These are the beasts which ye shall eat. Leviticus 11:2-47 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clean, and that all the prohibitions which had formerly been laid upon them for legal purposes were now once for all withdrawn.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 Hagar's 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 man's 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 Master's 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 people's 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 Herbert's 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 Christ's truth, and the outward parts conformed to Christ's 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 J. A. Seiss, D. D. - 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 God's 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 J. Cumming, D. D. 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. God's 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 God's 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 W. H. Jellie. I. THAT GOD'S 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 LIFE'S 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 God's commands. ( W. H. Jellie. ) Lessons A. Willet, D. D. 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 44). 7. The virtue of the sacraments depends not on the worthiness of the minister. ( A. Willet, D. D. ) Types of manhood A. Willet, D. D. 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 ( Psalm 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 camel's 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 ( Matthew 23:13 ).(7) The vulture lives altogether on carrion and dead carcases: representing those who wait for other men's 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 ( 1 Corinthians 2:13 ).(11) The seagull, who lives and dives in the water, represents men given to pleasure ( 1 Peter 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 God's 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 S. H. Kellogg, D. D. 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 S. H. Kellogg, D. D. 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

Benson Commentary Leviticus 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Leviticus 11:1 . The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron — This charge is given to them jointly; to the one, as chief governor, and to the other, as high-priest; both being greatly concerned in the execution of it. The priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, and the magistrate was to see the direction followed. 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. Leviticus 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 Genesis 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, Leviticus 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. Leviticus 11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. Leviticus 11:3 . Whatsoever parteth the hoof — That is, divides it into two parts only; or, is cloven-footed — As is here expressed. These qualities are not assigned as reasons why such animals are proper for food, but merely as marks whereby to distinguish them. In some animals the hoofs are solid, and not divided at all, as horses, asses, and mules; in others they are divided into several parts like toes, as in lions, wolves, dogs, (of which see Leviticus 11:27 ;) in a third sort, they are cloven or divided into two parts, as oxen, deer, sheep, goats. These last are of two kinds; for in some the hoof is divided, but not cloven quite through, as the camel; in others it is both parted and cloven, which are those allowed by this law to be clean creatures. And cheweth the cud — Some creatures, such as oxen, sheep, and goats, for want of the upper fore-teeth, cannot chew their food perfectly at once; nor can the stomach make a perfect digestion till it be ground a second time. Therefore such animals are provided with a double stomach; an upper, into which the food goes down after the first chewing; and another, into which it is sent after the second. Such creatures as chew the cud are reckoned more wholesome, because they grind and digest what they eat better, and consequently yield a lighter and more nutritious food than others. Under the prohibition of eating beasts which do not answer this description, all beasts of prey, and those which eat flesh, are included, whose juices, Dr. James observes, are highly alkalescent, and injurious to health. All animals of the horse and ass kind are here also prohibited, and it is well known that the flesh of these is difficult to be digested, and that the juices are rank and unwholesome. Leviticus 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Leviticus 11:4 . The camel — A usual food in Arabia, but yielding bad nourishment; for though its food is only vegetables and water, the fibres of its flesh are hardened, and rendered in a great measure indigestible, and the salts highly exalted, by its habitual and great exercise. This prohibition cut off all familiar intercourse between the Jews and Arabians. Leviticus 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Leviticus 11:5 . The coney — Hebrews ???? , shapan. It is doubted whether we translate the word right; Bochart takes it to be a large species of rat, somewhat between a coney and a rat, which was common both in Egypt and Palestine. This animal, it appears, chews the cud, but divides not the hoof, and therefore answers to the description here given. It is also frequent in those countries, and dwells in rocky places, as the shapan is represented to do, <19A418> Psalm 104:18 ; Proverbs 30:26 ; but which the coney does not, but burrows in the ground. Nor does the coney appear to have been anciently known in Judea, but to have been peculiar to Spain. Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Leviticus 11:6 . The hare, because (rather, though ) he cheweth the cud — He has a runnet in his stomach, as those animals have which chew the cud, and therefore is said to chew it. The hare is extremely timorous, and therefore uses a great deal of exercise, by way of precaution, when it goes to seek its food, and at the approach of danger, either real or imaginary. This probably contributes to the exaltation of the salts. Hence it has a very high taste, even in our cold climate, which is an evidence that the animal flesh which gives it is strongly inclined to alkaline putrefaction. Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Leviticus 11:7 . And the swine — This animal is remarkable for filthiness, and for feeding on all manner of ordure, even carrion if it falls in its way, and therefore a sow wallowing in the mire is set forth as an emblem of impurity, by writers sacred and profane. And Maimonides alleges its filthiness as the chief reason of its flesh being prohibited. Vossius, however, adds another, namely, that it had a tendency to breed the leprosy, a disease incident to those countries. And, according to the author of the Medicinal Dictionary, it is the only animal in the creation subject to the leprosy, and to something very like the king’s evil, called in Latin scrofula, from scrofa, a sow. The flesh, therefore, of this animal could not but be highly improper, as an aliment, for a people subject to leprosies, as the Jews appear to have been, and who were inhabitants of a warm climate, which renders every thing more inclinable to putrefaction. Leviticus 11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you. Leviticus 11:8 . Ye shall not touch — Not in order to eating. But the fat and skins of some of the forbidden creatures were useful, and might be used by them. Leviticus 11:9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. Leviticus 11:9-10 . Whatsoever hath fins and scales — Both of them. Such fishes being more cleanly and more wholesome food than others. All that have not fins nor scales shall be an abomination — A late commentator, by a strange mistake, probably of the press, says here: “Fish with scales sooner incline to putrefaction than those that are without.” The fact is exactly the reverse. These are what medicinal writers call pisces molles, the soft kind of fish. And, as all sorts of fish, according to Dr. James, “are very subject to an alkaline putrefaction, so those without scales incline sooner and more to putrefaction than those furnished with them, and shell-fish most of all. And it may be laid down as a certain rule, that, of all sorts of animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, those which putrefy soonest, incline the juices of our bodies most to putrefaction, when used as food, and so are least fit for ailment.” Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: Leviticus 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Leviticus 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, Leviticus 11:13 . All such fowls and birds as are rapacious, and live upon prey, as the eagle, and its several kinds, hawks, kites, vultures, ravens, &c., are forbidden, and probably on a moral as well as a natural account, their flesh not only being not so good in itself as that of others, but not so fit to be used by a people that was consecrated to God, and professed greater innocency, justice, and purity, than the rest of the world. For, being all either ravenous and cruel, or such as delight in the night and darkness, or such as feed upon impure things, it seems evident that the prohibition of them was intended to teach men to abominate all cruelty and oppression, and all works of darkness and filthiness. The eagle — Whose flesh is hard, and whose nature is very rapacious. The ossifrage — From the Latin, ossifragus, a kind of eagle, so called from breaking the bones of its prey, which it does by carrying them up on high, and then letting them fall upon a rock. The ospray — Another kind of eagle, probably the paliætus, or sea eagle, as it is here rendered by the Seventy. Bochart, however, thinks it rather means the melanætus, or black eagle, which Homer mentions ( Iliad, 21: 252,) as the strongest and swiftest of birds. Leviticus 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Leviticus 11:14-16 . The vulture and the kite — Known birds of prey. Every raven — All interpreters agree that the Hebrew word ??? , gnoreb, signifies raven, from gnereb, evening, on account of its colour. After his kind — Including crows, rooks, pyes. The owl — The original word, literally daughter of the echo, signifies a bird which inhabits desolate places, as appears from Isaiah 13:21 ; Jeremiah 50:32 , where the same word occurs. This description agrees well to the owl. It must be observed, however, that there is great uncertainty as to the meaning of several of the Hebrew names here used, the Jews themselves acknowledging the meaning of many of them to be now lost. Add to this that the animals in the eastern countries differ greatly from those of our climate, and for want of a better knowledge of them, it is probable that in giving them the names of such animals as we are acquainted with here, we often greatly err. This consideration might convince the Jews of the absurdity of pretending still to adhere to the law of Moses; since it is evident, in many cases, they know not what is forbidden, and what is not. Leviticus 11:15 Every raven after his kind; Leviticus 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, Leviticus 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, Leviticus 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, Leviticus 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. Leviticus 11:19 . The bat — Moses begins his catalogue of birds with the noblest, and ends it with the vilest, which is the bat, an animal of a dubious kind, between a bird and a mouse. It feeds on insects, as Dr. James observes, and so is improper food for the inhabitants of very warm climates. Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:20-21 . All fowls that creep — The original word signifies any animal or moving creature, especially of the reptile or insect kind, ( Genesis 1:20 ; Genesis 7:21 ,) and ought to be rendered every winged reptile, or, every flying, creeping thing that goeth upon four, as in Leviticus 11:21 , upon four legs, or upon more than four, which is all one as to the present purpose. Which have legs above their feet to leap withal — This is a description of the locusts, which, besides four smaller feet, have two larger ones, by means whereof they leap about. Leviticus 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Leviticus 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. Leviticus 11:22 . The locust after his kind — The Hebrew word ???? arbeh, is sometimes a common name for all locusts, but here signifies a peculiar sort of them The name derived from ??? rabah, to multiply, imports a multitude, no animal being more prolific. The bald locust — As it is not easy to determine what species of locust this is, and as it has not any name in modern languages, it might be better, in a translation, to retain the original name ???? solgnam, which, in the Chaldaic, signifies to consume. The beetle — As none ever eat beetles, and they are not four-footed with legs to leap withal, it is the opinion of good critics that the Hebrew word ???? chargol is not properly translated. It is rather to be taken for another sort of locust unknown to us. The grasshopper — Another species of locust, the Hebrew name of which is derived, according to Bochart, from an Arabic word, which signifies to veil, because they fly in such swarms as sometimes to veil or darken the sun. But how to distinguish these locusts from the rest is difficult, if not impossible to us. They were, however, well known of old in the eastern countries. For locusts, though unusual food with us, were commonly eaten by the Æthiopians, Lybians, Parthians, and other eastern people bordering upon Judea. And as it is certain the eastern locusts were much larger than ours, so it is probable they were of different qualities, and yielded better nourishment. Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:23-25 . All other — That is, which have not those legs above and beside their feet, mentioned Leviticus 11:21 . For these ye shall be unclean — If they did either eat, or so much as touch the carcasses of them, they were not, for that day, to come into the tabernacle, to eat of any holy thing, or to converse freely with their neighbours. And as a sign of this legal uncleanness, ( Leviticus 11:25 ,) they were to bathe in water, which was the usual rite of purification in such cases. Until the even — They were to keep apart by themselves all that day: for their day began in the evening. “The uncleanness continued only till the evening,” says Henry, “to signify that all ceremonial pollutions were to come to an end by the death of Christ in the evening of this world.” And we must learn by daily renewing our repentance every night for the failings of the day, and by a fresh application to the blood of sprinkling, to cleanse ourselves from the pollutions which we contract by them, that we may not lie down in our uncleanness. Leviticus 11:24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even. Leviticus 11:25 And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. Leviticus 11:26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean. Leviticus 11:26 . The carcasses of every beast, &c., are unclean — They were prohibited from touching their dead bodies, but not their bodies when alive: for they used camels, horses, asses, &c., for necessary service, Leviticus 11:31 . Leviticus 11:27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even. Leviticus 11:27 . Upon his paws — Hebrew, upon his hands; that is, which hath feet divided into several parts, like fingers, as dogs, cats, apes, lions, bears. Leviticus 11:28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you. Leviticus 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, Leviticus 11:30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole. Leviticus 11:30 . And the mole — The Hebrew word is the same with that which ( Leviticus 11:18 ) we translate swan. But it is plain, that there it signifies a sort of fowl, as, in all probability, it here does a sort of lizard. All the reptiles here mentioned, according to Dr. James, are extremely subject to putrefaction, as are reptiles of almost every kind; and the smell of these, when putrefied, is extremely offensive; from whence we must conclude that their salts are highly exalted, and their juices alkalescent to a great degree. Leviticus 11:31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. Leviticus 11:32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be , wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. Leviticus 11:33 And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it. Leviticus 11:34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean. Leviticus 11:34 . That on which such water cometh — That flesh, or herbs, or other food which is dressed in water, in a vessel so polluted, shall be unclean: not so, if it be food which is eaten dry, as bread, or fruits; the reason of which difference seems to be this, that the water did sooner receive the pollution in itself, and convey it to the food so dressed. All this was intended to teach them to avoid carefully every thing that was polluted in their common actions. Not only the vessels of the sanctuary, but every pot in Jerusalem and Judah must be holiness to the Lord, Zechariah 14:20 . The laws in these cases were very critical, and the observance of them would be difficult, and the exceptions also were very nice: but it was all designed to exercise them to a constant care and exactness in their obedience. And we, who by Christ are delivered from these burdensome observances, are hereby taught not to be less circumspect in the more weighty matters of the law. We ought as industriously to preserve our precious souls from the pollutions of sin, and as speedily to cleanse them when they are polluted, as they were to preserve and cleanse their bodies and household goods from these ceremonial pollutions. Leviticus 11:35 And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. Leviticus 11:36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean. Leviticus 11:36-37 . Nevertheless, a fountain or pit shall be clean — Of this no reason can be given, but the will of the Lawgiver, and his merciful condescension to men’s necessities, water being scarce in those countries; and for the same reason God would have the ceremonial law of sacrifices give place to the law of mercy. Seed — Partly because this was necessary provision for man, and partly because such seed would not be used for man’s food till it had received many alterations in the earth, whereby such pollution was taken away. Leviticus 11:37 And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean. Leviticus 11:38 But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you. Leviticus 11:38 . If any water be on the seed, &c. — Bishop Kidder observes, the meaning is, If water be put upon the seed to prepare it for food; thus distinguishing it from seed that was intended to be sown. But others have thought the reason of the difference to be, partly that wet seed sooner receives, and longer retains, any pollution than dry, and partly because such seed was not fit to be sown presently, and therefore that necessity which justified the immediate use of the dry seed, could not be pretended in this case. Leviticus 11:39 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even. Leviticus 11:39-42 . If any beast die — Either of itself, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice. He that eateth — Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, ( Deuteronomy 14:21 ,) and therefore punished as such. Every creeping thing — Except those expressly excepted, Leviticus 11:29-30 . Upon the belly — As worms and snakes. Upon all four — As toads and divers serpents. Leviticus 11:40 And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. Leviticus 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. Leviticus 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Leviticus 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Leviticus 11:44 . Ye shall be holy — By this he gives them to understand, that all these cautions about eating or touching these creatures was not for any real uncleanness in them, but only that by the diligent observation of these rules they might learn with greater care to avoid all moral pollutions, and to keep themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and from all familiar and intimate converse with notorious sinners. Leviticus 11:45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. Leviticus 11:45 . That bringeth you up out of Egypt — This was a reason why they should cheerfully submit to distinguishing laws, who had been so honoured with distinguishing favours. Leviticus 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: Leviticus 11:46 . This is the law of the beasts, &c.–It was to them a statute as long as that dispensation lasted, but under the gospel we find it expressly repealed, by a voice from heaven to Peter, ( Acts 10:15 ,) as it had before been virtually set aside by the death of Christ, with other ordinances that perished in the using, Touch not, taste not, handle not, ( Colossians 2:21-22 ,) and now we are sure that meat commends us not to God, ( 1 Corinthians 8:8 ,) and that nothing is unclean of itself, Romans 14:14 . Nor doth that defile a man which goes into his mouth, but that which comes out from the heart, Matthew 15:11 . Let us therefore, 1st, Give thanks to God that we are not under this yoke, but that to us every creature of God is allowed as good, and nothing to be refused. 2d, Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and take heed of those doctrines which command to abstain from meats, and so would revive Moses again, 1 Timothy 4:3 ; 1 Timothy 4:3 d, Be strictly and conscientiously temperate in the use of the good creatures God has allowed us. If God’s law has given us liberty, let us lay restraints upon ourselves, and never feed ourselves without fear, lest our table be a snare. Set a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite, and be not desirous of dainties or varieties, Proverbs 23:2-3 . Nature is content with a little, grace with less, but lust with nothing. Leviticus 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Leviticus 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, AND DEFILEMENT BY DEAD BODIES Leviticus 11:1-47 WITH chapter 11 begins a new section of this book, extending to the end of chapter 15, of which the subject is the law concerning various bodily defilements, and the rites appointed for their removal. The law is given under four heads, as follows: I. Clean and Unclean Animals, and Defilement by Dead Bodies: Leviticus 11:1-47 . II. The Uncleanness of Childbirth: Leviticus 12:1-8 . III. The Uncleanness of Leprosy: Leviticus 13:1-59 ; Leviticus 14:1-57 . IV. The Uncleanness of Issues: Leviticus 15:1-33 . From the modern point of view this whole subject appears to many, with no little reason, to be encompassed with peculiar difficulties. We have become accustomed to think of religion as a thing so exclusively of the spirit, and so completely independent of bodily conditions, provided that these be not in their essential nature sinful, that it is a great stumbling block to many that God should be represented as having given to Israel an elaborate code of laws concerning such subjects as are treated in these five chapters of Leviticus: a legislation which, to not a few, seems puerile and unspiritual, if not worse. And yet, for the reverent believer in Christ, who remembers that our blessed Lord did repeatedly refer to this book of Leviticus as, without any exception or qualification, the Word of His Father, it should not be hard, in view of this fact, to infer that the difficulties which most of us have felt are presumably due to our very imperfect knowledge of the subject. Remembering this, we shall be able to approach this part of the law of Moses, and, in particular, this chapter, with the spirit, not of critics, but of learners, who know as yet but little of the mysteries of God’s dealings with Israel or with the human race. Chapter 11 may be divided into two sections, together with a concluding appeal and summary ( Leviticus 11:41-47 ). The first section treats of the law of the clean and the unclean in relation to eating ( Leviticus 11:1-23 ). Under this head, the animals which are permitted or forbidden are classified, after a fashion not scientific, but purely empirical and practical, into (1) the beasts which are upon the earth ( Leviticus 11:2-8 ); (2) things that are in the waters ( Leviticus 11:9-12 ); (3) flying things, -comprising, first, birds and flying animals like the bat ( Leviticus 11:13-19 ); and, secondly, insects, "winged creeping things that go upon all four" ( Leviticus 11:20-23 ). The second section treats of defilement by contact with the dead bodies of these, whether unclean ( Leviticus 11:24-38 ), or clean ( Leviticus 11:39-40 ). Of the living things among the beasts that are upon the earth ( Leviticus 11:2-8 ), those are permitted for food which both chew the cud and divide the hoof; every animal in which either of these marks is wanting is forbidden. Of the things which live in the waters, those only are allowed for food which have both fins and scales; those which lack either of these marks, such as, for example, eels, oysters, and all the mollusca and crustacea, are forbidden ( Leviticus 11:9-12 ). Of flying things ( Leviticus 11:13-19 ) which may be eaten, no special mark is given; though it is to be noted that nearly all of those which are by name forbidden are birds of prey, or birds reputed to be unclean in their habits. All insects, "winged creeping things that go upon all four" ( Leviticus 11:20 ), or "whatsoever hath many feet," or "goeth upon the belly," as worms, snakes, etc., are prohibited ( Leviticus 11:42 ). Of insects, a single class, described as those "which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth," is excepted ( Leviticus 11:21-22 ): these are known to us as the order Saltatoria, including, as typical examples, the cricket, the grasshopper, and the migratory locust; all of which, it may be noted, are clean feeders, living upon vegetable products only. It is worthy of notice that the law of the clean and the unclean in food is not extended, as it was in Egypt, to the vegetable kingdom. The second section of the chapter ( Leviticus 11:24-40 ) comprises a number of laws relating chiefly to defilement by contact with the dead bodies of animals. In these regulations, it is to be observed that the dead body, even of a clean animal, except when killed in accordance with the law, so that its blood is all drained out ( Leviticus 17:10-16 ), is regarded as defiling him who touches it; while, on the other hand, even an unclean animal is not held capable of imparting defilement by mere contact, so long as it is living. Very minute charges are given ( Leviticus 11:29-38 ) concerning eight species of unclean animals, of which six ( Leviticus 11:20 , Leviticus 11:30 , R.V) appear to be different varieties of the lizard family. Regarding these, it is ordered that not only shall the person be held unclean who touches the dead body of one of them ( Leviticus 11:31 ), but also anything becomes unclean on which such a dead body may fall, whether household utensil, or food, or drink ( Leviticus 11:32-35 ). The exception only is made ( Leviticus 11:36-38 ), that fountains, or wells of water, or dry seed for sowing, shall not be held to be by such defiled. That which has been made unclean must be put into water and be unclean until the even ( Leviticus 11:32 ); with the exception that nothing which is made of earthenware, whether a vessel, or an oven, or a range, could be thus cleansed; for the obvious reason that the water could not adequately reach the interior of its porous material. It must therefore be broken in pieces ( Leviticus 11:33-34 ). If a person be defiled by any of these, he remained unclean until the even ( Leviticus 11:31 ). No washing is prescribed, but, from analogy, is probably to be taken for granted. Such is a brief summary of the law of the clean and the unclean as contained in this chapter. To preclude adding needless difficulty to a difficult subject, the remark made above should be specially noted, -that so far as general marks are given by which the clean is to be distinguished from the unclean, these marks are evidently selected simply from a practical point of view, as of easy recognition by the common people, for whom a more exact and scientific mode of distinction would have been useless. We are not therefore for a moment to think of cleanness or uncleanness as causally determined, for instance, by the presence or absence of fins or scales, or by the habit of chewing the cud, and the dividing of the hoof, or the absence of these marks, as if they were themselves the ground of the cleanness or uncleanness, in any instance. For such a fancy as this, which has diverted some interpreters from the right line of investigation of the subject, there is no warrant whatever in the words of the law, either here or elsewhere. Than this law concerning things clean and unclean nothing will seem to many, at first, more alien to modern thought, or more inconsistent with any intelligent view of the world and of man’s relation to the things by which he is surrounded. And, especially, that the strict observance of this law should be connected with religion, and that, upon what professes to be the authority of God, it should be urged on Israel on the ground of their call to be a holy people to a holy God, -this, to the great majority of Bible readers, certainly appears, to say the least, most extraordinary and unaccountable. And yet the law is here, and its observance is enforced by this very consideration: for we read ( Leviticus 11:43-44 ): "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Lord your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy." And, in any case, explain the matter as we may, many will ask, How, since the New Testament formally declares this law concerning clean and unclean beasts to be no longer binding, {Col 2:16; Col 2:20-23} is it possible to imagine that there should now remain anything in this most perplexing law which should be of spiritual profit still to a New Testament believer? To the consideration of these questions, which so naturally arise, we now address ourselves. First of all, in approaching this subject it is well to recall to mind the undeniable fact, that a distinction in foods as clean and unclean, that is, fit and unfit for man’s use, has a very deep and apparently irremovable foundation in man’s nature. Even we ourselves, who stumble at this law, recognise a distinction of this kind, and regulate our diet accordingly; and also, in like manner, feel, more or less, an instinctive repugnance to dead bodies. As regards diet, it is true that when the secondary question arises as to what particular animals shall be reckoned clean or unclean, fit or unfit for food, nations and tribes differ among themselves, as also from the law of Moses, in a greater or less degree; nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that such a distinction is recognised among all nations of culture; and that, on the other hand, in those who recognise it not, and who eat, as some do, without discrimination, whatever chances to come to hand, -insects, reptiles, carrion, and so on, - this revolting indifference in the matter of food is always associated with gross intellectual and moral degradation. Certainly these indisputable facts should suffice to dispose of the charge of puerility, as sometimes made against the laws of this chapter. And not only this, but more is true. For while even among nations of the highest culture and Christian enlightenment many animals are eaten, as, e.g. , the oyster, the turtle, the flesh of the horse and the hog, which the law of Moses prohibits; on the other hand, it remains true that, with the sole exception of creatures of the locust tribe, the animals which are allowed for food by the Mosaic code are reckoned suitable for food by almost the entire human family. A notable exception to the fact is indeed furnished in the case of the Hindoos, and also the Buddhists (who follow an Indian religion), who, as a rule, reject all animal food, and especially, in the case of the former, the flesh of the cow, as not to be eaten. But this exception is quite explicable by considerations into which we cannot here enter at length, but which do not affect the significance of the general fact. And, again, on the other hand, it may also be said that, as a general rule, the appetite of the great majority of enlightened and cultivated nations revolts against using as food the greater part of the animals which this code prohibits. Birds of prey, for instance, and the carnivora generally, animals having paws, and reptiles, for the most part, by a kind of universal instinct among cultivated peoples, are judged unfit for human food. The bearing of these facts upon our exposition is plain. They certainly suggest, at least, that this law of Leviticus 11:1-47 may, after all, very possibly have a deep foundation both in the nature of man and that of the things permitted or forbidden; and they also raise the question as to how far exceptions and divergencies from this law, among peoples of culture, may possibly be due to a diversity in external physical and climatic conditions, because of which that which may be wholesome and suitable food in one place-the wilderness of Sinai, or Palestine, for instance-may not be wholesome and suitable in other lands, under different physical conditions. We do not yet enter into this question, but barely call attention to it, as adapted to check the hasty judgment of many, that such a law as this is necessarily puerile and unworthy of God. But while it is of no small consequence to note this agreement in the fundamental ideas of this law with widely extended instincts and habits of mankind, on the other hand, it is also of importance to emphasise the contrast which it exhibits with similar codes of law among other peoples. For while, as has just been remarked, there are many most suggestive points of agreement between the Mosaic distinctions of clean and unclean and those of other nations, on the other hand, remarkable contrasts appear, even in the ease of those people with whom, like the Egyptians, the Hebrews had been most intimately associated. In the Egyptian system of dietary law, for instance, the distinction of clean and unclean in food was made to apply, not only in the animal, but also in the vegetable world; and, again, while all fishes having fins and scales are permitted as food in the Mosaic law, no fishes whatever are permitted by the Egyptian code. But more significant than such difference in details is the difference in the religious conception upon which such distinctions are based. In Egypt, for example, animals were reckoned clean or unclean according as they were supposed to have more predominant the character of the good Osiris or of the evil Typhon. Among the ancient Persians, those were reckoned clean which were supposed to be the creation of Ormazd, the good Spirit, and those unclean whose origin was attributed to Ahriman, the evil Spirit. In India, the prohibition of flesh as food rests on pantheistic assumptions. Not to multiply examples, it is easy to see that, without anticipating anything here with regard to the principle which determined the Hebrew distinctions, it is certain that of such dualistic or pantheistic principles as are manifested in these and other instances which might be named, there is not a trace in the Mosaic law. How significant and profoundly instructive is the contrast here, will only fully appear when we see what in fact appears to have been the determining principle in the Mosaic legislation. But when we now seek to ascertain upon what principle certain animals were permitted and others forbidden as food, it must be confessed that we have before us a very difficult question, and one to which, accordingly, very diverse answers have been given. In general, indeed, we are expressly told that the object of this legislation, as of all else in this book of laws, was moral and spiritual. Thus, we are told in so many words ( Leviticus 11:43-45 ) that Israel was to abstain from eating or touching the unclean, on the ground that they were to be holy, because the Lord their God was holy. But to most this only increases the difficulty. What possible connection could there be between eating, or abstinence from eating, animals which do not chew the cud, or fishes which have not scales, and holiness of life? In answer to this question, some have supposed a mystical connection between the soul and the body, such that the former is defiled by the food which is received and assimilated by the latter. In support of this theory, appeal has been made to verse 44 of this chapter ( Leviticus 11:44 ), which, in the Septuagint translation, is rendered literally: "Ye shall not defile your souls." But, as often in Hebrew, the original expression here is simply equivalent to our compound pronoun "yourselves," and is therefore so translated both in the Authorised and the Revised Versions. As for any other proof of such a mystical evil influence of the various kinds of food prohibited in this chapter, there is simply none at all. Others, again, have sought the explication of these facts in the undoubted Divine purpose of keeping Israel separate from other nations; to secure which separation this special dietetic code, with other laws regarding the clean and the unclean, was given them. That these laws have practically helped to keep the children of Israel separate from other nations, will not be denied; and we may therefore readily admit, that inasmuch as the food of the Hebrews has differed from that of the nations among whom they have dwelt, this separation of the nation may therefore have been included in the purpose of God in these regulations. However, it is to be observed that in the law itself the separation of Israel from other nations is represented, not as the end to be attained by the observance of these food laws, but instead, as a fact already existing, which is given as a reason why they should keep these laws. {Lev 20:24-25} Moreover, it will be found impossible, by reference to this principle alone, to account for the details of the laws before us. For the question is not merely why there should have been food laws, but also why these laws should have been such as they are? The latter question is not adequately explained by reference to God’s purpose of keeping Israel separate from the nations. Some, again, have held that the explanation of these laws was to be found simply in the design of God, by these restrictions, to give Israel a profitable moral discipline in self-restraint and control of the bodily appetites; or to impose, in this way, certain conditions and limitations upon their approach to Him. which should have the effect of deepening in them the sense of awe and reverence for the Divine majesty of God, as their King. Of this theory it may be said, as of the last-named, that there can be no doubt that in fact these laws did tend to secure these ends; but that yet, on the other hand, the explanation is still inadequate, inasmuch as it only would show why restrictions of some kind should have been ordered, and not, in the least, why the restrictions should have been such, in detail, as we have here. Quite different from any of these attempted explanations is that of many who have sought to explain the law allegorically. We are told by such that Israel was forbidden the flesh of certain animals, because they were regarded as typifying by their character certain sins and vices, as, on the other hand, those which were permitted as food were regarded as typifying certain moral virtues. Hence, it is supposed by such that the law tended to the holiness of Israel, in that it was, so to speak, a continual object lesson, a perpetually acted allegory, which should continually remind them of the duty of abstaining from the typified sins and of practising the typified virtues. But, assuredly, this theory cannot be carried out. Animals are in this law prohibited as food whose symbolic meaning elsewhere in Scripture is not always bad, but sometimes good. The lion, for example, as having paws, is prohibited as food; and yet it is the symbol of our blessed Lord, "the Lion of the tribe of Judah." Nor is there the slightest evidence that the Hebrews ever attached any such allegorical significance to the various prescriptions of this chapter as the theory would require. Other expositors allegorise in a different but no more satisfactory manner. Thus a popular, and, it must be added, most spiritual and devout expositor, sets forth the spiritual meaning of the required conjunction of the two marks in clean animals of the chewing of the cud and the dividing of the hoof in this wise: "The two things were inseparable in the case of every clean animal. And as to the spiritual application, it is of the very last importance in a practical point of view A man may profess to love and feed upon, to study and ruminate over, the Word of God-the pasture of the soul; but if his footprints along the pathway of life are not such as the Word requires, he is not clean." But it should be evident that such allegorising interpretation as this can carry with it no authority, and sets the door wide open to the most extravagant fancy in the exposition of Scripture. Others, again, find the only principle which has determined the laws concerning defilement by the dead, and the clean and unclean meats, to be the presence in that which was reckoned unclean, of something which is naturally repulsive to men; whether in odour, or in the food of a creature, or its other habits of life. But while it is true that such marks distinguish many of the creatures reckoned unclean, they are wanting in others, and are also found in a few animals which are nevertheless permitted. If this had been the determining principle, surely, for example, the law which permitted for food the he-goat and forbade the horse, would have been exactly the opposite; while, as regards fishes and insects permitted and forbidden, it is hard to see any evidence whatever of the influence of this principle. Much more plausible, at first sight, and indeed much more nearly approaching the truth, than any of the theories above criticised, is one which has been elaborated with no little learning and ingenuity by Sommer, according to which the laws concerning the clean and the unclean, whether in regard to food or anything else, are all grounded in the antithesis of death and life. Death, everywhere in Holy Scripture, is set in the closest ethical and symbolical connection with sin. Bodily death is the wages of sin; and inasmuch as it is the outward physical expression and result of the inner fact that sin, in its very nature, is spiritual death, therefore the dead is always held to be unclean; and the various laws enforcing this thought are all intended to keep before the mind the fact that death is the visible representation and evidence of the presence of sin, and the consequent curse of God. Hence, also, it will follow that the selection of foods must be governed by a reference to this principle. The carnivora, on this principle, must be forbidden, -as they are, -because they live by taking the life of other animals; hence, also, is explained the exclusion of the multitudinous varieties of the insect world, as feeding on that which is dead and corrupt. On the other hand, the animals which chew the cud and divide the hoof are counted clean; inasmuch as the sheep and the cattle, the chief representatives of this class, were by everyone recognised as at the furthest possible remove from any such connection with death and corruption in their mode of life; and hence the familiar marks which distinguish them, as a matter merely of practical convenience, were taken as those which must distinguish every animal lawful for food. But while this view has been elaborated with great ability and skill, it yet fails to account for all the facts. It is quite overlooked that if the reason of the prohibition of carnivorous birds and quadrupeds is to be found in the fact that they live by the destruction of life, the same reason should have led to the prohibition of all fishes without exception, as in Egypt; inasmuch as those which have fins and scales, no less than others, live by preying on other living creatures. On the other hand, by the same principle, all insects which derive their sustenance from the vegetable world should have been permitted as food, instead of one order only of these. Where so much learning and profound thought has been expended in vain, one might well hesitate to venture anything in exposition of so difficult a subject, and rest content, as some have, with declaring that the whole subject is utterly inexplicable. And yet the world advances in knowledge, and we are therefore able to approach the subject with some advantage in this respect over earlier generations. And in the light of the most recent investigations, we believe it highly probable that the chief principle determining the laws of this chapter will be found in the region of hygiene and sanitation, as relating, in this instance, to diet, and to the treatment of that which is dead. And this in view of the following considerations. 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 these parasitic diseases are common to both animals and men, and may be communicated from the former to the latter. All are familiar with the fact that the smallpox, in a modified and mild form, is a disease of cattle as well as of men, and we avail ourselves of this fact in the practice of vaccination. Scarcely less familiar is the communication of the parasitic trichinae, which often infest the flesh of swine, to those who eat such meat. And research is constantly extending the number of such diseases. Turkeys, we are now told, have the diphtheria, and may communicate it to men; men also sometimes take from horses the loathsome disease known as the glanders. Now 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 them 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 particulary 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." If this professional testimony, which is accepted and endorsed by Dr. Behrends, of London, in his remarkable paper on "Diseases caught from Butcher’s Meat," be admitted, it is evident that we need look no further for the explanation of the minute prescriptions of these dietary laws which we find here and elsewhere in the Pentateuch. And, 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, then 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 of these laws, that this is exactly what we see. In this matter we are not left to guessing; the facts are before the world, and are undisputed. 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 lawgivers 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." Of the facts in the modern world which sustain these statements, Dr. Behrends gives abundant illustration in the article referred to, such as the following: "In Prussia, the mean duration of Jewish life averages five years more than that of the general population. In Furth, the average duration of Jewish life is 37, and of Christians 26 years. In Hungary, an exhaustive study of the facts shows that the average duration of life with the Croats is 20.2, of the Germans 26.7, but of the Jews 46.5 years, and that although the latter generally are poor, and live under much more unfavourable sanitary conditions than their Gentile neighbours." In the light of such well-certified facts, the conclusion seems certainly to be warranted, that at least one chief consideration which, in the Divine wisdom, determined the allowance or prohibition, as the food of Israel, of the animals named in this chapter, has been their fitness or unfitness as diet from a hygienic point of view, especially regarding their greater or less liability to have, and to communicate to man, infectious, parasitic diseases. From this position, if it be justified, we can now perceive a secondary reference in these laws to the deeper ethical truth which, with much reason, Sommer has so emphasised; namely, the moral significance of the great antithesis of death to life; the former being ever contrasted in Holy Scripture with the latter, as the visible manifestation of the presence of sin in the world, and of the consequent curse of God. For whatever tends to weakness or disease, by that fact tends to death, -to that death which, according to the Scriptures, is, for man, the penal consequence of sin. But Israel was called to be a people redeemed from the power of death to life, a life of full consecration to God. Hence, because redeemed from death, it was evidently fitting that the Israelite should, so far as possible in the flesh, keep apart from death, and all that in its nature tended, or might specially tend, to disease and death. 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 herein to 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. If there appear sufficient reason for believin