and not true ‘cattle’, and eat and wander in places which are unclean. Their adaptation has therefore rendered them unfit for food for God’s holy people. They are not of a ‘perfection’ suitable for the people of God. Compare Deu 14:7-8.

There can be no question that those who observed these instructions would definitely on the whole have had better health, (and would also be wealthier by keeping their camels, which at that time were quite rare), than those who did not, especially in primitive conditions. It would seem that people did not think of eating asses as they are not mentioned. They were too valuable and useful for other purposes. They were to treat their camels as the same.

The pig was in fact bred for food in the Ancient Near East for centuries before the time of Moses, and was known to have at times been a sacrificial animal (see above). It had the advantage in some people’s eyes in that it rooted around for food and thus broke up the earth, and in the fact that it would eat what other domestic animals would not eat, providing an easy source of meat. But Israel was warned against it precisely for this reason. It was not in the pattern of ‘perfect’ edible animals. It nuzzled in the dust, sharing the serpent’s fate, and was more in danger of touching and digesting, by its scrabbling, what was ‘unclean’, and incidentally passing on parasites precisely because of its eating habits. And there is no doubt that medically speaking the decision was on the whole wise.

Christians are not called on to avoid these unclean foods, although there might be wisdom in considering it, but we should learn from this that if we too would be clean we must ensure that we abstain from all that God has forbidden us morally, and that we feed our minds properly and walk in clean paths. We should walk in our proper sphere. For those who do otherwise tend to uncleanness.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Lev 11:2. These are the beasts which ye shall eat It is extraordinary, that any objections should have been raised against the Jewish law and its divine Author, from that careful distinction made in it between meats clean and unclean; since this distinction is evidently founded on nature and reason, and, most probably, prevailed from the beginning of the world: at least, we find it was observed in the time of Noah; see note on Gen 7:8. Whence we may reasonably conclude (as no mention is there made of this being then a novel distinction) that it was received from the beginning of the creation: an opinion the more probable, as this distinction, we have observed, is founded in nature and reason; it being undeniable, that same creatures are as improper for food as others are proper; and accordingly we find that this has prevailed more or less at all times, and among all people; who have as universally agreed to feed upon some, as to abstain from others of the animal creation. It is true, this matter has varied a little in different nations, same of which have fed upon creatures which others have refused; but this difference has never been material, nor can in any degree affect the main argument. The God who created the animals, &c. is certainly the properest judge which of them is best adapted to the support of the human frame in different climates. A late ingenious and able physician has endeavoured with great shew of reason to prove, that God consulted in a particular manner the health of the Hebrews, by prohibiting them the use of such creatures, as, he avers, are unwholesome to the animal frame in so warm a climate as that of Judea. Though we cannot help being, in a great measure, of this opinion, (for a full account of which we refer the reader to Dr. James’s Medicinal Dictionary, under the word Alkali,) yet we apprehend that there were other substantial reasons for this distinction, besides the health of the people: in particular, we conclude with Bishop Warburton, that another great end was to keep up the separation of the Hebrews. “Would objectors to this distinction between clean and unclean reflect,” says the learned Bishop, “that the purpose of separating one people front the contagion of universal idolatry, and this in order to facilitate a still greater good, was a design not unworthy the Governor of the universe, they would see this part of the Jewish ritual in a different light: they would see the brightest marks of Divine wisdom in an injunction, which took away the very grounds of all commerce with foreign nations: for those who can neither eat nor drink together, are never likely to become intimate. This will open to us the admirable method of Divine Providence in Peter’s vision. The time was now come, that the apostle should be instructed in God’s purpose of calling the Gentiles into the church: at the hour of repast, therefore, he had a scenical representation of all kinds of meats, clean and unclean; of which he was bid to take and eat indifferently, and without discrimination, Act 10:10; Act 10:48. The primary design of this vision, as appears by the context, was to inform him that the partition-wall was now broken down, and that Gentiles were to be received into the church of CHRIST. But besides its figurative meaning, it had a literal; and signified, that the distinction of meats, as well as of men, was now to be abolished.” It appears from ch. Lev 20:24-26 that this was the true reason of the distinction, which was intended not only to preserve the Hebrews a separate people from the idolatrous nations, but also to remind them of that moral purity and separation from all uncleanness, which, as such a holy people, they were expected to preserve: which too is particularly specified at the end of this chapter; see note on Lev 11:44.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

It is worthy of remark, that before the flood the flesh of animals was not allowed for food. Gen 1:29-30 . After the flood a permission was given to eat flesh. Gen 9:3 . Here the LORD draws a line of distinction between clean and unclean. Certainly this was for a mark of distinction between the LORD’S people, Israel, and other nations. And it should seem that by tradition, or somewhat like it, the LORD’S people had been distinguished respecting their food from the days of Abraham. So we read, that the Egyptians would not eat bread with the Hebrews: Gen 43:32 . And probably this might have been derived from divine appointment, though we have no mention made of it; because we find that at the going into the ark, the LORD himself taught Noah concerning clean and unclean creatures. Gen 7:2 .

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

Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.

Ver. 2. These are the beasts which ye shall eat. ] These, and these only; (1.) That ye may be at mine appointment for your very meat, as who am chief Lord of all; (2.) That there may be a difference betwixt you and all other people; (3.) That ye may be taught to study purity, and know that the very creatures are defiled by man’s sin; (4.) That ye may have these things as “a shadow of things to come.” Col 2:16-17

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

children. Hebrew sons.

These. Hebrew this. Figure of speech Heterosis (of Number), singular for plural.

beasts = living creatures.

beasts = animals. Hebrew. behemah. The Hebrew division of animal kingdom was: (1) Land animals; (2) water animals; (3) birds of the air; (4) swarming animals. Deu 14:4, Deu 14:5 enumerates ten clean animals.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

These are the beasts

The dietary regulations of the covenant people must be regarded primarily as sanitary. Israel, it must be remembered, was a nation living on the earth under a theocratic government. Of necessity the divine legislation concerned itself with the social as well as with the religious life of the people. To force upon every word of that legislation a typical meaning is to strain 1Co 10:1-11; Heb 9:23; Heb 9:24 beyond all reasonable interpretation.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Deu 14:3-8, Eze 4:14, Dan 1:8, Mat 15:11, Mar 7:15-19, Act 10:12, Act 10:14, Rom 14:2, Rom 14:3, Rom 14:14, Rom 14:15, 1Ti 4:4-6, Heb 9:10, Heb 13:9, Of the laws relative to clean and unclean beasts, which are recorded in this chapter and Deut. 14 the following may be found a useful abstract.

1. In regard to quadrupeds, all beasts that have their feet completely cloven, above as well as below, and at the same time chew the cud, are clean. Those which have neither, or indeed want one of these distinguishing marks, are unclean. This is a systematic division of quadrupeds so excellent, as never yet, after all the improvements in natural history, to have become obsolete, but, on the contrary, to be still considered as useful by the greatest masters of the science.

2. With regard to fishes, Moses has in like manner, made a very simple systematic distinction. All that have scales and fins are clean; all others unclean.

3. Of birds, he merely specifies certain sorts as forbidden, thereby permitting all others to be eaten.

4. Insects, serpents, worms, etc., are prohibited; but with regard, however to those winged insects, which besides four walking legs, also have two longer springing legs (Pedes saltatorii), Moses makes an exception, and under the denomination of locusts, declares them clean in all four stages of their existence.

In Palestine, Arabia, and the adjoining countries, locusts are one of the most common articles of food, and people would be very ill of if they durst not eat them: For, when a swarm of them desolates the fields, they prove in some measure themselves an antidote to the famine which they occasion. They are not only eaten fresh, immediately on their appearance, but the people collect them, and know a method of preserving them for a long time for food, after they have dried them in an oven. – Niebuhr’s Description of Arabia, pp. 170-175.

Reciprocal: Lev 11:46 – This Deu 14:4 – General Isa 66:17 – behind one tree in the midst Col 2:16 – in meat

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Lev 11:2. Speak unto the children of Israel From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belonged to all the people; and in this chapter treats of clean and unclean meats; in the 12th, 13th, 14th, and

15th, of unclean persons, garments, and dwellings; in the 17th, of the principal sacrifices, whereby all manner of uncleanness was to be expiated; in the 18th, of unclean marriages; and after a repetition of sundry laws in the 19th, the 20th speaks of some greater uncleannesses. These are the beasts which ye shall eat Although every creature of God be good and pure in itself, yet it pleased God to make a difference between the clean and unclean. This indeed he did, in part, before the flood, (as appears from Gen 7:2,) and it is probable that the distinction was observed, more or less, at least among the descendants of Shem, from the time that Noah and his sons were permitted to eat animal food. God, however, was now pleased to give his peculiar people more particular directions on this subject. 1st, To assert his sovereignty over them and over all the creatures, which they might not use but with his leave. 2d, To accustom them to bridle their appetites in things in themselves lawful, and some of them very desirable, that they might be better prepared and enabled to deny themselves in things simply and grossly sinful. 3d, For the preservation of their health. Maimonides, the celebrated Jewish rabbi, was of opinion that the creatures here called unclean were all forbidden to be eaten by the Jews, because they were (for them at least) unwholesome food. As the body is the seat of the soul, says another of the rabbis, God would have it a fit instrument for its companion, and therefore forbids all such meats as breed ill blood; among which, if there be some whose hurtfulness is neither manifest to us nor to physicians, wonder not at it, for the faithful Physician who forbids them is wiser than any of us. Agreeably to this opinion, the learned author of the Medicinal Dictionary, Dr. James, in the article Alkali, after some curious observations about the nature of alkalescent aliments, and their effects upon the body, in altering the juices, so as to be productive of distempers, observes: From what has been said, one reason, at least, will appear why it pleased God to forbid the Jews the use of many sorts of animals as food; and why they were enjoined to take away the blood from those they were allowed to eat. If we, even in our cold climate, would conform to these rules, longevity would be more frequent among us, as we should be much less subject to epidemical disorders, and acute diseases of all sorts, which carry off at least two-thirds of mankind. Some of the animals here prohibited are apt to breed the leprosy, a disease to which the Jews were very liable. But a 4th, and still more important reason of these prohibitions was, to keep up, till the coming of the Messiah, the wall of partition between the Jews and other nations, which was very necessary, as for divers other great and wise purposes, so especially to prevent their imitating the superstitions, and being infected with the idolatry of the Gentiles, which God foresaw would be occasioned by a too great intercourse and familiarity with them. This reason of the institution is particularly mentioned, Lev 20:24. And it probably contributed more than any other thing to keep them thus distinct and separate; for when men cannot eat together, they have little inclination to enter into any close intercourse with one another. 5th, One reason more, however, may be given for this distinction of meats, which is also suggested in the passage referred to in chapter 20. It was intended to inculcate moral purity, and to teach them to abhor that filthiness, and all those ill qualities, for which some of those creatures, here termed unclean, are noted.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye {a} shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.

(a) Or, of which ye may eat.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes