Text -- Leviticus 11:1-8 (NET)

Clean and Unclean Land Creatures

11:1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 11:2 “Tell the Israelites: ‘This is the kind of creature you may eat from among all the animals that are on the land. 11:3 You may eat any among the animals that has a divided hoof (the hooves are completely split in two) and that also chews the cud. 11:4 However, you must not eat these from among those that chew the cud and have divided hooves: The camel is unclean to you because it chews the cud even though its hoof is not divided. 11:5 The rock badger is unclean to you because it chews the cud even though its hoof is not divided. 11:6 The hare is unclean to you because it chews the cud even though its hoof is not divided. 11:7 The pig is unclean to you because its hoof is divided (the hoof is completely split in two), even though it does not chew the cud. 11:8 You must not eat from their meat and you must not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Lev 11:1

From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belong to all the people. God spake to both of them, because the cognizance of the following matters belonged to both: the priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, where any doubt or difficulty arose; and the magistrate was to see the direction followed.

Wesley: Lev 11:2

Though every creature of God be good and pure in itself, yet it pleased God to make a difference between clean and unclean, which he did in part before the flood, Gen 7:2, but more fully here for many reasons; as, To assert his own sovereignty over man, and all the creatures which men may not use but with God's leave. To keep up the wall of partition between the Jews and other nations, which was very necessary for many great and wise purposes. That by bridling their appetite in things in themselves lawful, and some of them very desirable, they might be better prepared and enabled to deny themselves in things simply and grossly sinful. For the preservation of their health, some of the creatures forbidden being, though used by the neighbouring nations, of unwholesome nourishment, especially to the Jews, who were very obnoxious to leprosies. To teach them to abhor that filthiness, and all those ill qualities for which some of these creatures are noted.

Wesley: Lev 11:3

footed - That is, divided into two parts only: This clause is added to explain and limit the former, as appears from Lev 11:26, for the feet of dogs, cats &c. are parted or cloven into many parts.

Wesley: Lev 11:3

Heb. and bringeth up the cud, that is, the meat once chewed, out of the stomach in the mouth again, that it may be chewed a second time for better concoction. And this branch is to be joined with the former, both properties being necessary for the allowed beasts.

Wesley: Lev 11:3

giver; though interpreters guess that God would hereby signify their duties, by the first, that of discerning between good and evil; and by the latter, that duty of recalling God's word to our minds and meditating upon it.

Wesley: Lev 11:4

An usual food in Arabia, but yielding bad nourishment.

Wesley: Lev 11:4

So as to have his foot cloven in two, which being expressed, Lev 11:3, is here to be understood. Otherwise the camel's hoof is divided, but it is but a small and imperfect division.

Wesley: Lev 11:5

As for the names of the following creatures, seeing the Jews themselves are uncertain and divided about them, it seems improper to trouble the unlearned readers with disputes about them.

Wesley: Lev 11:8

Not in order to eating, as may be gathered by comparing this with Gen 3:3. But since the fat and skins of some of the forbidden creatures were useful, for medicinal and other good purposes, and were used by good men, it is not probable that God would have them cast away. Thus God forbad the making of images, Exo 20:4, not universally, but in order to the worshipping them, as Christian interpreters agree.

JFB: Lev 11:1-2

These laws, being addressed to both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers in Israel, may serve to indicate the twofold view that is to be taken of them. Undoubtedly the first and strongest reason for instituting a distinction among meats was to discourage the Israelites from spreading into other countries, and from general intercourse with the world--to prevent them acquiring familiarity with the inhabitants of the countries bordering on Canaan, so as to fall into their idolatries or be contaminated with their vices: in short, to keep them a distinct and peculiar people. To this purpose, no difference of creed, no system of polity, no diversity of language or manner, was so subservient as a distinction of meats founded on religion; and hence the Jews, who were taught by education to abhor many articles of food freely partaken of by other people, never, even during periods of great degeneracy, could amalgamate with the nations among which they were dispersed. But although this was the principal foundation of these laws, dietetic reasons also had weight; for there is no doubt that the flesh of many of the animals here ranked as unclean, is everywhere, but especially in warm climates, less wholesome and adapted for food than those which were allowed to be eaten. These laws, therefore, being subservient to sanitary as well as religious ends, were addressed both to Moses and Aaron.

JFB: Lev 11:3-7

Ruminating animals by the peculiar structure of their stomachs digest their food more fully than others. It is found that in the act of chewing the cud, a large portion of the poisonous properties of noxious plants eaten by them, passes off by the salivary glands. This power of secreting the poisonous effects of vegetables, is said to be particularly remarkable in cows and goats, whose mouths are often sore, and sometimes bleed, in consequence. Their flesh is therefore in a better state for food, as it contains more of the nutritious juices, is more easily digested in the human stomach, and is consequently more easily assimilated. Animals which do not chew the cud, convert their food less perfectly; their flesh is therefore unwholesome, from the gross animal juices with which they abound, and is apt to produce scorbutic and scrofulous disorders. But the animals that may be eaten are those which "part the hoof as well as chew the cud," and this is another means of freeing the flesh of the animal from noxious substances. "In the case of animals with parted hoofs, when feeding in unfavorable situations a prodigious amount of fœtid matter is discharged, and passes off between the toes; while animals with undivided hoofs, feeding on the same ground, become severely affected in the legs, from the poisonous plants among the pasture" [WHITLAW, Code of Health]. All experience attests this, and accordingly the use of ruminating animals (that is, those which both chew the cud and part the hoof) has always obtained in most countries though it was observed most carefully by the people who were favored with the promulgation of God's law.

JFB: Lev 11:4

It does to a certain extent divide the hoof, for the foot consists of two large parts, but the division is not complete; the toes rest upon an elastic pad on which the animal goes; as a beast of burden its flesh is tough. An additional reason for its prohibition might be to keep the Israelites apart from the descendants of Ishmael.

JFB: Lev 11:5

Not the rabbit, for it is not found in Palestine or Arabia, but the hyrax, a little animal of the size and general shape of the rabbit, but differing from it in several essential features. It has no tail, singular, long hairs bristling like thorns among the fur on its back; its feet are bare, its nails flat and round, except those on each inner toe of the hind feet, which are sharp and project like an awl. It does not burrow in the ground but frequents the clefts of rocks.

JFB: Lev 11:6

Two species of hare must have been pointed at: the Sinai hare, the hare of the desert, small and generally brown; the other, the hare of Palestine and Syria, about the size and appearance of that known in our own country. Neither the hare nor the coney are really ruminating. They only appear to be so from working the jaws on the grasses they live on. They are not cloven-footed; and besides, it is said that from the great quantity of down upon them, they are very much subject to vermin--that in order to expel these, they eat poisonous plants, and if used as food while in that state, they are most deleterious [WHITLAW].

JFB: Lev 11:7

It is a filthy, foul-feeding animal, and it lacks one of the natural provisions for purifying the system, "it cheweth not the cud"; in hot climates indulgence in swine's flesh is particularly liable to produce leprosy, scurvy, and various cutaneous eruptions. It was therefore strictly avoided by the Israelites. Its prohibition was further necessary to prevent their adopting many of the grossest idolatries practised by neighboring nations.

Clarke: Lev 11:1

And the Lord spake unto Moses - In the preceding chapter the priests are expressly forbidden to drink wine; and the reason for this law is given also, that they might be able at all times to distinguish between clean and unclean, and be qualified to teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord had spoken, Lev 10:10, Lev 10:11; for as inebriation unfits a person for the regular performance of every function of life, it must be especially sinful in those who minister in holy things, and to whom the teaching of the ignorant, and the cure of souls in general, are entrusted. Scheuchzer has remarked that no Christian state has made any civil law against drunkenness, (he must only mean the German states, for we have several acts of parliament against it in England), and that it is only punished by contempt. "Custom,"says he, "that tyrant of the human race, not only permits it, but in some sort authorizes the practice, insomuch that we see priests and ministers of the Church ascend the pulpit in a state of intoxication, judges seat themselves upon the benches, physicians attend their patients, and others attempt to perform the different avocations of life, in the same disgraceful state."- Physic. Sacr., vol. iii., p. 64. This is a horrible picture of German manners; and while we deplore the extensive ravages made by this vice, and the disgrace with which its votaries are overwhelmed, we have reason to thank God that it very rarely has ever appeared in the pulpit, and perhaps was never once seen upon the bench, in our own country. Having delivered the law against drinking wine, Moses proceeds to deliver a series of ordinances, all well calculated to prevent the Israelites from mixing with the surrounding nations, and consequently from being contaminated by their idolatry. In Leviticus 11 he treats of unclean Meats. In Lev 12:1-8, 13, 14, and 15, he treats of unclean Persons, Garments, and Dwellings. In Leviticus 16 he treats of the uncleanness of the Priests and the People, and prescribes the proper expiations and sacrifices for both. In Leviticus 17 he continues the subject, and gives particular directions concerning the mode of offering, etc. In Leviticus 18 he treats of unclean matrimonial connections. In Leviticus 19 he repeats sundry laws relative to these subjects, and introduces some new ones. In Leviticus 20 he mentions certain uncleannesses practiced among the idolatrous nations, and prohibits them on pain of death. In Leviticus 21 he treats of the mourning, marriages, and personal defects of the priests, which rendered them unclean. And in Leviticus 22 he speaks of unclean sacrifices, or such as should not be offered to the Lord. After this, to the close of the book, many important and excellent political and domestic regulations are enjoined, the whole forming an eccleslastico-political system superior to any thing the world ever saw. Bishop Wilson very properly observes that, "by these laws of clean and unclean animals, etc., God did keep this people separated from the idolatrous world: and this is a standing proof, even to the present day, of the Divine authority of these Scriptures; for no power or art of man could have obliged so great and turbulent a nation to submit to such troublesome precepts as the Jews always have submitted to, had they not been fully convinced, from the very first, that the command was from God, and that it was to be obeyed at the peril of their souls."

Clarke: Lev 11:3

Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed - These two words mean the same thing - a divided hoof, such as that of the ox, where the hoof is divided into two toes, and each toe is cased with horn

Clarke: Lev 11:3

Cheweth the cud - Ruminates; casts up the grass, etc., which had been taken into the stomach for the purpose of mastication. Animals which chew the cud, or ruminate, are provided with two, three or four stomachs. The ox has four: in the first or largest, called the ventriculus or paunch, the food is collected without being masticated, the grass, etc., being received into it as the beast crops it from the earth. The food, by the force of the muscular coats of this stomach, and the liquors poured in, is sufficiently macerated; after which, formed into small balls, it is thrown up by the esophagus into the mouth, where it is made very small by mastication or chewing, and then sent down into the second stomach, into which the esophagus or gullet opens, as well as into the first, ending exactly where the two stomachs meet. This is what is termed chewing the cud. The second stomach, which is called the reticulum, honeycomb, bonnet, or king’ s hood, has a great number of small shallow cells on its inward surface, of a pentagonal or five-sided form, exactly like the cells in a honey-comb; in this the food is farther macerated, and then pushed onward into the third stomach, called the omasum or many-plies, because its inward surface is covered with a great number of thin membranous partitions. From this the food passes into the fourth stomach, called the abomasum, or rede. In this stomach it is digested, and from the digested mass the chyle is formed, which, being absorbed by the lacteal vessels, is afterwards thrown into the mass of blood, and becomes the principle of nutrition to all the solids and fluids of the body. The intention of rumination, or chewing the cud, seems to be, that the food may be sufficiently comminuted, that, being more fully acted on by the stomachs, it may afford the greatest possible portion of nutritive juices. The word cud is probably not originally Saxon, though found in that language in the same signification in which it is still used. Junius, with great show of probability, derives it from the Cambro-British chwyd, a vomit, as it is the ball of food vomited, or thrown up, from the first stomach or paunch through the esophagus into the mouth, which is called by this name. Those who prefer a Saxon derivation may have it in the verb whence our word chew; and so cud might be considered a contraction of chewed, but this is not so likely as the preceding.

Clarke: Lev 11:5

The coney - שפן shaphan , not the rabbit, but rather a creature nearly resembling it, which abounds in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and is called by Dr. Shaw daman Israel, and by Mr. Bruce ashkoko . As this creature nearly resembles the rabbit, with which Spain anciently abounded, Bochart supposes that the Phoenicians might have given it the name of שפניה spaniah , from the multitude of שפנים shephanim (or spanim , as others pronounce it) which were found there. Hence the emblem of Spain is a woman sitting with a rabbit at her feet. See a coin of Hadrian in Scheuchzer.

Clarke: Lev 11:6

The hare - ארנבת arnebeth , as Bochart and others suppose, from ארה arah , to crop, and ניב nib , the produce of the ground, these animals being remarkable for destroying the fruits of the earth. That they are notorious for destroying the tender blade of the young corn, is well known. It is very likely that different species of these animals are included under the general terms שפן shaphan , and ארנבת arnebeth , for some travelers have observed that there are four or five sorts of these animals, which are used for food in the present day in those countries. See Harmer, vol. iii., p. 331, edit. 1808. Some think the mountain rat, marmot, squirrel, and hedgehog, may be intended under the word shaphan .

Clarke: Lev 11:7

And the swine - חזיר chazir , one of the most gluttonous, libidinous, and filthy quadrupeds in the universe; and, because of these qualities, sacred to the Venus of the Greeks and Romans, and the Friga of our Saxon ancestors; and perhaps on these accounts forbidden, as well as on account of its flesh being strong and difficult to digest, affording a very gross kind of aliment, apt to produce cutaneous, scorbutic, and scrofulous disorders, especially in hot climates.

Calvin: Lev 11:2

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

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

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

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

Calvin: Lev 11:3

3.Whatsoever parteth the hoof Whilst I fear that but little confidence can be placed in the allegories, in which many have taken delight; so I do not find any fault with, nor even refuse that which has been handed down from the ancients, ³⁹ viz., that by the cleaving of the hoof is signified prudence in distinguishing the mysteries of Scripture, and by the chewing of the cud serious meditation on its heavenly doctrines; although I cannot approve of the subtlety ⁴⁰ which they add, viz., that those “rightly divide the word” who have known how to elicit mystical senses from its letter; because hence it has come to pass that they have allowed themselves in all sorts of imaginations. I therefore embrace the more simple notion, that they who only have a taste for the carnal sense, do not divide the hoof; for, as Paul says, only “he that is spiritual discerneth all things.” (1Co 2:15 , margin.) The chewing of the cud ought to follow, duly to prepare and digest the spiritual food; for many gulp down Scripture without profit, because they neither sincerely desire to profit by it, nor seek to refresh their souls by it, as their nourishment; but satisfied with the empty delights of knowledge, make no efforts to conform their life to it. In the first clause, then, brutal stupidity is condemned; in the other, the ambition and levity of curious men. ⁴¹ God, indeed, set before Peter, in the vision, unclean animals as images and figures of the Gentiles, (Act 10:12;) and therefore it is lawful, by probable analogy, to transfer to men what is said about the animals. But why God should have appointed the cloven hoof and rumination as signs, is no more clear to me than why He should have forbidden their eating swine’s flesh; unless, perchance, because the solid hoof is a sign of wildness; whilst the animals which do not ruminate feed for the most part on filth and excrement. We know that on this point there was much contention immediately after the promulgation of the Gospel, because some of the Jews, in their excessive devotion to the Law, and considering that the distinction of meats was not to be reckoned among the, ceremonial enactments, desired that the new Church should be bound by the same trammels as had been imposed upon the ancient people. At length, by the decree of the Apostles, permission was given to the Gentiles to eat all kinds of meat, except only blood and things strangled, and that only for a time, for the sake of avoiding offense, since the Jews would not otherwise have been propitiated. Now, after what God Himself had ordained respecting the distinction of meats had been abrogated, it was an act of diabolical audacity to oblige men’s consciences by human laws, and to prevent them from enjoying the liberty obtained by Christ.

Another question remains, how God should pronounce anything which He has created to be unclean; for, if an animal be rejected on account of its uncleanness, part of the reproach redounds to the Author Himself. Besides, this rejection seems also to be opposed to the first declaration of God, when, considering all things which He had made, He acknowledged them to be “very good.” The solution is, that no animal was ever unclean in itself; but that this merely refers to its use. Thus in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there was naturally neither fault nor harm, so that it should infect man by its pollution, yet he contracted death from it on account of God’s prohibition. Wherefore, also, in this passage, God does not condemn His work in the animals, but, as to their being eaten, He would have them accounted unclean, that the people may abominate that which is forbidden them. In a word, it is only transgression which defiles: for the animals have never changed their nature; but it was in God’s power to determine what He would have to be lawful or unlawful. Thus another objection is removed. Christ declares that

"not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man ”
(Mat 10:11.)

If any one should thence infer that harmless animals are improperly condemned, we must reply that they are not accounted unclean in themselves, but that the prohibition had a different object. For that doctrine was always true, that

"the kingdom of God is not meat and drink,”
(Rom 14:17;)

but, when God forbade the Israelites to eat this or that kind of food, they were admonished by this ceremonial precept how abominable is the inward corruption of the heart. But by such elementary teaching they were prepared and led onwards to spiritual doctrine, that they might know that nothing defiles a man except what comes out of his mouth. Now-a-days the condition of believers is different. for liberty is obtained for them, since Christ, having abrogated the Law, has nailed

"the handwriting of ordinances to his cross.”
(Col 2:14.)

Calvin: Lev 11:4

4.Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of He more clearly expresses what he had previously glanced at, viz., that an animal, although it may ruminate, shall not be clean unless it also cleaves the hoof; and, on the other hand, that the cloven hoof will not be sufficient unless combined with rumination. In these words Moses taught that partial and imperfect purity must not be obtruded upon God. If any choose to think that rumination is the symbol of internal purity, and the cloven hoof of external, his opinion will be a probable one. Since this distinction has occurred to my mind, although I have no taste for subtle speculations, I have thought it well to mention it, yet leaving it free for any one to accept it or not. Meanwhile we must hold it as certain, as I have lately said, that God demands perfect cleanliness, undefiled by any admixture. But the prohibition was most onerous to the Jews with respect to swine’s flesh, because it is very well adapted for food, not only as being a pleasant accompaniment of other meats, but because the working-classes are fed upon it at a smaller cost. In this point, therefore, the religion of the Jewish people was especially proved. For, when the soldiers of Antiochus desired to force the people to an entire renunciation of the Law, they only urged them to eat swine’s flesh ⁴² And hence the famous witticism of Augustus, “I would rather be Herod’s pig than his son;” ⁴³ because, whilst he abstained from pork, he was the murderer of his children. But, in order that the Jews might observe this prohibition more strictly, the very touch was also forbidden them; so that it was not only wicked to taste swine’s flesh, but even to touch it with their hands after the animal was killed. The same rule did not apply to beef or mutton; for it is necessary to handle the meat which is appointed for our food.

Defender: Lev 11:2

This remarkable 11th chapter of Leviticus is controversial, not only because of its division of animals into clean animals (suitable for eating and for sacrifice) and unclean animals, but also because great uncertainty exists among Hebrew scholars regarding the identity of many of the kinds of animals as named. The dietary restrictions no doubt were mainly intended for health and sanitation reasons, as well as ceremonial applications. The latter uses have been removed in the present economy (Act 10:9-15; 1Ti 4:3, 1Ti 4:4), but the health and aesthetic factors may still be worth consideration."

Defender: Lev 11:6

This is one of the classic "mistakes" of the Bible, since it is well known that the hare does not chew the cud. In fact, this would also have been known to the ancient Israelites, so that they would make no such mistake. The problem is simply the mistranslation of the Hebrew. This animal was not a hare, but is an unknown animal. Modern translators seem constrained to equate all the ancient animals of the Bible with modern animals. They overlook the fact that many animals have become extinct in the last four thousand years, especially during the traumatic centuries of climatic upheaval immediately following the great flood, the period known to evolutionists as the Pleistocene Epoch, or Ice Age. There is no reason whatsoever to equate the with the hare. The identities of several of the other animals listed in this chapter are equally uncertain."

TSK: Lev 11:2

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

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

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

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

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

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

TSK: Lev 11:3

parteth : Psa 1:1; Pro 9:6; 2Co 6:17

cheweth : Deu 6:6, Deu 6:7, Deu 16:3-8; Psa 1:2; Pro 2:1, Pro 2:2, Pro 2:10; Act 17:11; 1Ti 4:15

TSK: Lev 11:4

unclean unto you : Gen 7:1, Gen 7:2; Deut. 14:1-29; Isa 52:11; 1Co 8:13; 1Th 5:22; 1Jo 3:4

TSK: Lev 11:5

the coney : Shaphan , most probably an animal resembling the rabbit, called by Dr. Shaw, daman (probably for ganam ) Israel , ""Israel’ s lamb,""and by Bruce, ashkoko , which name he imagines is ""derived from the singularity of these long herenacious hairs, which, like small thorns, grow about his back, and which an Amhara are called ashok . ""This curious animal abounds in Judea, Palestine, Arabia, and Ethiopia; and is described as being about seventeen inches when sitting. It has no tail; and at first sight gives the idea of a rat. Its colour is grey, mixed with reddish brown; the belly white, the body covered with strong polished hairs, for the most part about two inches in length; the ears round, and not pointed; the feet round, of a soft, pulpy, tender substance; the toes projecting beyond the nails, which are rather broad than sharp; the upper jaw is longer than the other; it lives upon grain, fruit, and roots, and certainly chews the cud; and it does not burrow like the hare and rabbit, but lives in clefts of the rocks. Psa 104:18; Pro 30:26

but divideth : Job 36:14; Mat 7:26; Rom 2:18-24; Phi 3:18, Phi 3:19; 2Ti 3:5; Tit 1:16

TSK: Lev 11:6

the hare : Deu 14:7

TSK: Lev 11:7

swine : Deu 14:8; Isa 65:4, Isa 66:3, Isa 66:17; Mat 7:6; Luk 8:33, Luk 15:15; 2Pe 2:18-22

TSK: Lev 11:8

they are unclean : Lev 5:2; Isa 52:11; Hos 9:3; Mat 15:11, Mat 15:20; Mar 7:2, Mar 7:15, Mar 7:18; Act 10:10-15; Act 10:28, Act 15:29; Rom 14:14-17, Rom 14:21; 1Co 8:8; 2Co 6:17; Eph 5:7, Eph 5:11; Col 2:16, Col 2:21-23; Heb 9:10

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Lev 11:1

Yahweh speaks to Moses and Aaron conjointly. (Compare Lev 13:1; Lev 15:1.) The high priest, in regard to the legal purifications, is treated as co-ordinate with the legislator.

Barnes: Lev 11:2

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

Barnes: Lev 11:3

Parteth ... - Rather, is clovenfooted and completely separates the hoofs.

Barnes: Lev 11:4

Divideth not the hoof - The toes of the camel are divided above, but they are united below in a sort of cushion or pad resting upon the hard bottom of the foot, which is "like the sole of a shoe."The Moslems eat the flesh of the camel, but it is said not to be wholesome.

Barnes: Lev 11:5

The coney - The Old English name for a rabbit. The animal meant is the Hyrax Syriacus. It bears some resemblance to the guinea-pig or the marmot, and in its general appearance and habits Pro 30:26; Psa 104:18, it might easily be taken for a rodent. But Cuvier discovered that it is, in its anatomy, a true pachyderm, allied to the rhinoceros and the tapir, inferior to them as it is in size.

He cheweth the cud - The Hyrax has the same habit as the hare, the rabbit, the guinea-pig, and some other rodents, of moving its jaws when it is at rest as if it were masticating. The rodents were familiarly spoken of as ruminating animals, just as the bat was reckoned among birds because it flies (see Lev 11:19), and as whales and their congeners are spoken of as fish, when there is no occasion for scientific accuracy.

Barnes: Lev 11:7

He divide the hoof ... - It is cloven-footed and completely, etc. See Lev 11:3 note. Of all the quadrupeds of which the Law forbids the flesh to be eaten, the pig seems to have been regarded as the most unclean. Compare the marginal references. Several other nations have agreed with the Hebrews in this respect: the reason being that its flesh is unwholesome, especially in warm climates.

Poole: Lev 11:1

The Lord spake to both Moses and Aaron because the cognizance of the following matters belonged to both; the priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed where any doubt or difficulty arose, and the magistrate was to see the direction here given followed.

Poole: Lev 11:2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poole: Lev 11:3

Cloven-footed to wit, is divided into two parts only, as in the coney, swine, &c., whereas the horse, camel, &c. have their hoofs entire and undivided. This clause is added only to explain and limit the former, as appears from Lev 11:26 ; for the feet or hoofs of dogs, cats, &c. are parted or cloven into many parts. Cheweth the cud, Heb. and bringeth up the cud , i.e. the meat once chewed out of the stomach into the mouth again, that it may be chewed a second time for better concoction. And this branch is to be joined with the former, both properties being necessary for the allowed beasts. But the reason hereof must be resolved into the will of the lawgiver; though interpreters guess that God would hereby signify their duties by the first, that of dividing the word of God aright, and discerning between good and evil, between God’ s institutions and men’ s inventions; and by the latter, that duty of recalling God’ s word to our minds, and serious meditation upon it.

Poole: Lev 11:4

The camel was a usual food in Arabia, but yielding bad nourishment, as Galen notes.

Divideth not the hoof to wit, so as to have his foot cloven in two, which being expressed Lev 11:3 , is here to be understood; otherwise the camel’ s hoof is divided, but it is but a small and imperfect division, as Aristotle and Pliny observe, and observation shows.

Poole: Lev 11:5

Some understand by the Hebrew word shaphan , a mountain mouse , which were of a much greater size than ordinary mice, and were used by the Arabians for food. But for the names of the following creatures, seeing the Jews themselves are uncertain and divided about them, I think it improper to trouble the unlearned reader with disputes about them, and for the learned, they may have recourse to my Latin Synopsis. I shall therefore take them according to our translation.

Poole: Lev 11:7

The Jews would not so much as name

the swine but called it another or a strange thing, lest the naming of it should tempt them to eat this meat, which was so commonly used and so much esteemed by others.

Poole: Lev 11:8

Ye shall not touch to wit, in order to eating, as may be gathered by comparing this with Gen 3:3 Col 2:21 . For since the fat and the skins of some of the forbidden creatures were useful for medicinal and other good uses, and were used by good men; see Mat 3:4 ; it is not probable that God would have them cast away. Thus God forbad the making of images, Ex 20 , not absolutely and universally, but in order to the worshipping of them, as Christian interpreters agree. Or, they were here forbidden to touch them, to wit, unnecessarily; and if he that touched them for some necessary use were polluted by it, it was but a slight and transient pollution, ending at evening, as appears from Lev 11:24,25 , &c.

Haydock: Lev 11:1

Heron, or "stork," noted for the same quality: chasida, means "piety." ---

Charadrion, a kind of heron, (Calmet) mentioned by Aristotle, viii. 3. It is found in deep holes and rocks. (Menochius) ---

Some translate parrot, peacock, kite, &c. Anapha, may denote a bird easily vexed. (Calmet) ---

Houp, or lapwing. (Haydock) ---

Bat. Strabo (xvii.) speaks of some very large, which were salted and eaten at Borsippe.

Haydock: Lev 11:1

Aaron. God shews him this honour after his consecration, though not always. See chap. xii. and xvii., &c. (Worthington)

Haydock: Lev 11:2

Animals which you are to eat, &c. The prohibition of so many kinds of beasts, birds, and fishes, in the law, was ordered, 1. to exercise the people in obedience and temperance; 2. to restrain them from the vices of which these animals were symbols; 3. because the things here forbidden were for the most part unwholesome, and not proper to be eaten; 4. that the people of God, by being obliged to abstain from things corporally unclean, might be trained up to seek a spiritual cleanness. (Challoner) ---

These animals had no natural uncleanness: for all things are clean to the clean, Titus i. 15. But they were looked upon as such by the prejudice of the people, and many of them possessed noxious qualities. If they had been the most excellent, the will of God is a sufficient reason to enforce the duty of abstinence; (Calmet) as it was in the case of Adam and Eve. As some animals were adored, and others were deemed unclean by the Gentiles, the Hebrews were commanded to sacrifice some of the former description, and to abhor also the latter, that they might never be so foolish, as to imitate the perversity of the nations, in looking upon any animal as a god. (Theodoret, q. 11.) St. Thomas Aquinas ([Summa Theologiae] i. 2. q. 102. a. 6,) explains at large, out of the holy fathers, the different vices, which the unclean animals represent. (Worthington) ---

By the distinction of these creatures, God would have his people known, chap. xx. 24, 26. Those who chose to die rather than transgress in this point, are justly honoured by the Church as martyrs, 2 Machabees vi. and vii. (St. Gregory, or. 20.) (Haydock)

Haydock: Lev 11:3

Hoof divided, and cheweth the cud. The dividing the hoof, and chewing the cud, signify discretion between good and evil, and meditating on the law of God: and where either of these is wanting, a man is unclean. In like manner, fishes were reputed unclean that had not fins and scales: that is, souls that did not raise themselves up by prayer, and cover themselves with the scales of virtues, (Challoner) particularly of mortification and penance. (Worthington)

Haydock: Lev 11:4

Camel, which hath a hard skin connecting its hoof below. The Arabs and Persians eat its flesh. God will have his people keep at a distance from imitating them; and that is one of the reasons for this and similar precepts. (Calmet)

Haydock: Lev 11:5

The cherogrillus. Some suppose it to be the rabbit, others the hedge-hog: St. Jerome intimates that it is another kind of animal common in Palestine, which lives in the holes of rocks, or in the earth. We choose here, as also in the names of several other creatures that follow, (which are little known in this part of the world) to keep the Greek or Latin names. (Challoner) Bochart (Hierozoicon) may be consulted on this subject. He supposes, that the Hebrew shaphan, denotes the Arabian rat called aliarbuho. But the Jews themselves are ignorant of many of these animals. (Calmet) ---

Both choiros and grullos, signify swine. The porcupine, or the bear-mouse of Palestine, may be meant. (Menochius)

Haydock: Lev 11:6

Cheweth. Some copies of the Septuagint add not, which agrees with the nature of the hare; though the people to whom Moses addresses himself were of a different persuasion. Its hoof is not divided into two parts only, and therefore it is accounted unclean.

Haydock: Lev 11:7

Swine. This animal was abhorred by many other nations. If an Egyptian happened to touch one, he plunged into the Nile. (Herod., ii. 47.) Few are to be seen in the East. Yet the people of Crete and of Samos held swine in veneration; and they were offered in sacrifice to Venus, by the Cyprians. They seem designed for slaughter, as they are good for nothing alive. They are very subject to leprosy. (Calmet) ---

The Jews would hardly name them, but called them "the beast." Old Eleazer was strongly instigated to pretend at least to eat swine's flesh, but preferred a painful death before the transgression of God's law, 2 Machabees vi. 18. (Haydock)

Haydock: Lev 11:8

Carcasses. They might be touched while alive, ver. 24.

Gill: Lev 11:1

And the Lord spake unto Moses, and unto Aaron,.... The one being the chief magistrate, and the other the high priest, and both concerned to see the following laws put into execution; according to Jarchi, the Lord spoke to Moses that he might speak to Aaron; but being now in office, and one part of his office being to distinguish between clean and unclean, the following discourse is directed equally to him as to Moses:

saying unto them; as follows.

Gill: Lev 11:2

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying,.... For to them only belong the following laws, and not unto the Gentiles, as Jarchi rightly observes; these were parts of the ceremonial law, which was peculiarly given to them, and lay, among other things, in meats and drinks, and now abolished; for it is not what goes into a man that defiles him; nor is anything common or unclean of itself, but every creature of God is good if received with thanksgiving. The sons of Noah had free liberty, without any restraint or limitation, of using for food any living creature that moved upon the face of the earth; in the choice of which they were left to exercise their reason and judgment, and is the case with us now; but as men have not so nice a smell as some animals have, and cannot distinguish by their senses so well as they what food is most wholesome, which makes the exercise of their reason and judgment necessary, and the people of the Jews being a special people, and for whom the Lord had a peculiar regard; for the sake of their health, and to preserve them from diseases they were subject to, such as the leprosy and others, and to direct them to what was most salubrious and healthful, gave them the following laws; and which, though they are not obligatory upon us, yet may be a direction to us, in the use of what may be most suitable and proper food for us, the difference of climates, and of the constitutions of men's bodies, being considered: not that we are to suppose, that the case of health was the only reason of delivering out these laws to the children of Israel, for other ends, besides that, may be thought to be had in view; as to assert his sovereign right to the creatures, and his disposal of them to them according to his will and pleasure; to lay a restraint on their appetites, to prevent luxury, and to teach them self denial, and compliance with his will; as also to keep them the more from the company and conversation of the Gentiles, by whom they otherwise might be led into idolatry; and to give them an aversion to their idols, to whom the creatures forbidden them to eat, many of them were either now or would be sacred to them; and chiefly to excite to a care for purity, both inward and outward, and create in the man abhorrence of those vices which may be signified by the ill qualities of several of the creatures; and to instruct them in the difference between holy and unholy persons, with whom they should or should not have communion; see Act 10:11.

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

Gill: Lev 11:3

Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed,.... That is, whose hoof is parted and cloven quite through; for there are some creatures that have partitions in their feet, but not quite through, they are parted above, but underneath are joined together by a skin; wherefore both these phrases are used to describe the beasts lawful to be eaten: the Egyptians seem to have borrowed this law from the Jews, for Chaeremon says ^x, that they abstain from such four footed beasts that have only one hoof, or have many partitions, or have no horns: and so the Targum of Jonathan adds here,"which have horns,''which, though not in the text, agrees well with the creatures allowed by this law to be eaten, see Deu 14:4 for such are all horned cattle; nor are there any cattle horned forbid to be eaten:

and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that shall ye eat: who having no upper teeth cannot thoroughly chew their food at once, and therefore bring it up again out of their stomachs into their mouths and chew it over again, that it may be better prepared for digestion in the stomach, and so yield better nourishment; and this makes the flesh of such creatures fitter for food: and these creatures have more stomachs than one; the ventricles for rumination are four; the first is the paunch, which in oxen is so big as to hold food of fifty pound weight, the second the honeycomb, the third the tripe, the fourth the honey tripe, and to which are helpful the pectoral muscle, the abdomen, with the diaphragm ^y: all this might have a moral and spiritual meaning in it, and may be applied either to ministers of the word; who ought rightly to divide the word of truth, and give to everyone their part, and who should walk uprightly according to it, and who should give themselves up wholly to the meditation of it, and thoroughly digest it; and study to show themselves workmen, that need not to be ashamed; or to private Christians, who have a discerning spirit in spiritual things, and can distinguish not only morality from immorality, but spiritual things from carnal, heavenly things from earthly, the voice of Christ from the voice of a stranger, and the doctrines of Christ from the doctrines of men; and who also walk as they should do, by faith on Christ, in the ways of God, and according to the Gospel; these chew the cud, meditate on the word, feed upon it while delivered, recall it, and have it brought to their remembrance by the divine Spirit, and ponder it in their hearts; see Psa 1:1.

Gill: Lev 11:4

Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat,.... To whom one of these descriptive characters may agree but not the other:

of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: there being some that chewed the cud but did not divide the hoof; others that divided the hoof but did not chew the cud, of which instances are given as follow:

as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you; and not to be eaten, whether male or female; or rather, "though he cheweth the cud"; and this account agrees with what naturalists give of it; so Aristotle ^z says it has not both rows of teeth, but wants its upper teeth, and chews as horned cattle do, and has bellies like theirs; for they have more bellies than one, as the sheep, and goat, and hart, and others; since the service of the mouth is not sufficient to grind the food for want of teeth, this is supplied by the bellies, which receive the food one after another; in the first it is undigested, in the second somewhat more digested, in the third more fully, in the fourth completely: and so many bellies the camel has, as a very learned searcher ^a into these things observes; the first is the biggest, the second very small, the third much greater than the second, and the fourth equal to the second; in the second belly between the tunics, he says, seem to be the hydrophylacia, in which the water they drink is kept, very commodious for these animals passing through sandy deserts, so that they can long bear thirst: Pliny ^b says four days: Leo Africanus ^c relates a method used by travellers in the deserts of Lybia, who being in extreme want of water kill one of their camels, out of whose intestines they press out water; this they drink, this they carry about till they find a well, or must die with thirst: and the account also which is given of the feet of these creatures agrees; it parts the hoof, but not thoroughly, it is not cleft quite through, and so comes not up to Moses's descriptive character of clean creatures; its hoof is divided in two, but so divided, as Aristotle ^d observes, that it is but little divided on the back part unto the second joint of the toes; the fore part is very little divided, to the first joint of the toes, and there is something between the parts, as in the feet of geese: and so Pliny says ^e it has two hoofs, but the lower part of the foot is but very little divided, so that it is not thoroughly cleft: but though the flesh of these creatures was forbidden the Jews, it was eaten by people of other nations; both Aristotle ^f and Pliny ^g commend the milk of camels; and by the former the flesh of them is said to be exceeding sweet; and Diodorus Siculus relates ^h, that what with their milk and their flesh, which is eaten, as well as on account of their carrying burdens, they are very profitable unto men; and Strabo ⁱ says, the Nomades eat the flesh and milk of camels; and so the Africans, according to Leo Africanus ^k; and a countryman of ours ^l, who lived some time in Arabia, relates, that when a camel falls they kill it, and the poorer sort of the company eat it; and he says that he himself ate of camel's flesh, and that it was very sweet and nourishing: these creatures, in the mystic sense, may be an emblem of such persons, that carry their heads high, are proud and haughty, that boast of their riches, or trust in their righteousness.

Gill: Lev 11:5

And the coney,.... Or rabbit:

because he cheweth the cud; or "though he cheweth"; which yet, some observe, the coney or rabbit does not, it having upper teeth, and therefore they think some other creature is meant by Shaphan, the word here used; and Bochart ^m is of opinion, that the Aljarbuo of the Arabians, a sort of mountain mouse, is meant, which chews the cud and divides not the hoof, and resides in rocks, which agrees with the account of the Shaphan in Pro 30:26 but this is rejected by Dr. Shaw ⁿ, who takes the creature here to be the Daman Israel, or Israel's lamb, an animal of Mount Lebanon, a harmless creature of the same size and quality with the rabbit, and with the like incurvating posture, and disposition or the fore teeth, but is of a browner colour, with smaller eyes, and a head more pointed, like the marmots; the fore feet likewise are short, and the hinder are nearly as long in proportion as those of the jerboa; and though this animal is known to burrow sometimes in the ground, yet its usual residence and refuge is in the holes and clifts of the rocks; but a learned man ^o, and very inquisitive in the things of nature, tells us, that the "cuniculus", coney, or rabbit, this sort of animals do chew half an hour after eating:

but divideth not the hoof; which is well known of this creature:

he is unclean unto you; not fit or proper to be eaten of, but to be abstained from as an unclean animal; and may be an emblem of timorous persons, as these creatures by Aristotle ^p are observed to be, and it is well known they are; even of the fearful and unbelieving, reckoned among the impure, who will have their portion in the lake of fire, Rev 21:8.

Gill: Lev 11:6

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud,.... Or, "though he chews" it:

but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean to you; and so not to be eaten; so Plutarch ^q says, that the Jews are said to abstain from the hare, disdaining it as a filthy and unclean animal, and yet was in the greatest esteem with the Romans of any four footed beast, as Martial says ^r: Moses, as Bochart ^s and other learned men observe, is the only writer that speaks of the hare as chewing the cud; though they also observe, that Aristotle ^t makes mention of that in common with those that do chew the cud, namely a "coagulum" or "runnet" in its stomach; his words are,"all that have many bellies have what is called πυετια, a coagulum or runnet, and of them that have but one belly, the hare;''only that: this creature being prone to lust, may be an emblem of lustful persons, who give up themselves to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness, Eph 4:19. (The "hare" is this verse may be an animal that is now is extinct but was alive at the time of Moses. It is only other mentioned in Deu 14:7. Editor.)

Gill: Lev 11:7

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed,.... Not only its hoofs are parted, but cloven quite through, and so in this respect answers Moses's first descriptive character of clean creatures; though Aristotle ^u and Pliny ^w speak of some kind of swine in Illyricum, Paeonia, and other places, which have solid hoofs; but perhaps these were not properly swine, though so called:

yet he cheweth not the cud; and a learned physician observes ^x, that such creatures that chew not the cud, so perfect a chyle cannot be elaborated by them as is by those that chew the cud, and therefore their flesh must be less wholesome; and of the swine, he says ^y, they have but one belly, and so there is no rumination or chewing the cud by them; wherefore they are to be placed, and are in a lower degree than the camel, the coney, and the hare; and as they cannot digest the chyle so well as those that chew the cud, and also live upon most sordid and filthy food, the eating of swine's flesh, he observes, must produce many inconveniences to the body, as especially scorbutic, arthritic, scabious, and leprous disorders: so Manetho the Egyptian says ^z, that he that eats swine's milk is liable to be filled with the leprosy; and Maimonides ^a gives it as the principal reason of its being forbid the Jews, because it is such a filthy creature, and eats such filthy things:

he is unclean to you: and so it has always been accounted by the Jews, and nothing is more abominable to them, as is even testified by Heathen ^b writers; and in this they have been imitated by many nations, particularly the Egyptians, who, as Herodotus says ^c, reckon swine a very filthy creature; so that if anyone does but touch it passing by, he is obliged to plunge himself into a river with his clothes on; and keepers of them may not go into any of their temples, nor do the rest of the Egyptians intermarry with them, but they marry among themselves; the reason of this their abhorrence of swine, Aelianus says ^d, is because they are so gluttonous that they will not spare their own young, nor abstain from human flesh; and this, says he, is the reason why the Egyptians hate it as an impure and voracious animal: likewise the Arabians entirely abstain from swine's flesh, as Solinus says ^e, who adds, that if any of this sort of creatures is carried into Arabia, it immediately dies; and the same Pliny ^f attests: and so the Phoenicians, the near neighbours of the Jews, would not eat the flesh of them; hence Antoninus is said to abstain from it after the manner of the Phoenicians ^g, unless the historian should mean the Jews; also the Gallo-Grecians or Galatians ^h; nay, even the Indians have such an abhorrence of it, that they would as soon taste of human flesh as taste of that ⁱ, and it is well known that the Mahometans abstain from it; and they have such an aversion to it, that if any chance to kill a wild pig, for tame they have none, they look on the merit of it to be almost equivalent to the killing a Christian in fight ^k: now these creatures may be an emblem of filthy and impure sinners, especially apostates, who return to their former impurities and wallow in them, 2Pe 2:22.

Gill: Lev 11:8

Of their flesh shall ye not eat,.... Meaning, not of swine only, but of the camel, coney, and hare:

and their carcass shall ye not touch; which must not be understood of touching them in any sense; for then it would have been unlawful for a Jew to have rode upon a camel, or to take out and make use of hog's lard in medicine; but of touching them in order to kill them, and prepare them for food, and eat them; and indeed all unnecessary touching of them is forbidden, lest it should bring them to the eating of them; though perhaps it may chiefly respect the touching of them dead:

they are unclean to you: one and all of them; for as this was said of each of them in particular, so now of all of them together; and which holds good of all wild creatures not named, to whom the description above belongs, and which used to be eaten by other nations; some of which were called Pamphagi, from eating all sorts, and others Agriophagi, from eating wild creatures, as lions, panthers, elephants ^l, &c.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Lev 11:2

¹ tn Heb “the animal,” but as a collective plural, and so throughout this chapter.

NET Notes: Lev 11:3

¹ tn Heb “every divider of hoof and cleaver of the cleft of hooves”; KJV, ASV “parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted.”

² tn Heb “bringer up of the cud” (a few of the ancient versions include the conjunction “and,” but it does not appear in the MT). The following verses make it clear that both dividing the hoof and chewing the cud were required; one of these conditions would not be enough to make the animal suitable for eating without the other.

NET Notes: Lev 11:4

¹ tn Heb “this,” but as a collective plural (see the following context).

² sn Regarding “clean” versus “unclean,” see the note on Lev 10:10.

³ tn Heb “because a chewer of the cud it is” (see also vv. 5 and 6).

⁴ tn Heb “and hoof there is not dividing” (see also vv. 5 and 6).

NET Notes: Lev 11:5

¹ sn A small animal generally understood to be Hyrax syriacus; KJV, ASV, NIV “coney”; NKJV “rock hyrax.”

NET Notes: Lev 11:7

¹ tn See the note on Lev 11:3.

² tn The meaning and basic rendering of this clause is quite certain, but the verb for “chewing” the cud here is not the same as the preceding verses, where the expression is “to bring up the cud” (see the note on v. 3 above). It appears to be a cognate verb for the noun “cud” (גֵּרָה, gerah) and could mean either “to drag up” (i.e., from the Hebrew Qal of גָרָר [garar] meaning “to drag,” referring to the dragging the cud up and down between the stomach and mouth of the ruminant animal; so J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:647, 653) or “to chew” (i.e., from the Hebrew Niphal [or Qal B] of גָרָר used in a reciprocal sense; so J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 149, and compare BDB 176 s.v. גָרַר, “to chew,” with HALOT 204 s.v. גרר qal.B, “to ruminate”).

NET Notes: Lev 11:8

¹ sn The regulations against touching the carcasses of dead unclean animals (contrast the restriction against eating their flesh) is treated in more detail in Lev 11:24-28 (cf. also vv. 29-40). For the time being, this chapter continues to develop the issue of what can and cannot be eaten.

Geneva Bible: Lev 11:2

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

^{( a )} Or, of which ye may eat.

Geneva Bible: Lev 11:3

Whatsoever parteth the ^{( b )} hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

^{( b )} He notes four types of beasts, some that chew the cud only, and some that only have the hoof cleft. Others neither chew the cud, nor have the hoof cleft, and the fourth both chew the cud and have the hoof divided, which may be eaten.

Geneva Bible: Lev 11:8

Of their ^{( c )} flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.

^{( c )} God would that by this for a time they should be discerned as his people from the Gentiles.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Lev 11:1-47

1 What beasts may;

4 and what may not be eaten.

9 What fishes.

13 What fowls.

29 The creeping things which are unclean.

MHCC: Lev 11:1-47

These laws seem to have been intended, 1. As a test of the people's obedience, as Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge; and to teach them self-denial, and the government of their appetites. 2. To keep the Israelites distinct from other nations. Many also of these forbidden animals were objects of superstition and idolatry to the heathen. 3. The people were taught to make distinctions between the holy and unholy in their companions and intimate connexions. 4. The law forbad, not only the eating of the unclean beasts, but the touching of them. Those who would be kept from any sin, must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, or coming near it. The exceptions are very minute, and all were designed to call forth constant care and exactness in their obedience; and to teach us to obey. Whilst we enjoy our Christian liberty, and are free from such burdensome observances, we must be careful not to abuse our liberty. For the Lord hath redeemed and called his people, that they may be holy, even as he is holy. We must come out, and be separate from the world; we must leave the company of the ungodly, and all needless connexions with those who are dead in sin; we must be zealous of good works devoted followers of God, and companions of his people.

Matthew Henry: Lev 11:1-8

Now that Aaron was consecrated a high priest over the house of God, God spoke to him with Moses, and appointed them both as joint-commissioners to deliver his will to the people. He spoke both to Moses and to Aaron about this matter; for it was particularly required of the priests that they should put a difference between clean and unclean, and teach the people to do so. After the flood, when God entered into covenant with Noah and his sons, he allowed them to eat flesh (Gen 9:13), whereas before they were confined to the productions of the earth. But the liberty allowed to the sons of Noah is here limited to the sons of Israel. They might eat flesh, but not all kinds of flesh; some they must look upon as unclean and forbidden to them, others as clean and allowed them. The law in this matter is both very particular and very strict. But what reason can be given for this law? Why may not God's people have as free a use of all the creatures as other people? 1. It is reason enough that God would have it so: his will, as it is law sufficient, so it is reason sufficient; for his will is his wisdom. He saw good thus to try and exercise the obedience of his people, not only in the solemnities of his altar, but in matters of daily occurrence at their own table, that they might remember they were under authority. Thus God had tried the obedience of man in innocency, by forbidding him to eat of one particular tree. 2. Most of the meats forbidden as unclean are such as were really unwholesome, and not fit to be eaten; and those of them that we think wholesome enough, and use accordingly, as the rabbit, the hare, and the swine, perhaps in those countries, and to their bodies, might be hurtful. And then God in this law did by them but as a wise and loving father does by his children, whom he restrains from eating that which he knows will make them sick. Note, The Lord is for the body, and it is not only folly, but sin against God, to prejudice our health for the pleasing of our appetite. 3. God would thus teach his people to distinguish themselves from other people, not only in their religious worship, but in the common actions of life. Thus he would show them that they must not be numbered among the nations. It should seem there had been, before this, some difference between the Hebrews and other nations in their food, kept up by tradition; for the Egyptians and they would not eat together, Gen 43:32. And even before the flood there was a distinction of beasts into clean and not clean (Gen 7:2), which distinction was quite lost, with many other instances of religion, among the Gentiles. But by this law it is reduced to a certainty, and ordered to be kept up among the Jews, that thus, by having a diet peculiar to themselves, they might be kept from familiar conversation with their idolatrous neighbours, and might typify God's spiritual Israel, who not in these little things, but in the temper of their spirits, and the course of their lives, should be governed by a sober singularity, and not be conformed to this world. The learned observe further, That most of the creatures which by this law were to be abominated as unclean were such as were had in high veneration among the heathen, not so much for food as for divination and sacrifice to their gods; and therefore those are here mentioned as unclean, and an abomination, which yet they would not be in any temptation to eat, that they might keep up a religious loathing of that for which the Gentiles had a superstitious value. The swine, with the later Gentiles, was sacred to Venus, the owl to Minerva, the eagle to Jupiter, the dog to Hecate, etc., and all these are here made unclean. As to the beasts, there is a general rule laid down, that those which both part the hoof and chew the cud were clean, and those only: these are particularly mentioned in the repetition of this law (Deu 14:4, Deu 14:5), where it appears that the Israelites had variety enough allowed them, and needed not to complain of the confinement they were under. Those beasts that did not both chew the cud and divide the hoof were unclean, by which rule the flesh of swine, and of hares, and of rabbits, was prohibited to them, though commonly used among us. Therefore, particularly at the eating of any of these, we should give thanks for the liberty granted us in this matter by the gospel, which teaches us that every creature of God is good, and we are to call nothing common or unclean. Some observe a significancy in the rule here laid down for them to distinguish by, or at least think it may be alluded to. Meditation, and other acts of devotion done by the hidden man of the heart, may be signified by the chewing of the cud, digesting our spiritual food; justice and charity towards men, and the acts of a good conversation, may be signified by the dividing of the hoof. Now either of these without the other will not serve to recommend us to God, but both must go together, good affections in the heart and good works in the life: if either be wanting, we are not clean, surely we are not clean. Of all the creatures here forbidden as unclean, none has been more dreaded and detested by the pious Jews than swine's flesh. Many were put to death by Antiochus because they would not eat it. This, probably, they were most in danger of being tempted to, and therefore possessed themselves and their children with a particular antipathy to it, calling it not by its proper name, but a strange thing. It should seem the Gentiles used it superstitiously (Isa 65:4), they eat swine's flesh; and therefore God forbids all use of it to his people, lest they should learn of their neighbours to make that ill use of it. Some suggest that the prohibition of these beasts as unclean was intended to be a caution to the people against the bad qualities of these creatures. We must not be filthy nor wallow in the mire as swine, nor be timorous and faint-hearted as hares, nor dwell in the earth as rabbits; let not man that is in honour make himself like these beasts that perish. The law forbade, not only the eating of them, but the very touching of them; for those that would be kept from any sin must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, and every thing that looks towards it or leads to it.

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 11:1-8

Lev 11:1

The laws which follow were given to Moses and Aaron (Lev 11:1; Lev 13:1; Lev 15:1), as Aaron had been sanctified through the anointing to expiate the sins and uncleannesses of the children of Israel.

Lev 11:2-3

(cf. Deu 14:4-8). Of the larger quadrupeds, which are divided in Gen 1:24-25 into beasts of the earth (living wild) and tame cattle, only the cattle (behemah) are mentioned here, as denoting the larger land animals, some of which were reared by man as domesticated animals, and others used as food. Of these the Israelites might eat "whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud among the cattle." פּרסת שׁסע שׁסעת , literally "tearing (having) a rent in the hoofs,"according to Deu 14:5 into "two claws,"i.e., with a hoof completely severed in two. גּרה , rumination, μηρυκισμός (lxx), from גּרר (cf. יגּר Lev 11:7), to draw (Hab 1:15), to draw to and fro; hence to bring up the food again, to ruminate. גּרה מעלת is connected with the preceding words with vav cop . to indicate the close connection of the two regulations, viz., that there was to be the perfectly cloven foot as well as the rumination (cf. Lev 11:4.). These marks are combined in the oxen, sheep, and goats, and also in the stag and gazelle. The latter are expressly mentioned in Deu 14:4-5, where - in addition to the common stag ( איּל ) and gazelle ( צבי , δορκάς , lxx), or dorcas-antelope , which is most frequently met with in Palestine, Syria, and Arabia, of the size of a roebuck, with a reddish brown back and white body, horns sixteen inches long, and fine dark eyes, and the flesh of which, according to Avicenna , is the best of all the wild game-the following five are also selected, viz.: (1) יחמוּר , not βούβαλος , the buffalo (lxx, and Luther ), but Damhirsch , a stag which is still much more common in Asia than in Europe and Palestine (see v. Schubert, R. iii. p. 118); (2) אקּו , probably, according to the Chaldee, Syriac , etc., the capricorn ( Steinbock ), which is very common in Palestine, not τραγέλαφος (lxx, Vulg.), the buck-stag ( Bockhirsch ), an animal lately discovered in Nubia (cf. Leyrer in Herzog's Cycl. vi. p. 143); (3) דּישׁן , according to the lxx and Vulg . πύραργος , a kind of antelope resembling the stag, which is met with in Africa (Herod. 4, 192), - according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the buffalo-antelope , - according to the Samar. and Arabic, the mountain-stag; (4) תּאו , according to the Chaldee the wild ox, which is also met with in Egypt and Arabia, probably the oryx (lxx, Vulg.), a species of antelope as large as a stag; and (5) זמר , according to the lxx and most of the ancient versions, the giraffe , but this is only found in the deserts of Africa, and would hardly be met with even in Egypt-it is more probably capreae sylvestris species , according to the Chaldee.

Lev 11:4-6

Any animal which was wanting in either of these marks was to be unclean, or not to be eaten. This is the case with the camel , whose flesh is eaten by the Arabs; it ruminates, but it has not cloven hoofs. Its foot is severed, it is true, but not thoroughly cloven, as there is a ball behind, upon which it treads. The hare and hyrax ( Klippdachs ) were also unclean, because, although they ruminate, they have not cloven hoofs. It is true that modern naturalists affirm that the two latter do not ruminate at all, as they have not the four stomachs that are common to ruminant animals; but they move the jaw sometimes in a manner which looks like ruminating, so that even Linnaeus affirmed that the hare chewed the cud, and Moses followed the popular opinion. According to Bochart , Oedmann , and others, the shaphan is the jerboa , and according to the Rabbins and Luther, the rabbit or coney. But the more correct view is, that it is the wabr of the Arabs, which is still called tsofun in Southern Arabia ( hyrax Syriacus ), an animal which feeds on plants, a native of the countries of the Lebanon and Jordan, also of Arabia and Africa. They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa 104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings to their caves, and extremely timid as they are quite defenceless (Pro 30:26). They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish grey or brownish yellow colour, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests.

(Note: See Shaw , iii. p. 301; Seetzen, ii. p. 228; Robinson 's Biblical Researches , p. 387; and Roediger on Gesenius thesaurus , p. 1467.)

Lev 11:7

The swine has cloven hoofs, but does not ruminate; and many of the tribes of antiquity abstained from eating it, partly on account of its uncleanliness, and partly from fear of skin-diseases.

Lev 11:8

" Of their flesh shall ye not eat (i.e., not slay these animals as food), and their carcase (animals that had died) shall ye not touch ."The latter applied to the clean or edible animals also, when they had died a natural death (Lev 11:39).

Constable: Lev 1:1--16:34

I. The public worship of the Israelites chs. 1--16

Leviticus continues revelation concerning the second of three elements necessary for any nation to exist, namely, a people (Gen. 12:10--Exod. 19), their law (Exod. 20--Num. 10:10), and their land (Num. 10:11--Josh. 24).

Leviticus is essentially a narrative document that relates the events that transpired in the life of the Israelites while the nation camped at the base of Mt. Sinai. However most of the material in the book is legal in genre. The legal sections prepare the reader to understand the narrative sections not only in Leviticus but also in Numbers and the rest of the Bible. There are two clear narrative sections (chs. 8-10; 24:10-23). However the hinge chapter in the book, chapter 16, reads as narrative even though it is legislative material.

A Legal chs. 1-7

B Narrative chs. 8-10

A Legal chs. 11-15

C Legal written as narrative ch. 16

A Legal 17:1-24:9

B Narrative 24:10-23

A Legal chs. 25-27

The first major section of Leviticus deals with how the Israelites were to conduct their public life as an expression of worship to God.

"The fact that the covenant between Yahweh and Israel was modeled after those of the ancient Near East in both form and function allows one to understand the myriad of cultic detail in the Pentateuch with unusual clarity. The sacrifices and offerings were designed to demonstrate the subservience of Israel, to atone for her offenses against her Sovereign, Yahweh, and to reflect the harmoniousness and peaceableness of the relationship thus established or reestablished."¹⁶

"Put differently, the main concern of Leviticus 1-16 is the continuance of the presence of God in the midst of the sinful nation, while Leviticus 17-27 records the effect of the presence of God upon the congregation. Consequently the abiding presence of God in the midst of the nation spans the entire contents of the Book of Leviticus."¹⁷

Constable: Lev 11:1--15:33

C. Laws relating to ritual cleanliness chs. 11-15

A change of subject matter indicates another major division in Leviticus. We move now from narrative to more legislation. These five chapters pick up the idea introduced in 10:10: ". . . make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean." This section of legislation culminates in chapter 16, the cleansing of the nation on the Day of Atonement. These chapters help explain what uncleanness means.

"The regulations of the sacrifices and institution of the priesthood, by which Jehovah opened up to His people the way of access to His grace and the way to sanctification of life in fellowship with Him, were followed by instructions concerning the various things which hindered and disturbed this living fellowship with God the Holy One, as being manifestations and results of sin, and by certain rules for avoiding and removing these obstructions."⁹⁹

The rationale behind the order of these various laws seems to be the length of time for uncleanness. Violation of dietary laws (ch. 11) resulted in uncleanness for hours, childbirth uncleanness (ch. 12) left the woman unclean for months, and skin and covering uncleanness (chs. 13-14) could mean uncleanness for years. Genital discharges (ch. 15) resulted in uncleanness for hours, weeks, or years.¹⁰⁰

Constable: Lev 11:1-47

1. Uncleanness due to contact with certain animals ch. 11

"This chapter contains a selected list of creatures that divides each type of creature into various classes of purity. According to the final verse in the chapter, the decisive question was whether a class of animals was unclean or clean. The goal of the distinctions was to determine whether an animal could be eaten. The notion of uncleanness and cleanness is specifically applied in this chapter to the question of holiness. Violating any of the regulations relating to clean and unclean animals rendered one unclean (i.e., profane or common, 11:44-45), and thus unable to enter into community worship (12:4). The purpose of the chapter is to tie the concept of holiness to God's own example of holiness (11:45)."¹⁰¹

Uncleanness was not all the same under the Old Covenant; there were degrees of uncleanness. The uncleanness that certain defiling things caused required simple purification, for example, washing and waiting a short time. The uncleanness that other defiling things caused required more involved rites.

The reason or reasons for the distinction between a clean and an unclean animal are still somewhat unclear. Even the identity of some of the animals is obscure.¹⁰²

"Many attempts have been made by scholars and expositors over the centuries to interpret the catalogue of abominable creatures in the book of Leviticus, but with uncertain results."¹⁰³

Many ancient nations and religions observed lists of clean and unclean foods. These lists differed from one another but undoubtedly had their origin in the clean unclean distinction that God specified at the Flood (cf. Gen. 7:2-3). The presence of this distinction in the ancient Near East points to a common recognition of the inadvisability of eating certain foods. This recognition shows that the Fall has affected the whole creation, not just humankind (Rom. 8:19-22).

There have been at least six major different explanations for the distinction between clean and unclean animals in the Mosaic Law.¹⁰⁴ Some of these views have very ancient pedigrees.

1. The distinction is arbitrary. The rationale was known only to God. God simply told the Israelites what to do to test their obedience (cf. Gen. 2:16-17). They had no idea what the reasons for these distinctions were.¹⁰⁵ The problem with this approach is that it is negative; it offers no explanation that human beings can understand.

2. The distinction is cultic. The reason the Israelites where to regard some animals as unclean was that the pagans used them in their worship and or associated them with their deities. Avoidance of these unclean animals then was a mark of the Israelites' fidelity to the Mosaic Covenant.¹⁰⁶ The problem with this view is that it explains very little of the evidence. The Israelites may have associated certain unclean animals with pagan cultic practices, but scholars have not been able to explain all the prohibitions on this basis alone.

3. The distinction is hygienic. Those who hold this view believe that the unclean animals were unfit to eat because they carried diseases or were unhealthful.¹⁰⁷ This view has gained popularity in recent times as many readers have become increasingly concerned about health care and medical science.¹⁰⁸

"In general it can be said that the laws protected Israel from bad diet, dangerous vermin, and communicable diseases. Only in very recent days have better laws of health been possible with the advance of medicine. These were rule-of-thumb laws that God gave in his wisdom to a people who could not know the reason for the provision."¹⁰⁹

There are good reasons, however, for believing that the Israelites did not view these provisions as hygienic. First, hygiene can explain only some of the distinctions. Second, there is no hint in the Old Testament that God regarded the animals He proscribed as dangerous to health. Third, this view fails to explain why God did not forbid poisonous plants as well as dangerous animals. Fourth, if these animals were dangerous to eat, why did Jesus Christ pronounce them good later (Mark 7:19)?

4. The distinction is symbolical. This view sees the behavior and habits of the clean animals as illustrating how the Israelites were to behave. The unclean animals represented sinful people.¹¹⁰ Some commentators have adopted this view but have applied the criterion subjectively, without careful regard to the text of the whole Mosaic Law. However when one views the data in the Mosaic Law comprehensively and seeks to understand the distinctions on that basis, this view seems to make the most sense.

5. The distinction is aesthetic, based on the animal's appearance.¹¹¹ This view seems entirely subjective.

6. The distinction is ethical. The animals chosen taught reverence for life.¹¹² This view also seems highly subjective and impossible to prove.¹¹³

Probably a combination of these reasons is best. The basic idea underlying holiness and cleanness seems to have been wholeness and normalcy.¹¹⁴ God seems to have regarded imperfection or abnormality in the animal world as unclean.

"Holiness requires that individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong."¹¹⁵

This does not explain all the cases, however. For example, why did God declare sheep and goats clean but pigs and camels unclean? One explanation is that sheep and goats conform to the norms of behavior that are typical of pastoral animals (chewing their cud and or having cloven feet). Pigs and camels do not.¹¹⁶

"Further analysis demonstrates that each sphere of the animal realm is similarly structured. Water creatures divide into the clean and the unclean, but land and air creatures further subdivide into clean animals that may be eaten and clean animals that may be sacrificed as well as eaten. This threefold division of animals--unclean, clean, and sacrificial--parallels the divisions of mankind, the unclean, i.e., those excluded from the camp of Israel, the clean, i.e., the majority of ordinary Israelites, and those who offer sacrifice, i.e., the priests. This tripartite division of both the animal world and the human realm is no coincidence, as is demonstrated by various laws in the Pentateuch, which apply similar principles to man and beast (Gen. 1:29-30; Exod. 13:2, 13; 20:10; 21:28ff.; 22:28-29 [Eng. 29-30]; Lev. 26:22). Once it is admitted that the animals symbolize the human world, the uncleanness of the birds of prey becomes intelligible: they are detestable because they eat carrion and flesh from which the blood has not been drained properly, acts that make men unclean (Lev. 11:13-19; cf. 11:40 and 17:10ff.)."¹¹⁷

As late as New Testament times the Jews appear to have regarded their food laws as symbolic of the division between themselves and Gentiles. The abolition of these laws under the New Covenant illustrates the fact that Christ has broken down the wall of partition that separated Jews and Gentiles for so long.

Constable: Lev 11:1-23

Distinctions between clean and unclean animals 11:1-23

We have here the same threefold division of animals that inhabit the land, sea, and air as the one that appears in the story of creation (Gen. 1:20-23).

"It has long been recognized . . . that the order of the purity laws in Leviticus 11 follows that of the creation of animal life in Genesis 1 (Rashi). Moreover, just as in Genesis 1 God distinguised good' and evil' in his new creation, so also in Leviticus 11 God distinguished the clean' from the unclean.' In addition, Leviticus 11-16 has numerous parallels to the pattern of Genesis 1-11."¹¹⁸

11:1-8 Note that God began positively. He told the Israelites what they could eat (vv. 2-3; cf. Gen. 1:29-30; 2:16-17). Then He gave them a list of unclean land animals (vv. 4-8).

Perhaps animals with cloven hoofs were unclean because they had only two digits instead of the basic five and were therefore thought of as abnormal.¹¹⁹

Apparently the technical definition of chewing the cud that we use today is not what the Hebrews understood by chewing the cud. Today we use this term to describe animals that do not initially chew their food thoroughly but swallow it and later regurgitate it and then chew it thoroughly. Some of the animals described in Leviticus as chewing the cud do not do that (e.g., camels [i.e., one-humped dromedaries], conies [i.e., rock hyraxes], hares). However these animals do appear to chew their food thoroughly, so this may be what the Israelites thought of as chewing the cud.

Any dead animal was unclean, probably because death was not the normal condition of an animal.

"Sheep, goats, and oxen were the standard sacrificial animals of pastoralists. They have in common cloven hoofs and rumination. Interpreting this theologically one might say that as God had limited his diet' to these animals, so must his people. It is man's duty to imitate his creator (vv. 44-45). When the Israelite restricted his food to God's chosen animals, he recalled that he owed all his spiritual privileges to divine election. As God had chosen certain animals for sacrifice, so he had chosen one nation out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth' to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Deut. 7:6; Exod. 19:6)."¹²⁰

11:9-12 Probably the Israelites could eat water creatures with fins and scales because these are the normal means of propulsion among fishes. As has already been observed (v. 3), the means of locomotion and the mode of eating were the two types of tests used to distinguish between clean and unclean animals. Water creatures without fins and scales did not have the normal means of locomotion for their element.

11:13-19 Moses distinguished various kinds of birds in these verses. God prohibited 20 varieties. Again their feeding habits seem to be the key to their uncleanness. The unclean birds ate flesh with the blood in it, something that God also forbade among His people (ch. 17).

11:20-23 These verses deal with insects. Perhaps the fact that certain insects swarmed rather than flying in a more direct and natural way made them unclean. Locusts that hopped may have been clean since this is the normal form of locomotion for birds, which they resembled. The varieties of locusts that crawled were unclean, perhaps because that appeared to be abnormal movement for this insect.¹²¹

Guzik: Lev 11:1-47

Leviticus 11 - Clean and Unclean Animals

A. Laws regarding eating animals of land, sea, and air.

1. (1-8) Eating mammals.

Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud; that you may eat. Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.'"

a. Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud; that you may eat: The rule was simple. If an animal had a divided hoof (not a single hoof as a horse has), and chewed its cud, it could be eaten.

b. These you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: For example, the camel, the rock hyrax, and the hare all chew the cud, but do not have divided hooves - instead, they have paws - they are considered unkosher.

c. And the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you: Additionally, the swine has a divided hoof, but it does not chew the cud - so it is considered unkosher.

i. "It is now known that the pig is the intermediate host for several parasitic organisms, some of which can result in tapeworm infestation. One of these worms, the Taenia solium, grows to about 2.5 m in length, and is found in poorly cooked pork." (Harrison)

d. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch: If an animal was considered unclean, one obviously could not eat it. Yet additionally, one could not touch an unclean animal, whether living or dead.

i. God was not making up new rules for Israel. Noah knew about clean and unclean animals (Genesis 7:2, 8:20). God simply codified what was already in the traditions of Israel.

2. (9-12) Water animals.

"These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers; that you may eat. But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you."

a. These you may eat of all that are in the water: The rule again was simple: Any water creature having both fins and scales was kosher and could be eaten.

b. Whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers; that you may eat: On this principle, most fishes were considered clean - except a fish like the catfish, which has no scales. Shellfish would be unclean, because clams, crabs, oysters, and lobster all do not have fins and scales.

3. (13-19) Birds.

"And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat."

a. These you shall regard as an abomination among the birds: There is no rule given to determine if a bird is clean or unclean; only specific birds (twenty in all) are mentioned as being unclean.

b. The eagle, the vulture, the buzzard . . .: The common thread through most of these birds is that they are either predators or scavengers; these were considered unclean.

4. (20-23) Insects.

"All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you."

a. All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you: Among insects, any creeping insect was unkosher (such as ants or grubs). Yet if there were a flying insect with legs jointed above their feet, these could be eaten. Good examples of kosher insects include the locust, the cricket, and the grasshopper.

b. On all fours: Some people think that means Moses was uninformed and thought that Moses had. "This phrase can hardly describe insects as having four legs, since the Insectae as a class normally have six legs. The reference is evidently to their movements, which resemble the creeping or running of the four-footed animal." (Harrison)

B. More on clean and unclean animals.

1. (24-28) Disposal of the carcasses of unclean animals.

"By these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening; whoever carries part of the carcass of any of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening: The carcass of any animal which divides the foot, but is not cloven-hoofed or does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Everyone who touches it shall be unclean. And whatever goes on its paws, among all kinds of animals that go on all fours, those are unclean to you. Whoever touches any such carcass shall be unclean until evening. Whoever carries any such carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. It is unclean to you."

a. Whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening: Unclean animals, when dead, couldn't just be left in the community to rot; they had to be disposed of. But the people who disposed of the unclean animals had to remedy their uncleanness by washing and a brief (until evening) quarantine.

i. This means that if a dead rat was found in an Israelite village, it would be carefully and promptly disposed of, and the one disposing of it would wash afterward. This would help prevent disease in a significant way; after all, the Black Death - bubonic plague - killed one quarter of Europe's population around 1350, but Jewish communities were largely spared because they followed these hygienic regulations. Sadly, because they were often largely preserved, they were often accused and punished for being "masterminds" behind the plague.

b. Whoever carries any such carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening: This shows that ceremonial uncleanness was not the same as being in a state of sin. No sacrifice was required to remedy the condition of ceremonial uncleanness. It was a state of ceremonial impurity that needed to be addressed.

2. (29-30) More unclean animals: Reptiles and other creeping things.

"These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and the large lizard after its kind; the gecko, the monitor lizard, the sand reptile, the sand lizard, and the chameleon."

3. (31-38) The transmission of uncleanness from unclean animals.

"These are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. Anything on which any of them falls, when they are dead shall be unclean, whether it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack, whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water. And it shall be unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. Any earthen vessel into which any of them falls you shall break; and whatever is in it shall be unclean: in such a vessel, any edible food upon which water falls becomes unclean, and any drink that may be drunk from it becomes unclean. And everything on which a part of any such carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it is an oven or cooking stove, it shall be broken down; for they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you. Nevertheless a spring or a cistern, in which there is plenty of water, shall be clean, but whatever touches any such carcass becomes unclean. And if a part of any such carcass falls on any planting seed which is to be sown, it remains clean. But if water is put on the seed, and if a part of any such carcass falls on it, it becomes unclean to you."

a. These are unclean to you among all that creep: From a hygienic standpoint, these laws were very important. They required, for example, that if a rodent crawled inside a bowl, the bowl had to be broken. Therefore any disease the rodent carried (such as bubonic plague) could not be passed on to the one who would use the bowl.

b. Everything on which a part of any such carcass falls shall be unclean: These laws also promoted a general state of cleanliness inside the Hebrew home. This certainly promoted the health and the welfare of the family.

4. (39-40) Carcasses of clean animals.

"And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening."

a. If any animal which you may eat dies: Seemingly, these laws apply to the natural death of clean animals, not to their butchering for food or death for sacrifice. Those handling such carcasses were ceremonially unclean and needed to be cleansed by washing and a brief quarantine.

5. (41-43) Creeping animals considered unclean.

"And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten. Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth; these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination. You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them."

6. (44-47) The purpose for God's dietary laws.

"For I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. For I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten."

a. For I am the LORD your God: God claims the right to speak to every area of our life, including what we eat. He had the right to tell Israel what to eat and what not to eat.

b. You shall therefore sanctify yourselves: One great purpose of the dietary laws of Israel was to sanctify - to set them apart - from other nations. It made fellowship with those who did not serve God far more difficult.

i. We see this sanctifying effect in Daniel 1, where Daniel and his friends refuse to eat the unkosher food at the king of Babylon's table - and God blesses them for being set apart for His righteousness.

c. Neither shall you defile yourselves: Not only did unclean animals defile one spiritually, but there was also a hygienic defilement, and Israel was spared many diseases and plagues because of their kosher diet.

i. Among the animals, most considered unclean fell into one of three categories: Predators (unclean because they ate both the flesh and the blood of animals), scavengers (unclean because they were carriers of disease, and they regularly contacted dead bodies), or potentially poisonous or dangerous foods such as shellfish and the like. Eliminating these from the diet of Israel no doubt had a healthy effect!

ii. "In general it can be said that the laws protected Israel from bad diet, dangerous vermin, and communicable diseases." (Harris)

d. For I am the LORD who brings you up out of Egypt: This was the second claim God had upon Israel. The first claim was connected to His role as Creator. This claim is connected to His role as redeemer. We are obligated to God on both claims.

i. Some Christians believe we are under obligation to observe a kosher diet today. Yet this issue was settled once and for all at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15; where it was determined that obedience to Mosaic rituals was not required of the followers of Jesus.

ii. Paul pointed out that we have the full liberty to eat whatever we want to: Now the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrine of demons . . . commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1, 3-5)

iii. Some are under subjugation to food, or to certain foods, and that is sin under the principle of 1 Corinthians 6:12: All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Certainly, many would benefit from the attitude of self-denial and bodily discipline Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27.

iv. Yet, apart from these considerations, Christians are free to eat or not eat whatever they please - and no one should think themselves more right with God because they eat or don't eat certain things

© 2004 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Lev 11:5

LEVITICUS 11:5-6 —How can the Bible say that the hyrax and the rabbit chew the cud when science now knows that they do not?

PROBLEM: In Leviticus 11:5-6 , two animals, the rock hyrax and the rabbit, were designated as unclean by Leviticus because, although they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof. But, science has discovered that these two animals do not chew the cud. Isn’t it an error when the Bible says they chew the cud when in fact they do not?

SOLUTION: Although they did not chew the cud in the modern technical sense, they did engage in a chewing action that looked the same to an observer. Thus, they are listed with other animals that chew the cud so that the common person could make the distinction from his or her everyday observations.

Animals which chew the cud are identified as ruminants; they regurgitate food into their mouths to be chewed again. Ruminants normally have four stomachs. Neither the rock hyrax (translated “rock badger” in the NASB ) nor the rabbit are ruminants and technically do not chew the cud. However, both animals move their jaws in such a manner as to appear to be chewing the cud. This action was so convincing that the great Swedish scientist Linnaeus originally classified them as ruminants.

It is now known that rabbits practice what is called “reflection,” in which indigestible vegetable matter absorbs certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase “chewing the cud” should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and reflection in the modern sense.

The list of clean and unclean animals was intended as a practical guide for the Israelite in selecting food. The average Israelite would not have been aware of the technical aspects of cud chewing, and may have otherwise considered the hyrax and rabbit as clean animals because of the appearance of cud chewing. Consequently, it was necessary to point out that, although it may appear that these were clean animals because of their chewing movement, they were not clean because they did not divide the hoof. We often follow a similar practice when talking to those who are not familiar with more technical aspects of some point. For example, we use observational language to talk about the sun rising and setting when we talk to little children. To a small child the daily cycle of the sun has the appearance of rising and setting (see comments on Josh. 10:12-14 ). The description is not technically correct, but it is functionally useful for the level of understanding of the child. This is analogous to the use here in Leviticus. Technically, although the hyrax and the rabbit do not chew the cud, this description was functional at the time in order to make the point that these animals were considered unclean.   

Critics Ask: Lev 11:6

LEVITICUS 11:5-6 —How can the Bible say that the hyrax and the rabbit chew the cud when science now knows that they do not?

PROBLEM: In Leviticus 11:5-6 , two animals, the rock hyrax and the rabbit, were designated as unclean by Leviticus because, although they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof. But, science has discovered that these two animals do not chew the cud. Isn’t it an error when the Bible says they chew the cud when in fact they do not?

SOLUTION: Although they did not chew the cud in the modern technical sense, they did engage in a chewing action that looked the same to an observer. Thus, they are listed with other animals that chew the cud so that the common person could make the distinction from his or her everyday observations.

Animals which chew the cud are identified as ruminants; they regurgitate food into their mouths to be chewed again. Ruminants normally have four stomachs. Neither the rock hyrax (translated “rock badger” in the NASB ) nor the rabbit are ruminants and technically do not chew the cud. However, both animals move their jaws in such a manner as to appear to be chewing the cud. This action was so convincing that the great Swedish scientist Linnaeus originally classified them as ruminants.

It is now known that rabbits practice what is called “reflection,” in which indigestible vegetable matter absorbs certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase “chewing the cud” should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and reflection in the modern sense.

The list of clean and unclean animals was intended as a practical guide for the Israelite in selecting food. The average Israelite would not have been aware of the technical aspects of cud chewing, and may have otherwise considered the hyrax and rabbit as clean animals because of the appearance of cud chewing. Consequently, it was necessary to point out that, although it may appear that these were clean animals because of their chewing movement, they were not clean because they did not divide the hoof. We often follow a similar practice when talking to those who are not familiar with more technical aspects of some point. For example, we use observational language to talk about the sun rising and setting when we talk to little children. To a small child the daily cycle of the sun has the appearance of rising and setting (see comments on Josh. 10:12-14 ). The description is not technically correct, but it is functionally useful for the level of understanding of the child. This is analogous to the use here in Leviticus. Technically, although the hyrax and the rabbit do not chew the cud, this description was functional at the time in order to make the point that these animals were considered unclean.   

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

LEVITICUS. So called from its treating of the laws relating to the ritual, the services, and sacrifices of the Jewish religion, the superintendence of which was entrusted to the Levitical priesthood. It is chiefly, however, the duties of the priests, "the sons of Aaron," which this book describes; and its claim to be the work of Moses is established by the following passages:-- 2Ch 30:16; Neh 8:14; Jer 7:22-23; Eze 20:11 Mat 8:4; Luk 2:22; Joh 8:5; Rom 10:4; Rom 13:9; 2Co 6:16; Gal 3:12; 1Pe 1:16.

JFB: Leviticus (Outline)

• BURNT OFFERINGS OF THE HERD. (Lev. 1:1-17)
• THE MEAT OFFERINGS. (Lev. 2:1-16)
• THE PEACE OFFERING OF THE HERD. (Lev. 3:1-17)
• SIN OFFERING OF IGNORANCE. (Lev 4:1-2)
• SIN OFFERING FOR THE PRIEST. (Lev. 4:3-35)
• TRESPASS OFFERINGS FOR CONCEALING KNOWLEDGE. (Lev 5:1)
• TOUCHING ANY THING UNCLEAN. (Lev 5:2-3)
• FOR SWEARING. (Lev 5:4-19)
• TRESPASS OFFERING FOR SINS DONE WITTINGLY. (Lev 6:1-7)
• THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING. (Lev 6:8-13)
• THE LAW OF THE MEAT OFFERING. (Lev 6:14-18)
• THE HIGH PRIEST'S MEAT OFFERING. (Lev 6:19-23)
• THE LAW OF THE SIN OFFERING. (Lev 6:21-30)
• THE LAW OF THE TRESPASS OFFERING. (Lev. 7:1-27)
• THE PRIESTS' PORTION. (Lev 7:28-38)
• MOSES CONSECRATES AARON AND HIS SONS. (Lev. 8:1-36)
• THE PRIESTS' ENTRY INTO OFFICE. (Lev. 9:1-24)
• NADAB AND ABIHU BURNT. (Lev. 10:1-20)
• BEASTS THAT MAY AND MAY NOT BE EATEN. (Lev. 11:1-47)
• WOMAN'S UNCLEANNESS BY CHILDBIRTH. (Lev 12:1-8)
• THE LAWS AND TOKENS IN DISCERNING LEPROSY. (Lev. 13:1-59)
• THE RITES AND SACRIFICES IN CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. (Lev. 14:1-57)
• UNCLEANNESS OF MEN. (Lev. 15:1-18)
• UNCLEANNESS OF WOMEN. (Lev 15:19-33)
• HOW THE HIGH PRIEST MUST ENTER INTO THE HOLY PLACE. (Lev. 16:1-34)
• BLOOD OF BEASTS MUST BE OFFERED AT THE TABERNACLE DOOR. (Lev. 17:1-16)
• UNLAWFUL MARRIAGES. (Lev. 18:1-30)
• A REPETITION OF SUNDRY LAWS. (Lev. 19:1-37)
• GIVING ONE'S SEED TO MOLECH. (Lev. 20:1-27)
• OF THE PRIESTS' MOURNING. (Lev. 21:1-24)
• THE PRIESTS IN THEIR UNCLEANNESS. (Lev 22:1-9)
• WHO OF THE PRIESTS' HOUSE MAY EAT OF THEM. (Lev 22:10-16)
• THE SACRIFICES MUST BE WITHOUT BLEMISH. (Lev. 22:17-33)
• OF SUNDRY FEASTS. (Lev 23:1-4)
• THE PASSOVER. (Lev 23:5-8)
• THE SHEAF OF FIRST FRUITS. (Lev 23:9-14)
• FEAST OF PENTECOST. (Lev 23:15-22)
• FEAST OF TRUMPETS. (Lev 23:23-25)
• OIL FOR THE LAMPS. (Lev. 24:1-23)
• SABBATH OF THE SEVENTH YEAR. (Lev 25:1-7)
• THE JUBILEE. (Lev. 25:8-23)
• OF IDOLATRY. (Lev 26:1-2)
• A BLESSING TO THE OBEDIENT. (Lev 26:3-13)
• A CURSE TO THE DISOBEDIENT. (Lev. 26:14-39)
• CONCERNING VOWS. (Lev. 27:1-18)

TSK: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

Leviticus is a most interesting and important book; a book containing a code of sacrificial, ceremonial, civil, and judicial laws, which, for the purity of their morality, the wisdom, justice, and beneficence of their enactments, and the simplicity, dignity, and impressive nature of their rites, are perfectly unrivalled, and altogether worthy of their Divine Author. All the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law are at once dignified and expressive. They point out the holiness of their Author, the sinfulness of man, the necessity of an atonement, and the state of moral excellence to which the grace and mercy of the Creator have destined to raise the human soul. They include, as well as point out, the gospel of the Son of God; from which they receive their consummation and perfection. The sacrifices and oblations were significant of the atonement of Christ; the requisite qualities of these sacrifices were emblematical of his immaculate character; and the prescribed mode in the form of these offerings, and the mystical rites ordained, were allusive institutions, calculated to enlighten the apprehensions of the Jews, and to prepare them for the reception of the Gospel. The institution of the high priesthood typified Jesus, the Great High Priest, called and prepared of God, who hath an unchangeable priesthood, and is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.

TSK: Leviticus 11 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Lev 11:1, What beasts may; Lev 11:4, and what may not be eaten; Lev 11:9, What fishes; Lev 11:13, What fowls; Lev 11:29, The creeping things which are unclean.

Poole: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

THIRD BOOK OF MOSES CALLED LEVITICUS

THE ARGUMENT

This Book, containing the actions of about one month’ s space, acquainteth us with the Levitical ceremonies used after the tabernacle was erected and anointed in the wilderness, and is therefore called LEVITICUS. It treats of laws concerning persons and things, clean and unclean, by infirmity or accident; as also purifyings in general once a year, and divers particular cleansings, with a brief repetition of divers laws, Le 19 , together with certain feasts, of seven years’ rest, of the jubilee, and the redemption of things consecrated to God, &c.; but especially of such ceremonies as were used about offerings and sacrifices, which were both expiatory, for trespasses wittingly or unwittingly committed, whether by the people or the priests; and also eucharistical, in the owning of God’ s blessings. Here are declared also laws for the regulating of these, and prescribing the lawful time for marriages. Here is set down how several abominable sins are punishable by the magistrate; and how these things are to be managed by certain persons appropriated to the tribe of Levi, whose office is confirmed from heaven, and the maladministration of it threatened, and the judgment particularly inflicted on Nadab and Abihu for an example. Here are also promises and threatenings to the observers or breakers of this law.

Poole: Leviticus 11 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 11

From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belong to all the people.

Beasts clean and unclean, Lev 11:1-8 . Of fishes, Lev 11:9-12 . Of fowls and creeping things, Lev 11:13-23 . In touching of a dead carcass, Lev 11:24-28 . Other creatures unclean, Lev 11:29-43 . They are exhorted to purity and holiness from the nature of God, and his goodness to them in taking them to be his people, Lev 11:44,45 . The whole repeated, Lev 11:46,47 .

MHCC: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

God ordained divers kinds of oblations and sacrifices, to assure his people of the forgiveness of their offences, if they offered them in true faith and obedience. Also he appointed the priests and Levites, their apparel, offices, conduct, and portion. He showed what feasts they should observe, and at what times. He declared by these sacrifices and ceremonies, that the reward of sin is death, and that without the blood of Christ, the innocent Lamb of God, there can be no forgiveness of sins.

MHCC: Leviticus 11 (Chapter Introduction)

What animals were clean and unclean.

Matthew Henry: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus

There is nothing historical in all this book of Leviticus except the account which it gives us of the consecration of the priesthood (ch. 8-9), of the punishment of Nadab and Abihu, by the hand of God, for offering strange fire (ch. 10), and of Shelomith's son, by the hand of the magistrate, for blasphemy (ch. 24). All the rest of the book is taken up with the laws, chiefly the ecclesiastical laws, which God gave to Israel by Moses, concerning their sacrifices and offerings, their meats and drinks, and divers washings, and the other peculiarities by which God set that people apart for himself, and distinguished them from other nations, all which were shadows of good things to come, which are realized and superseded by the gospel of Christ. We call the book Leviticus, from the Septuagint, because it contains the laws and ordinances of the levitical priesthood (as it is called, Heb 7:11), and the ministrations of it. The Levites were principally charged with these institutions, both to do their part and to teach the people theirs. We read, in the close of the foregoing book, of the setting up of the tabernacle, which was to be the place of worship; and, as that was framed according to the pattern, so must the ordinances of worship be, which were there to be administered. In these the divine appointment was as particular as in the former, and must be as punctually observed. The remaining record of these abrogated laws is of use to us, for the strengthening of our faith in Jesus Christ, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and for the increase of our thankfulness to God, that by him we are freed from the yoke of the ceremonial law, and live in the times of reformation.

Matthew Henry: Leviticus 11 (Chapter Introduction)

The ceremonial law is described by the apostle (Heb 9:9, Heb 9:10) to consist, not only " in gifts and sacrifices," which hitherto have been treated of in this book, but " in meats, and drinks, and divers washings" from ceremonial uncleanness, the laws concerning which begin with this chapter, which puts a difference between some sorts of flesh-meat and others, allowing some to be eaten as clean and forbidding others as unclean. " There is one kind of flesh of men." Nature startles at the thought of eating this, and none do it but such as have arrived at the highest degree of barbarity, and become but one remove from brutes; therefore there needed no law against it. But there is " another kind of flesh of beasts," concerning which the law directs here (Lev 11:1-8), " another of fishes" (Lev 11:9-12), " another of birds" (Lev 11:13-19), and " another of creeping things," which are distinguished into two sorts, flying creeping things (Lev 11:20-28) and creeping things upon the earth (Lev 11:29-43). And the law concludes with the general rule of holiness, and reasons for it (Lev 11:44, etc.).

Constable: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The Hebrews derived the title of this book from the first word in it, wayyiqra', translated "And He [the Lord] called" (1:1). "And" or "then" is a conjunction that shows that what follows in Leviticus is a continuation of the narrative of Exodus. There is no break in the flow of thought. This is the third book of the Torah (Law).

The English title comes to us from the Vulgate (Latin version), which called this book Liber Leviticus. The Vulgate title came from the Septuagint (Greek version), which had as the title Leuitikon, meaning "relating to the Levites." This title is appropriate since the book contains requirements of the Mosaic Covenant that relate to the Levites, or more specifically, the priests.

"It would be wrong, however, to describe Leviticus simply as a manual for priests. It is equally, if not more, concerned with the part the laity should play in worship. Many of the regulations explain what the layman should sacrifice. They tell him when to go to the sanctuary, what to bring, and what he may expect the priest to do when he arrives. Most of the laws apply to all Israel: only a few sections specifically concern the priests alone, e.g., chs. 21-22. The lay orientation of the legislation is particularly noticeable in ch. 23, where the whole emphasis lies on the days that must be observed as days of sabbath rest."¹

Date and Writer

As I explained in the notes on Genesis, almost all Jewish and Christian scholars regarded Moses as the writer of all five books of the Law until about 100 years ago.²

God evidently revealed the material Moses recorded in Leviticus after He renewed the covenant with Israel (1:1).

Leviticus is unique in that it is largely a record of God's instructions to Moses.

"There is no book in the whole compass of that inspired Volume which the Holy Spirit has given us, that contains more of the very words of God than Leviticus. It is God that is the direct speaker in almost every page; His gracious words are recorded in the form wherein they were uttered."³

Scope

As mentioned, Leviticus contains revelation that was particularly appropriate for the priests. While ritual and legal matters predominate, Moses wove them into the historical narratives so as one reads Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in order there is chronological movement forward. As we shall see, the legislation appears in the narrative at significant and reasonable places.

"The content of Leviticus supplements and completes that of Exodus in the religious and social spheres--and particularly the religious and ritual aspects of the covenant as made, broken and renewed actually at Sinai; this would be reflected by the terminal blessings and curses of Leviticus 26."⁴

"Leviticus enlarges upon matters involving the ordering of worship at the divine sanctuary that are mentioned only briefly in Exodus. Whereas the latter described the specifications and construction of the tabernacle, Leviticus narrates the way in which the priests are to care for the sanctuary and throne room of the Great King. The work is a fundamentally important legal treatise because it contains the regulations by which the religious and civil life of the Hebrew nation was to be governed once the land of Canaan was occupied."⁵

Historically the book fits within the one month between God's occupation of the tabernacle (Exod. 40:17, 34-38) and the taking of the census at Sinai (Num. 1:1-3). However because it contains so much legal material, we should consider it along with the rest of the Mosaic Law that God began to reveal in Exodus.

"It carries on to its completion the giving of the law at Sinai, which commenced at Ex. 25, and by which the covenant constitution was firmly established."⁶

Purpose

"Though the covenant arrangement up to this point clearly specified the need for Israel, the vassal, to appear before her Lord on stated occasions and singled out first Moses and then the priesthood as mediators in this encounter, there yet remained the need to describe the nature of the tribute to be presented, the precise meaning and function of the priesthood, the definition of holiness and unholiness, and a more strict clarification of the places and times of pilgrimage to the dwelling place of the great King. This is the purpose of the book of Leviticus."⁷

"The central theme of the book is holiness. The book intends to show how Israel was to fulfill its covenant responsibility to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Ex 19:6; Lev 26:5)."⁸

"How to maintain the vital covenantal relationship between the Israelites and their God is the concern of the book of Leviticus."⁹

"New Testament theology makes full use of the idea of holiness. All Christians are holy, saints' in most English translations. That is, they have been called by God to be his people just as ancient Israel had been (Col. 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2:9-10; cf. Exod. 19:5-6). But this state of holiness must find expression in holy living (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 1:15). Sanctification is expressed through obedience to the standard of teaching (Rom. 6:17-19), just as in Leviticus through obedience to the law. Peter urges his readers to make the motto of Leviticus their own: Be holy, for I am holy' (1 Pet. 1:16). The imitation of God is a theme that unites the ethics of Old and New Testaments (cf. Matt. 5:48; 1 Cor. 11:1)."¹⁰

". . . the principles underlying the OT are valid and authoritative for the Christian, but the particular applications found in the OT may not be. The moral principles are the same today, but insofar as our situation often differs from the OT setting, the application of the principles in our society may well be different now."¹¹

". . . the Levitical rituals are still of immense relevance. It was in terms of these sacrifices that Jesus himself and the early church understood his atoning death. Leviticus provided the theological models for their understanding. If we wish to walk in our Lord's steps and think his thoughts after him, we must attempt to understand the sacrificial system of Leviticus. It was established by the same God who sent his Son to die for us; and in rediscovering the principles of OT worship written there, we may learn something of the way we should approach a holy God."¹²

Importance

". . . it is no exaggeration to claim that the Book of Leviticus has had more impact on Judaism than any other book of the Old testament. Traditionally it was the first book taught to Jewish children, and over half the commentary of the Talmud is concerned with understanding its contents."¹³

Message¹⁴

The major theme of Leviticus is worship. Moses introduced this theme in the later chapters of Exodus, but he developed it more fully in Leviticus.

The book reveals how sinful Israelites could have a relationship with the holy God who dwelt among them. It also reveals how they could maintain that relationship and express it through worship.

One of the major revelations in Leviticus is the nature of sin. God took the fact that man is a sinner for granted in Leviticus. He established this in Genesis and Exodus. He clarified the nature of man's sinfulness in Leviticus. Sin has a three-fold character.

1. Sin is unlikeness to God. In the Creation we see man made in the image of God, but in the Fall we begin to see man's unlikeness to God. The whole system of worship in Leviticus teaches this truth. God is different from man ethically and morally. The word holy (Heb. kodesh) occurs over 150 times in Leviticus, more than in any other book of the Bible. The word occurs even in the sections of the book dealing with personal hygiene. Holy means pure, unblemished, clean, blameless. The opposite of holy is sinful. It is in contrast with God's holiness that we can understand man's sinfulness. Leviticus reveals the standards by which sinful people could have fellowship with a holy God. These standards and regulations point out the vast difference between the character of man and the character of God. God sees us as His Son as Christians (i.e., "in Christ").

2. Sin is essentially wrong that man does to God. To have a relationship with God, the wrong the redeemed sinner had done to God had to be atoned for. The Israelite did this wrong daily. It was the natural fruit of his sinful nature. Consequently he had to make payment for his sin periodically to God (monthly, seasonally, and yearly). God specified how the sinners were to pay for the wrong done Him, namely, by the offerings and sacrifices specified in the law. In Leviticus we learn that wrong done to another human being is wrong done to God. People belong to God, God gives them their lives in trust, and they bear God's image. When one person violates the basic rights of another, he has wronged not only that person but God too (cf. Gen. 39:9; Ps. 51:4). We too sin daily, but "Jesus paid it all." We could never compensate God adequately for the wrong we do to Him by sinning.

3. Sin results in distance from God. Because man is unlike God in his character, he is separate from God in his experience. The Israelites could not approach God except as God made a way and brought them near to Himself. The levitical system of worship illustrated the distance between man and God due to sin and the need for some provision to bring man back to God. The veil, the curtains, and the priests separated the ordinary Israelite from God. He doubtless sensed his personal separation from God as he participated in worship. Jesus tore the veil in two and opened access to God for us. After the Fall, Adam and Eve hid from God.

Another major revelation in Leviticus is the nature of atonement. Atonement is, of course, the solution to the problems that sin creates. Atonement means satisfaction. God covered the sins of the Israelites until a final, acceptable sacrifice would remove them completely. Old Testament saints obtained salvation on credit. (Ill. of a credit card) Through atonement man who is a sinner could enter into fellowship with God. Three things had to be present to make atonement for sin.

1. There had to be substitution. Every animal sacrifice in Israel involved the substitution of one life for another. A living being had to stand in the sinner's place and take the punishment for his sin. The substitute had to be sinless. Every sacrifice of an animal involved the death of an innocent substitute. Animals do not sin. They are not morally responsible.

2. There had to be imputation. God transferred the guilt of the sinner to his substitute when the sinner personally identified with his substitute by laying his hands on it. This ritual illustrated the transference of guilt for the Israelites.

3. There had to be death. Finally the substitute to which God had imputed guilt had to die. Atonement could not take place without death. The shedding of blood illustrated death. Blood is the essence of life (17:11). Bloodshed was a visual demonstration of life poured out. Sin always results in death (cf. Rom. 6:23). Clearly love lay behind this plan even though Moses did not explain why God provided atonement in Leviticus. God opened the way for sinners to have fellowship with Himself by providing for the covering of sins. God could have preserved His holiness and satisfied the demands of his justice by annihilating every sinner. However, God chose another way because He loves man.

A third major revelation in Leviticus is the nature of redemption. Redemption essentially means purchase. To redeem means to purchase for oneself. When God redeemed Israel in Egypt, He bought the nation for Himself. God then provided freedom so the Israelites could be His special treasure. Leviticus teaches three things about redemption.

1. Redemption rests on righteousness. Leviticus reveals that God did what was right to restore man to Himself. He did not simply dismiss sin as unimportant. He provided a way whereby the guilt of sin could be paid for righteously. Redemption rests on a payment to God, not pity.

2. Redemption is possible only by blood. The sacrificial shedding of blood is the giving up of life. The rites of animal sacrifice portrayed this graphically. People do not obtain redemption when they pour out their lives in service but by life poured out in death (cf. Heb. 9:22). Man's redemption cost God the life of His own Son ultimately.

3. Redemption should produce holiness. Redemption should lead to a manner of life that is separate from sin. Redemption does not excuse us from the responsibility of being holy. It gives us the opportunity to be holy. Holiness of life results from a relationship to God and fellowship (communion) with Him that redemption makes possible.

Redemption deals with the sinner's relationship to God whereas atonement deals with his relationship to sin. You have experienced redemption, but God has atoned for your sins.

I would summarize the message of Leviticus as follows on the basis of this three-fold emphasis on sin, atonement, and redemption. God has made provision for the covering of man's sin so man can have fellowship with God.

Genesis revealed that God made man in His own image to have fellowship with Himself. Man enjoyed that fellowship as long as he trusted and obeyed God. However when man ceased to trust and obey God, sin broke that fellowship. God then proceeded to demonstrate to fallen man that He is trustworthy, faithful. Those individuals who trusted and obeyed Him were able to enjoy fellowship with God again.

Exodus emphasized that God is also sovereign. He is the ultimate ruler of the universe who can and did redeem the nation of Israel. He did this so He could demonstrate to all people of all time how glorious it can be to live under the government of God.

Leviticus deals with how sinners can have fellowship with a holy God. Leviticus clarifies both the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God. The proper response of the redeemed sinner to a holy God is worship. Leviticus explains how Israel was to worship God. The Israelites worshipped God under the Old Covenant. Our worship is different because we live under the New Covenant.

Constable: Leviticus (Outline)

Outline

"At first sight the book of Leviticus might appear to be a haphazard, even repetitious arrangement of enactments involving the future life in Canaan of the Israelite people. Closer examination will reveal, however, that quite apart from the division of the work into two basic themes, many of the chapters have their own literary structure. Examples of this can be seen in material patterned after the fashion of a Mesopotamian tablet, with its title, textual content and colophon, as in Leviticus 1:3-7:37-38. Other chapters exhibit a distinct form of construction, which would doubtless prove extremely valuable for purposes of memorizing the contents. Examples of this are to be found in the triadic pattern of the leprosy regulations introduced by the phrase The Lord said to Moses' (Lv. 13:1; 14:1, 33), or the concentric arrangement of propositions (palistrophe) in Leviticus 24:16-22. A particularly attractive literary form is the introverted (chiastic) passage occurring in Leviticus 15:2-30, suggesting considerable artistic ability on the part of the writer."¹⁵

I. The public worship of the Israelites chs. 1-16

A. The laws of sacrifice chs. 1-7

1. The burnt offering ch. 1

2. The meal offering ch. 2

3. The peace offerings ch. 3

4. The sin offerings 4:1-5:13

5. The trespass offerings 5:14-6:7

6. Instructions for the priests concerning the offerings 6:8-7:38

B. The institution of the Aaronic priesthood chs. 8-10

1. The consecration of the priests and the sanctuary ch. 8

2. The entrance of Aaron and his sons into their office ch. 9

3. The sanctification of the priesthood ch. 10

C. Laws relating to ritual cleanliness chs. 11-15

1. Uncleanness due to contact with certain animals ch. 11

2. Uncleanness due to childbirth ch. 12

3. Uncleanness due to skin and covering abnormalities chs. 13-14

4. Uncleanness due to bodily discharges associated with reproduction ch. 15

D. The Day of Atonement ch. 16

1. Introductory information 16:1-10

2. Instructions concerning the ritual 16:11-28

3. Instructions concerning the duty of the people 16:29-34

II. The private worship of the Israelites chs. 17-27

A. Holiness of conduct on the Israelites' part chs. 17-20

1. Holiness of food ch. 17

2. Holiness of the marriage relationship ch. 18

3. Holiness of behavior toward God and man ch. 19

4. Punishments for serious crimes ch. 20

B. Holiness of the priests, gifts, and sacrifices chs. 21-22

1. The first list of regulations for priests 21:1-15

2. The second list of regulations for priests 21:16-24

3. The third list of regulations for priests ch. 22

C. Sanctification of the Sabbath and the feasts of Yahweh ch. 23

1. The Sabbath 23:1-3

2. The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread 23:4-8

3. The Feast of Firstfruits 23:9-14

4. The Feast of Pentecost 23:15-22

5. The Feast of Trumpets 23:23-25

6. The Day of Atonement 23:26-32

7. The Feast of Tabernacles 23:33-44

D. The preparation of the holy lamps and showbread 24:1-9

E. The punishment of a blasphemer 24:10-23

F. Sanctification of the possession of land by the sabbatical and jubilee years ch. 25

1. The sabbatical year 25:1-7

2. The year of jubilee 25:8-55

G. Promises and warnings ch. 26

1. Introduction to the final conditions of the covenant 26:1-2

2. The blessing for fidelity to the law 26:3-13

3. The warning for contempt of the law 26:14-33

4. The objective of God's judgments in relation to the land and nation of Israel 26:34-46

H. Directions concerning vows ch. 27

1. Vows concerning persons 27:1-8

2. Vows concerning animals 27:9-13

3. Vows concerning other property 27:14-29

4. The redemption of tithes 27:30-34

Constable: Leviticus

Leviticus

Bibliography

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell, The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.

Baillie, Rebecca A., and E. Eugene Baillie. "Biblical Leprosy as Compared to Present-Day Leprosy." Christian Medical Society Journal 14:3 (Fall 1983):27-29.

Baker, David W. "Division Markers and the Structure of Leviticus 1-7." In Studia Biblica 1978: I, pp. 9-15. Edited by E. Livingstone. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1979.

Bare, G. Plants and Animals of the Bible. N.c.: United Bible Societies, 1969.

Blosser, Don. "The Sabbath Year Cycle in Josephus." Hebrew Union College Annual 52 (1981):129-39.

Bonar, Andrew A. A Commentary on Leviticus. 5th ed. Geneva Series Commentary series. London: Banner of Truth Trust; reprint ed., 1966.

Bowen, Otis R. "Safer Behavior against AIDS Reiterated for Minorities." American Medical News, December 11, 1987, p. 59.

Browne, S. G. Leprosy in the Bible. London: Christian Medical Fellowship, 1970.

Bush, George. Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Leviticus. New York: Newman and Ivison, 1852; reprint ed. Minneapolis: James & Klock Publishing Co., 1976.

Cansdale, G. S. Animals of the Bible. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1970.

Cardona, Dwardu. "The Rites of Molech." Kronos 9:3 (Summer 1984):20-39.

Carmichael, Calum M. "Forbidden Mixtures." Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (1982):394-415.

Chan, Kim-Kwong. "You Shall Not Eat These Abominable Things: An Examination Of Different Interpretations On Deuteronomy 14:3-20." East Asia Journal of Theology 3:1 (1985):88-106.

Chiu, Andrew. "Is There Ancestor Worship in the Old Testament?" Evangelical Review of Theology 8:2 (October 1984):217-24.

Clements, Ronald E. "Leviticus." In The Broadman Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969-72.

Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davies, D. J. "An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977):387-99.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1961.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.

Dressler, Herold H. P. "The Sabbath in the Old Testament." In From Sabbath to Lord's Day, pp. 21-41. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Old Testament Library series. 2 vols. Translated by J. A Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.

Fawver, Jay D. and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):270-85.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth. Second ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. "Hanakkah." Fundamentalist Journal 5:1 (December 1986):16-18.

Friedland, Eric L. "The Atonement Memorial Service in the American Mahzor." Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984):243-82.

Gerstenberger, E. S. Leviticus. Old Testament Library series. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993.

Gnuse, Robert. "Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel's Vision of Social Reform." Biblical Theology Bulletin 15:2 (April 1985):43-48.

Goldberg, Michael. "Expository Articles: Exodus 1:13-14." Interpretation 37:4 (October 1983):389-91.

Gowan, Donald E. "Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament." Interpretation 41:4 (October 1987):341-53.

Grabbe, Lester L. "The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation." Journal for the Study of Judaism 18:2 (December 1987):152-67.

Harris, R. Laird. "Leviticus." In Genesis--Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

Harrison, R. K. Leviticus. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1980.

Hartley, J. E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Publishers, 1992.

Hays, J. Daniel. "Applying the Old Testament Law Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):21-35.

Hertz, J. H. Leviticus. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Hoffner, Harry A. "Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East." In Orient and Occident. Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, pp. 81-90. Edited by H. A. Hoffner. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973.

Horton, Fred L., Jr. "Form and Structure in Laws Relating to Women: Leviticus 18:6-18." In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, pp. 20-33. Edited by George W. MacRae. Cambridge, Mass.: Scholars Press, 1973.

Hui, Timothy K. "The Purpose of Israel's Annual Feasts." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:586 (April-June 1990):143-54.

Hulbert, Terry C. "The Eschatological Significance of Israel's Annual Feasts." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965.

Hulse, E. V. "The Nature of Biblical Leprosy' and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 107 (1975):87-105.

Johnson, James R. "Toward a Biblical Approach to Masturbation." Journal of Psychology and Theology 10:2 (Summer 1982):137-46.

Johnson, Luke T. "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James." Journal of Biblical Literature 101:3 (1982):391-401.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, l866.

Judisch, Douglas McC. L. "Propitiation in the Language and Typology of the Old Testament." Concordia Theological Quarterly 48:2-3 (April-July 1984):121-43.

Jukes, Andrew. The Law of the Offerings. 17th ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1966.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "Leviticus." In The Interpreter's Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.

_____. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Keil, C. F. Manual of Biblical Archaeology. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887-88.

Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kellogg, Samuel H. The Book of Leviticus. The Expositors' Bible series. New York: George H. Doran Co., n.d.

King, Marchant A. "Pentecost and the Fall Feasts." Moody Monthly 85:10 (June 1985):55-58.

_____. "The Sabbath and the Spring Feasts." Moody Monthly 85:9 (May 1985):46-48.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____. The Bible In Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 2 From Egypt to the Jordan." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 60 (1971):3-11.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman, and Charles M. Mead.

Leach, E. R. Culture and Communication. Cambridge: University Press, 1976

Levine, B. A. In the Presence of the Lord. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1974.

Lemche, N. P. "The Manumission of Slaves - The Fallow Year - The Sabbatical Year - The Jobel Year." Vetus Testamentum 26 (January 1976):38-59.

Lindsey, F. Duane. "Leviticus." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 163-214. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Livingston, Dennis H. "The Crime of Leviticus XXIV 11." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):352-53.

Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Macht, D. I. "A Scientific Appreciation of Leviticus 12:1-5." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):253-60.

Magonet, Jonathan. "The Structure and Meaning of Leviticus 19." Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983):151-67.

Margotta, R. The Story of Medicine. New York: Golden Press, 1967.

Master, John R. "The Place of Chapter 24 in the Structure of the Book of Leviticus." Bibliotheca Sacra 159:636 (October-December 2002):415-24.

Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Mendelsohn, I. Slavery in the Ancient Near East. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.

McMillen, Sim I. None of These Diseases. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1963.

Merrill, Eugene H. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Milgrom, Jacob. "The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System." Interpretation 17 (1963):288-301.

_____. "The Compass of Biblical Sancta." Jewish Quarterly Review 65 (April 1975):205-16.

_____. Cult and Conscience: The "Asham" and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1976.

_____. "The Graduated Hatta't [Sin Offering] of Leviticus 5:1-13." Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:1 (January-March 1983):249-54.

_____. Leviticus 1-16. Anchor Bible series. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

_____. "The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance." Revue Biblique 82 (April 1975):186-205.

_____. "Two Kinds of Hatta't [Sin Offering]." Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976):333-37.

Mitchell, Bill. "Leviticus 24.6: The Bread of the Presence--Rows or Piles?" Bible Translator 33:4 (October 1982):447-48.

Mitchell, Mike. "The Go'el: Kinsman Redeemer." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):13-15.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morganstern, Julian. "The Decalogue of the Holiness Code." Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955):1-27.

Murray, John. Principles of Conduct. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957.

Neufeld, Edward. "The Prohibitions Against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws." Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955):355-412.

The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed. S.v. "Clean and Unclean," by Charles L. Feinberg.

Noordtzij, A. Leviticus. Translated by Raymond Togtman. Bible Student's Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

North, Robert. Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1954.

Noth, Martin. The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966.

_____. Leviticus: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

Penner, Clifford L. "A Reaction to Johnson's Biblical Approach to Masturbation." Journal of Psychology and Theology 10:2 (Summer 1982):147-49.

Peter, Rene. "L'Imposition des Mains dans L'Ancien Testament." Vetus Testamentum 27:1 (1977):48-55.

Philip, James. Numbers. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Porter, J. R. Leviticus. Cambridge Bible Commentary series. Cambridge: University Press, 1976.

Rainey, A. F. "The Order of Sacrifices in OT Ritual Texts." Biblica 51 (1970):485-98.

Richard, Ramesh P. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Riggans, Walter. Numbers. Daily Bible Study series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Rosner, Brian. "The Ritual of the Peace Offering: Leviticus 7:11-21." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):83-94.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Sansom, M. C. "Laying on of Hands in the Old Testament." Expository Times 94:11 (August 1983):323-26.

Schultz, Samuel J. Leviticus: God Among His People. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Snaith, Norman. "The Cult of Molech." Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966):123-24.

Speiser, E. A. Oriental and Biblical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1967.

Sprinkle, Joe M. "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):529-50.

_____. "The Rationale of the Laws of Clean and Unclean in the Old Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:4 (December 2000):637-57.

Stager, Lawrence E., and Samuel R Wolff. "Child Sacrifice at Carthage--Religious Rite or Population Control?" Biblical Archaeology Review 10:1 (January-February 1984):31-51.

Tosato, Angelo. "The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984):199-214.

Vermes, Geza. "Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis." In Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, pp. 108-124. Edited by Jakob J. Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

Walvoord, John F. The Holy Spirit. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

_____. Numbers. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1981.

_____. "Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile (Lev 15:18)?" Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95:3 (1983):432-34.

West, J. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Holy. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1979.

Wilkinson, John. "Leprosy and Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification." Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1984):153-69.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Wright, Christopher J. H. "What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel?" Evangelical Quarterly 56:3 (July 1984):129-38; 56:4 (October 1984):193-201.

Wright, David P. "The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature." Journal of the American Oriental Society 106:3 (July-September 1986):433-46.

_____. "Observations on the Ethical Foundations of the Biblical Dietary Laws: A Response to Jacob Milgrom." In Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, pp. 193-98. Edited by Edwin B. Firmage, Bernard G. Weiss, and John W. Welch. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Zimmerli, Walther. I Am Yahweh. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Zohar, Noam. "Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of ht't in the Pentateuch." Journal of Biblical Studies 107:4 (1988):609-18.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION.

The Book is called Leviticus : because it treats of the offices, ministries, rites and ceremonies of the Priests and Levites. The Hebrews call it Vayyicra , from the word with which it begins; (Challoner) "and (the Lord) called." The a at the end of this word is printed in a smaller size, to insinuate that little children should begin to read this Book first, if we may give any credit to those who attempt to account for all the irregularities sanctioned by the great Massora! But such irregular letters are the faults of some transcribers, and are of no authority. (Kennicott, Dis. 1.) --- This Book is styled also, "The Priests' Law." (Haydock) --- The seven first chapters explain the sacrifices; the sixteen next, the offices and ordination of the Priests and Levites. From the 23d chapter to the end, the feasts are designated, and some regulations respecting vows are interspersed. All these rites and sacrifices foreshewed the eucharistic sacrifice of Jesus Christ, (St. Leo, ser. 8. de pas. Trid. sef. 22. c. 1.) and tended to keep the Hebrews employed, and at a greater distance from idolatry. (St. Jerome on Isai. i. &c.) --- These prescriptions were given during the month of Nisan, in the second year after the exit, while the Hebrews remained at the foot of Mount Sinai. God spoke from the New Tabernacle. (Tirinus) --- In the Book of Deuteronomy we find but few regulations respecting sacrifices, as Moses had sufficiently explained them in this book. (Du Hamel) --- If we confine ourselves to the letter, we may say these precepts are not good, and carnal; (Ezechiel xx. 25.; Hebrews vii. 16.) but if we consider the spirit, we shall confess that they are excellent, and spiritual. (Romans vii. 14.; 2 Corinthians iii. 6.; Origen, contra Cels. vii.) (Calmet)

Gill: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS

This book is commonly called by the Jews Vajikra, from the first word with which it begins, and sometimes תורת כהנים, "the law of the priests" ^a; and this is its name in the Syriac and Arabic versions: by the Septuagint interpreters it is called λευιτικον, and by the Latins, Leviticus, or the Levitical book, because it gives an account of the Levitical priesthood, as the apostle calls it, Heb 7:11. It treats of the sacrifices under the Levitical dispensation, and of the priests concerned in them, and of the times and seasons in which they were offered, and of many other rites and ceremonies. That it was wrote by Moses is not only generally believed by the Jews, but is affirmed in the New Testament; see Mat 8:4 compared with Lev 14:2 from whence, as well as from other citations out of it in other places, the authority of it may be concluded. The matter of it was delivered to Moses, and very likely by him then written upon the erection of the tabernacle, which was in the second year of the Israelites coming out of Egypt, in the first month, and the first day of the month, Exo 40:17 and it was on the same day that the Lord spake to Moses out of it, and delivered to him the laws concerning sacrifices, recorded in the first seven chapters; see Num 1:1 compared with Lev 1:1 and on the eighth day of the same month, and some following days, the remainder of it was given to him, and written by him, see Lev 8:1 to which agrees the Targum of Jonathan on Lev 1:1.

"when Moses had made an end of erecting the tabernacle, Moses thought and reasoned in his heart, and said, Mount Sinai, its excellency was the excellency of an hour, and its holiness the holiness of three days, it was not possible for me to ascend unto it, until the time that the Word was speaking with me; but this tabernacle of the congregation, its excellency is an excellency for ever, and its holiness an holiness for ever, it is fit that I should not enter into it, until the time that be speaks with me from before the Lord; and therefore the Word of the Lord called to Moses, and the Word of the Lord spake with him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying;''

and to the same purpose the Jerusalem Targum. It was written in the year from the creation of the world 2514, and about 1490 years before the coming of Christ. The various sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies made mention of in it, were typical of Christ, and shadows of good things to come by him: there are many things in it, which give great light to several passages in the New Testament, and it is worthy of diligent reading and consideration.

Gill: Leviticus 11 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS 11

This chapter treats of creatures clean and unclean, as fit or not fit to be eaten; and first of beasts, whose signs are given, Lev 11:1 then of fishes, which are likewise described, Lev 11:9 after that of fowls, and those that are not to be eaten are particularly named, Lev 11:13 next of creeping things, which are distinguished into two sorts, as flying creeping things, of which those that are unclean, their carcasses are not even to be touched, as neither the carcasses of unclean beasts, Lev 11:20 and creeping things on the earth, which defile by touching, as well as eating, and make everything unclean, upon which, being dead, they fall, Lev 11:29 and these laws are enforced from the holiness and goodness of God, Lev 11:44 and the chapter is concluded with a recapitulation of them, Lev 11:46.