Text -- Leviticus 11:13-19 (NET)

Clean and Unclean Birds

11:13 “‘These you are to detest from among the birds– they must not be eaten, because they are detestable: the griffon vulture, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 11:14 the kite, the buzzard of any kind, 11:15 every kind of crow, 11:16 the eagle owl, the short-eared owl, the long-eared owl, the hawk of any kind, 11:17 the little owl, the cormorant, the screech owl, 11:18 the white owl, the scops owl, the osprey, 11:19 the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Lev 11:13

The true signification of the following Hebrew words is now lost, as the Jews at this day confess; which not falling out without God's singular providence may intimate the cessation of this law, the exact observation whereof since Christ came is become impossible. In general, this may be observed, that the fowls forbidden in diet, are all either ravenous and cruel, or such as delight in the night and darkness, or such as feed upon impure things; and so the signification of these prohibitions is manifest, to teach men to abominate all cruelty or oppression, and all works of darkness and filthiness.

Wesley: Lev 11:13

Two peculiar kinds of eagles, distinct from that which being the chief of its kind, is called by the name of the whole kind.

Wesley: Lev 11:15

According to the several kinds, known by this general name, which includes, besides ravens properly so called, crows, rooks, pyes, and others.

JFB: Lev 11:13-19

All birds of prey are particularly ranked in the class unclean; all those which feed on flesh and carrion. No less than twenty species of birds, all probably then known, are mentioned under this category, and the inference follows that all which are not mentioned were allowed; that is, fowls which subsist on vegetable substances. From our imperfect knowledge of the natural history of Palestine, Arabia, and the contiguous countries at that time, it is not easy to determine exactly what some of the prohibited birds were; although they must have been all well known among the people to whom these laws were given.

JFB: Lev 11:13-19

Hebrew, "bone-breaker," rendered in the Septuagint "griffon," supposed to be the Gypœtos barbatus, the Lammer Geyer of the Swiss--a bird of the eagle or vulture species, inhabiting the highest mountain ranges in Western Asia as well as Europe. It pursues as its prey the chamois, ibex, or marmot, among rugged cliffs, till it drives them over a precipice--thus obtaining the name of "bone-breaker."

JFB: Lev 11:13-19

The black eagle, among the smallest, but swiftest and strongest of its kind.

JFB: Lev 11:14

The word so rendered in our version means more probably "the kite" or "glede" and describes a varying but majestic flight, exactly that of the kite, which now darts forward with the rapidity of an arrow, now rests motionless on its expanded wings in the air. It feeds on small birds, insects, and fish.

JFB: Lev 11:14

The vulture. In Egypt and perhaps in the adjoining countries also, the kite and vulture are often seen together flying in company, or busily pursuing their foul but important office of devouring the carrion and relics of putrefying flesh, which might otherwise pollute the atmosphere.

JFB: Lev 11:14

That is, the prohibition against eating it extended to the whole species.

JFB: Lev 11:15

Including the crow, the pie.

JFB: Lev 11:16

It is generally supposed the ostrich is denoted by the original word.

JFB: Lev 11:16

A very small bird, with which, from its nocturnal habits, many superstitious ideas were associated.

JFB: Lev 11:16

Evidently some other bird is meant by the original term, from its being ranged among rapacious birds. DR. SHAW thinks it is the safsaf; but that, being a graminivorous and gregarious bird, is equally objectionable. Others think that the sea mew, or some of the small sea fowl, is intended.

JFB: Lev 11:16

The Hebrew word includes every variety of the falcon family--as the goshawk, the jerhawk, the sparrow hawk, &c. Several species of hawks are found in Western Asia and Egypt, where they find inexhaustible prey in the immense numbers of pigeons and turtledoves that abound in those quarters. The hawk was held pre-eminently sacred among the Egyptians; and this, besides its rapacious disposition and gross habits, might have been a strong reason for its prohibition as an article of food to the Israelites.

JFB: Lev 11:17

Or horned owl, as some render it. The common barn owl, which is well known in the East. It is the only bird of its kind here referred to, although the word is thrice mentioned in our version.

JFB: Lev 11:17

Supposed to be the gull. [See on Deu 14:17.]

JFB: Lev 11:17

According to some, the Ibis of the Egyptians. It was well known to the Israelites, and so rendered by the Septuagint (Deu 14:16; Isa 34:11): according to PARKHURST, the bittern, but not determined.

JFB: Lev 11:18

Found in great numbers in all the countries of the Levant. It frequents marshy places--the vicinity of rivers and lakes. It was held sacred by the Egyptians, and kept tame within the precincts of heathen temples. It was probably on this account chiefly that its use as food was prohibited. MICHAELIS considers it the goose.

JFB: Lev 11:18

Remarkable for the bag or pouch under its lower jaw which serves not only as a net to catch, but also as a receptacle of food. It is solitary in its habits and, like other large aquatic birds, often flies to a great distance from its favorite haunts.

JFB: Lev 11:18

Being here associated with waterfowl, it has been questioned whether any species of eagle is referred to. Some think, as the original name racham denotes "tenderness," "affection," the halcyon or kingfisher is intended [CALMET]. Others think that it is the bird now called the rachami, a kind of Egyptian vulture, abundant in the streets of Cairo and popularly called "Pharaoh's fowl." It is white in color, in size like a raven, and feeds on carrion; it is one of the foulest and filthiest birds in the world. [See on Deu 14:17.]

JFB: Lev 11:19

A bird of benevolent temper and held in the highest estimation in all Eastern countries; it was declared unclean, probably, from its feeding on serpents and other venomous reptiles, as well as rearing its young on the same food.

JFB: Lev 11:19

The word so translated only occurs in the prohibited list of food and has been variously rendered--the crane, the plover, the woodcock, the parrot. In this great diversity of opinion nothing certain can be affirmed regarding it. Judging from the group with which it is classified, it must be an aquatic bird that is meant. It may as well be the heron as any other bird, the more especially as herons abound in Egypt and in the Hauran of Palestine.

JFB: Lev 11:19

Or hoopoe; found in warm regions, a very pretty but filthy species of bird. It was considered unclean, probably from its feeding on insects, worms, and snails.

JFB: Lev 11:19

The great or Ternat bat, known in the East, noted for its voracity and filthiness.

Clarke: Lev 11:13

And these - among the fowls - the eagle - נשר nesher , from nashar , to lacerate, cut, or tear to pieces; hence the eagle, a most rapacious bird of prey, from its tearing the flesh of the animals it feeds on; and for this purpose birds of prey have, in general, strong, crooked talons and a hooked beak. The eagle is a cruel bird, exceedingly ravenous, and almost insatiable

Clarke: Lev 11:13

The ossifrage - Or bone-breaker, from os , a bone, and frango , I break, because it not only strips off the flesh, but breaks the bone in order to extract the marrow. In Hebrew it is called פרס peres , from paras , to break or divide in two, and probably signifies that species of the eagle anciently known by the name of ossifraga, and which we render ossifrage

Clarke: Lev 11:13

Ospray - עזניה ozniyah , from עזן azan , to be strong, vigorous; generally supposed to mean the black eagle, such as that described by Homer, Iliad. lib. xxi., ver. 252

Αιετου οιματ ’ εχων μελανος, του θηρητηρος,

Ὁς θ ’ αμα καρτιστος τε και ωκιστος πετεηνων

"Having the rapidity of the black eagle, that bird of prey, at once the swiftest and the strongest of the feathered race."Among the Greeks and Romans the eagle was held sacred, and is represented as carrying the thunderbolts of Jupiter. This occurs so frequently, and is so well known, that references are almost needless. See Scheuchzer.

Clarke: Lev 11:14

The vulture - דאה daah , from the root to fly, and therefore more probably the kite or glede, from its remarkable property of gliding or sailing with expanded wings through the air. The דאה daah is a different bird from the דיה daiyah , which signifies the vulture. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 195

Clarke: Lev 11:14

The kite - איה aiyah , thought by some to be the vulture, by others the merlin. Parkhurst thinks it has its name from the root אוה avah , to covet, because of its rapaciousness; some contend that the kite is meant. That it is a species of the hawk, most learned men allow. See Bochart, vol. iii., col..

Clarke: Lev 11:15

Every raven - ערב oreb , a general term comprehending the raven, crow, rook, jackdaw, and magpie.

Clarke: Lev 11:16

The owl - בת היענה bath haiyaanah , the daughter of vociferation, the female ostrich, probably so called from the noise they make. "In the lonesome part of the night,"says Dr. Shaw, "the ostriches frequently make a very doleful and hideous noise, sometimes resembling the roar of the lion; at other times, the hoarser voice of the bull or ox."He adds, "I have heard them groan as if in the deepest agonies."- Travels, 4th edition, p. 455. The ostrich is a very unclean animal, and eats its own ordure as soon as it voids it, and of this Dr. Shaw observes, (see above), it is remarkably fond! This is a sufficient reason, were others wanting, why such a fowl should be reputed to be unclean, and its use as an article of diet prohibited

Clarke: Lev 11:16

The night hawk - תחמס tachmas , from חמס chamas , to force away, act violently and unjustly; supposed by Bochart and Scheuchzer to signify the male ostrich, from its cruelty towards its young; (see Job 39:13-18); but others, with more reason, suppose it to be the bird described by Hasselquist, which he calls the strix Orientalis , or Oriental owl. "It is of the size of the common owl, living in the ruins and old deserted houses of Egypt and Syria; and sometimes in inhabited houses. The Arabs in Egypt call it Massasa, the Syrians Bana. It is very ravenous in Syria, and in the evenings, if the windows be left open, it flies into the house and kills infants, unless they are carefully watched; wherefore the women are much afraid of it."- Travels, p. 196. If this is the fowl intended, this is a sufficient reason why it should be considered an abomination

Clarke: Lev 11:16

The cuckoo - שחף shachaph , supposed rather to mean the sea mew; called shachaph, from שחפת shachepheth , a wasting distemper, or atrophy, (mentioned Lev 26:16; Deu 28:22), because its body is the leanest, in proportion to its bones and feathers, of most other birds, always appearing as if under the influence of a wasting distemper. A fowl which, from its natural constitution or manner of life, is incapable of becoming plump or fleshy, must always be unwholesome; and this is reason sufficient why such should be prohibited

Clarke: Lev 11:16

And the hawk - נץ nets , from the root נצה natsah , to shoot forth or spring forward, because of the rapidity and length of its flight, the hawk being remarkable for both. As this is a bird of prey, it is forbidden, and all others of its kind.

Clarke: Lev 11:17

The little owl - כוס cos , the bittern, night-raven or night-owl, according to most interpreters. Some think the onocrotalus or pelican may be intended; for as the word כוס cos signifies a cup in Hebrew, and the pelican is remarkable for a pouch or bag under the lower jaw, it might have had its Hebrew name from this circumstance; but the kaath in the following verse is rather supposed to mean this fowl, and the cos some species of the bubo or owl. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 272

Clarke: Lev 11:17

The cormorant - שלך shalach , from the root which signifies to cast down; hence the Septuagint καταρρακτης, the cataract, or bird which falls precipitately down upon its prey. It probably signifies the plungeon or diver, a sea fowl, which I have seen at sea dart down as swift as an arrow into the water, and seize the fish which it had discovered while even flying, or rather soaring, at a very great height

Clarke: Lev 11:17

The great owl - ינשוף yanshuph , according to the Septuagint and the Vulgate, signifies the ibis , a bird well known and held sacred in Egypt. Some critics, with our translation, think it means a species of owl or night bird, because the word may be derived from נשף nesheph , which signifies the twilight, the time in which owls chiefly fly about. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 281.

Clarke: Lev 11:18

The swan - תנשמת tinshemeth . The Septuagint translate the word by πορφυριωνα, the porphyrion, purple or scarlet bird. Could we depend on this translation, we might suppose the flamingo or some such bird to be intended. Some suppose the goose to be meant, but this is by no means likely, as it cannot be classed either among ravenous or unclean fowls. Bochart thinks the owl is meant

Clarke: Lev 11:18

The pelican - קאת kaath . As קאת kaah signifies to vomit up, the name is supposed to be descriptive of the pelican, who receives its food into the pouch under its lower jaw, and, by pressing it on its breast with its bill, throws it up for the nourishment of its young. Hence the fable which represents the pelican wounding her breast with her bill, that she might feed her young with her own blood; a fiction which has no foundation but in the above circumstance. Bochart thinks the bittern is meant, vol. iii., col. 292

Clarke: Lev 11:18

The gier eagle - רחם racham . As the root of this word signifies tenderness and affection, it is supposed to refer to some bird remarkable for its attachment to its young; hence some have thought that the pelican is to be understood. Bochart endeavors to prove that it means the vulture, probably that species called the golden vulture - Bochart, vol. iii., col. 303.

Clarke: Lev 11:19

The stork - חסידה chasidah , from חסד chasad , which signifies to be abundant in kindness, or exuberant in acts of beneficence; hence applied to the stork, because of its affection to its young, and its kindness in tending and feeding its parents when old; facts attested by the best informed and most judicious of the Greek and Latin natural historians. See Bochart, Scheuchzer, and Parkhurst, under the word חסד chasad . It is remarkable for destroying and eating serpents, and on this account might be reckoned by Moses among unclean birds

Clarke: Lev 11:19

The heron - אנפה anaphah . This word has been variously understood: some have rendered it the kite, others the woodcock, others the curlew, some the peacock, others the parrot, and others the crane. The root אנף anaph , signifies to breathe short through the nostrils, to snuff, as in anger; hence to be angry: and it is supposed that the word is sufficiently descriptive of the heron, from its very irritable disposition. It will attack even a man in defense of its nest; and I have known a case where a man was in danger of losing his life by the stroke of a heron’ s bill, near the eye, who had climbed up into a high tree to take its nest. Bochart supposes a species of the eagle to be meant, vol. iii., col. 335

Clarke: Lev 11:19

The lapwing - דוכיפת duchiphath , the upupa, hoopoe, or hoop, a crested bird, with beautiful plumage, but very unclean. See Bochart, and Scheuchzer. Concerning the genuine meaning of the original, there is little agreement among interpreters

Clarke: Lev 11:19

The bat - עטלף atalleph , so called, according to Parkhurst, from עט at , to fly, and עלף alaph , darkness or obscurity, because it flies about in the dusk of the evening, and in the night: so the Septuagint νυκτερις, from νυξ, the night; and the Vulgate vespertilio , from vesper, the evening. This being a sort of monster partaking of the nature of both a bird and beast, it might well be classed among unclean animals, or animals the use of which in food should be avoided.

Calvin: Lev 11:13

13.And these are they which ye shall have in abomination The species of birds and reptiles which are forbidden, are such as common feeling almost naturally repudiates. And assuredly God dealt with great indulgence towards His people, so as not to weigh them down with too heavy burdens. But because man’s greediness sometimes delights in monstrous food, He desired even in minor matters to put the rein upon them, lest they should rush with heathen nations into intemperance, whereby they would be polluted. For there was danger lest, by devouring filthy animals, they should harden themselves to join in various other corruptions. Another law is added, that they should not only abstain from eating these unclean animals, but, if any such should be killed, that they should not defile themselves by touching its carcase; nay, that if any vessels should have come in contact with them, those made of earth should be broken, and others should be washed. It seems to be a trifling matter to enjoin, that if a mouse should have been drowned in a vessel of water, the vessel itself should be unclean; and the strictness appears excessive, that the Jews should be commanded, ⁴⁵ if any such animal had fallen into a vessel of wine, and had died there, not only to pour away the wine, but also to destroy the vessel; and if it had been smothered in an oven, or had lain in the hearth, to break down both of them; as if spiritual infection reached even to things without life. But we must always consider the intention of God: from whence we shall learn that He was not so severe and exacting in unimportant things as to tie His people to the observation of (superfluous) ⁴⁶ matters; but that these were acts of discipline whereby He might accustom them to study purity, which is so generally neglected and omitted among men. Now-a-days, also, we are commanded by the mouth of Paul,

"whether we eat, or drink, or whatsoever we do, to do all to the glory of God,” (1Co 10:31;)

but in this respect we differ from the ancient people, that, being delivered from childish rudiments, we are directed only to what is spiritual, viz., that meat and drink are supplied to us by God, that we may serve in purity the Author of our life. But it was necessary to stimulate the Jews in various ways that they might be more attentive to this object; whilst God commanded them to keep their houses free from all uncleanness, and to be diligent in watching over the purity of their water, and all their vessels; that He might constantly set before their eyes how diligently He would have them to labor after true cleanliness; as follows in the end of the chapter.

TSK: Lev 11:13

the eagle : In Hebrew, nesher , Chaldee, neshar , Syriac, neshro , and Arabic, nishr , the eagle, one of the largest, strongest, swiftest, fiercest, and most rapacious of the feathered race. His eye is large, dark, and piercing; his beak powerful and hooked; his legs strong and feathered; his feet yellow and armed with four very long and terrific claws; his wings very large and powerful; his body compact and robust; his bones hard; his flesh firm; his feathers coarse; his attitude fierce and erect; his motions lively; his flight extremely rapid and towering; and his cry the terror of every wing. Deu 14:12-20; Job 28:7, Job 38:41, Job 39:27-30; Jer 4:13, Jer 4:22, Jer 48:40; Lam 4:19; Hos 8:1; Hab 1:8; Mat 24:28; Rom 1:28-32, Rom 3:13-17; Tit 3:3

the ossifrage : Peres , from paras to break, probably the species of eagle anciently called ossifraga or bone-breaker (from os , a bone, and frango , to break), because it not only strips off the flesh, but breaks the bone, in order to extract the marrow.

the ospray : Hebrew ozniyah , Arabic azan , and Chaldee azyah , (from azaz , to be strong), a species of eagle, probably the black eagle, so remarkable for its strength.

TSK: Lev 11:15

Gen 8:7; 1Ki 17:4, 1Ki 17:6; Pro 30:17; Luk 12:24

TSK: Lev 11:16

Deu 14:15-18; Psa 102:6; Isa 13:21, Isa 13:22, Isa 34:11-15; Joh 3:19-21; Eph 2:2, Eph 2:3, Eph 4:18, Eph 4:19, Eph 5:7-11; Phi 3:18, Phi 3:19; 1Th 5:5-7; Rev 18:2

TSK: Lev 11:19

bat : Isa 2:20, Isa 66:17

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Lev 11:13-19

As far as they can be identified, the birds here mentioned are such as live upon animal food. They were those which the Israelites might have been tempted to eat, either from their being easy to obtain, or from the example of other nations, and which served as types of the entire range of prohibited kinds.

Lev 11:13

The eagle - Rather, the great vulture, which the Egyptians are known to have ranked as the first among birds. Compare 2Sa 1:23; Psa 103:5; Pro 23:5, etc.

The Ossifrage, or bone-breaker, was the lammer-geyer, and the "ospray"(a corruption of ossifrage) the sea-eagle.

Lev 11:14

The vulture - Rather, the (black) kite Isa 34:15 : "the kite,"rather the red kite, remarkable for its piercing sight Job 28:7.

Lev 11:15

Every raven after his kind - i. e. the whole family of corvidae.

Lev 11:16

And the owl ... - Rather, "and the ostrich, and the owl, and the gull, and the hawk,"etc.

Lev 11:18

The swan - More probably the ibis, the sacred bird of the Egyptians. "The gier eagle"is most likely the Egyptian vulture, a bird of unprepossessing appearance and disgusting habits, but fostered by the Egyptians as a useful scavenger.

Lev 11:19

The heron ... the lapwing - Rather, the great plover the hoopoe, so called from its peculiar cry.

Poole: Lev 11:13

The true signification of these and the following Hebrew words is now lost, as the Jews at this day confess, which not falling out without God’ s singular providence may intimate the cessation or abolition of this law, the exact observation whereof since Christ came is become impossible. In general, this may be observed, that the fowls forbidden in diet are all either ravenous and cruel, or such as delight in the night and darkness, or such as feed upon impure things; and so the signification and reason of these prohibitions is manifest, to teach men to abominate all cruelty or oppression, and all works of darkness and filthiness.

The ossifrage and the

ospray are two peculiar kinds of eagles, distinct from that which, being the chief of its kind, is called by the name of the whole kind, as it usually happens.

Poole: Lev 11:15

i.e. According to the several kinds of birds, known by this general name, which includes, besides ravens properly so called, crows, rooks, pies, &c.

Poole: Lev 11:16

The owl Heb. the daughter of the owl , which he mentions as the best of the kind both for sex and age, and therefore more desired for food than the elder or males. And it is hereby implied, that the very youngest and best of all the other kinds are forbidden, and much more the rest.

Haydock: Lev 11:13

The griffon. Not the monster which the painters represent, which hath no being upon earth; but a bird of the eagle kind, larger than the common. (Challoner) ---

Osprey. The sea or black eagle, which is very clear-sighted, and expert at catching fish. Pliny relates, (B. x. 3,) that it tries its young by making them look at the sun, and hurls them down if they refuse. But this seems fabulous.

Haydock: Lev 11:16

Ostrich; which was served up at the tables of the Persian kings. Hebrew, "the daughter of the hiena;" ( both eiane ) or the swan, Isaias xiii. 21. ---

Owl, or perhaps the male ostrich, which cruelly abandons its young. ---

Larus, the water-hen. (Calmet) ---

Some have the cuckow. (Haydock)

Haydock: Lev 11:17

Owl, or the onocrotalus, which makes a hideous noise like an assibis, a bird adored in Egypt. Bochart takes the Hebrew to mean an owl, as well as the following term, swan, (Calmet) which is not probable.

Haydock: Lev 11:18

Bittern, onocrotalum. See ver. 17. Protestant version has "pelican and the gier-eagle," for porphyrion. (Haydock) ---

Its beak and long legs are red. (Pliny, [Natural History?] x. 46.) Bochart understands the vulture, and the Samaritan version the pelican; both of which are remarkable for the care they take of their young. Reme may be derived from rem, "mercy."

Gill: Lev 11:13

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls,.... No description or sign is given of fowls, as of beasts and fishes, only the names of those not to be eaten; which, according to Maimonides, are twenty four; so that all the rest but these are clean fowls, and might be eaten; wherefore the same writer observes ^x, that,"whoever was expert in these kinds, and in their names, might eat of every fowl which was not of them, and there was no need of an inquiry:''but what creatures are intended by these is not now easy to know; very different are the sentiments both of the Jews and Christians concerning them; and indeed it does not much concern us Christians to know what are meant by them, but as curiosity may lead us to such an inquiry, not thinking ourselves bound by these laws; but it is of moment with the Jews to know them, who think they are; wherefore, to supply this deficiency, they venture to give some signs by which clean and unclean fowls may be known, and they are three; such are clean who have a superfluous claw, and also a craw, and a crop that is uncovered by the hand ^y; and on the contrary they are unclean, and not to be eaten, as says the Targum of Jonathan, which have no superfluous talon, or no craw, or a crop not uncovered:

they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination; and they are those that follow:

the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray; about the first of these there is no difficulty, all agree the eagle is intended; which has its name either from the nature of its sight, or from the casting of its feathers, or from its tearing with its bill: it is a bird of prey, a very rapacious creature, and sometimes called the bird of Jupiter, and sacred to the gods; and these may be the reasons why forbid to be eaten, as well as because its flesh is hard, and not fit for food, and unwholesome; "the ossifrage" or "bone breaker" has its name from its tearing its prey and breaking its bones for the marrow, as the word "peres" here used signifies, Mic 3:3 it is said to dig up bodies in burying places to eat what it finds in the bones ^z: this is thought to be of the eagle kind, as it is reckoned by Pliny ^a, though Aristotle ^b speaks of it as very different from the eagle, as larger than that, and of an ash colour; and is so kind to the eagle's young, that when they are cast out by that, it takes them and brings them up: the "ospray" is the "halioeetus", or sea eagle, as the Septuagint version and several others render it; which Aristotle ^c describes as having a large and thick neck, crooked wings, and a broad tail, and resides about the sea and shores: Pliny ^d speaks of it as having a very clear sight, and, poising itself on high, having sight of a fish in the sea, will rush down at once and fetch it out of the water; and he also reports that she will take her young before they are fledged, and oblige them to look directly against the rays of the sun, and if any of them wink, or their eyes water, she casts them out of her nest as a spurious brood. Aristotle ^e, who relates the same, says she kills them. The name of this creature, in the Hebrew text, seems to be taken from its strength; wherefore Bochart ^f is of opinion, that the "melanoeetos", or black eagle, which, though the least of eagles as to its size, exceeds all others in strength, as both Aristotle ^g and Pliny ^h say; and therefore, as the latter observes, is called by the Romans "valeria", from its strength. Maimonides ⁱ says of these two last fowls, which we render the ossifrage and the ospray, that they are not to be found on the continent, but in the desert places of the isles of the sea very far off, even those which are at the end of the habitable world.

Gill: Lev 11:14

And the vulture, and the kite after his kind. Perhaps it might be better if the version was inverted, and the words be read, "and the kite, and the vulture, after his kind"; and the last word is by us rendered the vulture in Job 28:7 and very rightly, since the kite is not remarkable for its sight, any other than all rapacious creatures are, whereas the vulture is to a proverb; and besides, of the vulture there are two sorts, as Aristotle says ^k, the one lesser and whiter, the other larger and more of an ash colour; and there are some that are of the eagle kind ^l, whereas there is but one sort of kites; though Ainsworth makes mention of two, the greater of a ruddy colour, common in England, and the lesser of a blacker colour, known in Germany, but produces no authority for it; however, these are both ravenous creatures: of the kite, Aelianus says ^m, it is very rapacious, and will take meat out of the meat market, but not touch any sacrificed to Jupiter; the truth of which may well be questioned; and of vultures he reports ⁿ, that they will watch a dying man, and follow armies going to battle, expecting prey; See Gill on Mat 24:28.

Gill: Lev 11:15

Every raven after his kind. The red raven, night raven, the water raven, river raven, wood raven, &c. this also includes crows, rooks, pies, jays, and jackdaws, &c. The raven was with the Heathens sacred to Apollo ^o, is a voracious creature, and so reckoned among unclean ones, and unfit for food; nor does the care that God takes of these creatures, or the use he has made of them, contradict this; see Job 38:41.

Gill: Lev 11:16

And the owl,.... The great and little owls being after mentioned, it seems best, by the word here used, to understand the "ostrich" with the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, the Oriental versions, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan: the account which Pliny ^p gives of the African and Ethiopic ostriches is this; that they are the largest of birds, and almost of the kind of beasts; that they exceed the height of a horseman on horseback, and are swifter than the horses; that their wings are given them to help them in their running, otherwise they are not flying fowls, nor are they lifted up from the earth. Their hoofs are like to those of harts, with which they fight, and are cloven, and serve to gather up stones, which in their flight they throw with their feet against them that follow them; they have a wonderful concoction, digesting whatever is swallowed down; and, according to Galen ^q, all the parts of them, their flesh and their eggs, are hard and difficult of digestion, and excermentitious: Aben Ezra says ^r, their flesh is as dry as a stick, and it is not usual to eat it, for there is no moisture in it; and therefore nothing can be eaten of the whole species, but the daughter or young one, for that being a female and little, there is some moisture in it; but not so the male when little; wherefore as the flesh of this creature is always reckoned by the Jews as unlawful to be eaten, it may the rather be supposed to be intended here, since if not here, it cannot be thought to be any where observed; and yet we find that both the eggs and the flesh of this creature have been eaten by some people: their eggs with the Indians were reckoned delicate eating, as Aelianus ^s reports; and near the Arabians and Ethiopians were a people, as both Diodorus Siculus ^t and Strabo ^u relate, who were called Struthophagi, from their living on ostriches; and they eat them in Peru, where they are common ^w; and in several parts of Africa, as Nubia, Numidia, and Lybia, as Leo Africanus ^x relates:

and the night hawk; which, according to Pliny ^y, is sometimes called "cymindis", and is seldom to be found in woods, sees not so well in the day time, and wages a deadly war with the eagle, and they are often found joined together: Bochart ^z who thinks that the female ostrich is meant by the preceding bird, is of opinion that the male ostrich is meant here, there being no general name in the Hebrew language to comprehend both sexes:

and the cuckoo; a bird well known by its voice at least: some have thought it to be the same with the hawk, changing its figure and voice; but this has been refuted by naturalists ^a: but though it is here forbidden to be eaten, yet its young, when fat, are said to be of a grateful savour by Aristotle: and Pliny ^b says, no bird is to be compared to it for the sweetness of its flesh, though perhaps it may not be here intended: the word is by the Septuagint rendered a "sea gull", and so it is by Ainsworth, and which is approved of by Bochart ^c:

and the hawk after his kind; a well known bird, of which, according to Aristotle ^d, there are not less than ten sorts: Pliny ^e says sixteen; it has its name in Hebrew from flying, it being a bird that flies very swiftly; see Job 39:26 the hawk was a symbol of deity with the Egyptians, and was reverenced and worshipped by them ^f.

Gill: Lev 11:17

And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl. Ainsworth translates the words just the reverse, and takes the first word to signify the great owl, and the last the little one; the great owl may intend the great horn owl, called sometimes the eagle owl, which is thus described; it is of the size of a goose, and has large wings, capable of extending to a surprising breadth: its head is much of the size and figure of that of a cat, and has clusters of black feathers over the ears, rising to three fingers' height; its eyes are very large, and the feathers of its rump long, and extremely soft; its eyes have yellow irises, and its beak black and crooked: it is all over mottled with white, reddish, and black spots; its legs are very strong, and are hairy down to the very ends of the toes, their covering being of a whitish brown ^g: and as this is called the great horn owl, others, in comparison of it, may be called the little owl. Some reckon several species of owls--there are of three sizes; the large ones are as big as a capon, the middle sized are as big as a wood pigeon, the smaller sort about the size of an ordinary pigeon--the horned owl is of two kinds, a larger and a smaller--the great owl is also of two sorts, that is, of a larger and a smaller kind ^h; it is a bird sacred to Minerva: but though it is pretty plain that the last of the words used signifies a bird that flies in the twilight of the evening, from whence it seems to have its name, as Aben Ezra, Ben Gersom, and other Jewish writers observe, and fitly agrees with the owl which is not seen in the day, but appears about that time; yet the first is thought by Bochart ⁱ to be the "onocrotalus" or "pelican", which has under its bill a bag or sack, which will hold a large quantity of anything; and the word here used has the signification of a cup or vessel, see Psa 102:6. The word we render "cormorant", the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan paraphrase it, a drawer of fish out of the sea, so Baal Hatturim; and thus it is interpreted in the Talmud ^k; and the gloss upon it says, this is the water raven, which is the same with the cormorant; for the cormorant is no other than "corvus aquaticus", or water raven; See Gill on Zep 2:14. The Septuagint render it by "catarrhactes", which, according to the description of it ^l, resides by rocks and shores that hang over water; and when it sees fishes swimming in it, it will fly on high, and contract its feathers, and flounce into the water, and fetch out the fish; and so is of the same nature, though not the same creature with the cormorant. Aben Ezra observes, that some say this is a bird which casts its young as soon as born; and this is said of the "catarrhactes", that it lets down its young into the sea, and draws them out again, and hereby inures them to this exercise ^m.

Gill: Lev 11:18

And the swan,.... This is a bird well known to us, but it is a question whether it is intended by the word here used; for though it is so rendered in the Vulgate Latin, it is differently rendered by many others: the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem call it "otia", which seems to be the same with the "otus" of Aristotle ⁿ, who says it is like an owl, having a tuft of feathers about its ears (from whence it has its name); and some call it "nycticorax", or the owl; and here, by Bochart ^o, and others, the owl called "noctua" is thought to be meant; and with which agrees the account some Jewish writers give of it, as Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim, who say it is a bird, which every one that sees is astonished at it, as other birds are at the owl, are frightened at the sight of it, and stupefied. But as the same word is used Lev 11:30 among the creeping things, for a mole, what Jarchi observes is worthy of consideration, that this is "calve (chauve) souris" (the French word for a bat), and is like unto a mouse, and flies in the night; and that which is spoken of among the creeping things is like unto it, which hath no eyes, and they call it "talpa", a mole. The Septuagint version renders it by "porphyrion", the redshank; and so Ainsworth; and is thought to be called by the Hebrew name in the text, from the blowing of its breath in drinking; for it drinks biting, as Aristotle says ^p:

and the pelican; which has its name in Hebrew from vomiting; being said by Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim to be a bird that vomits its food; and it is observed by several naturalists ^q, of the pelican, that it swallows down shellfish, and after they have lain some time in its stomach, it vomits them up again; where having been heated, the shells open, and it picks out the meat:

and the gier eagle; or vulture eagle, the "gypoeetos" of Aristotle ^r, and who says it is called also "oripelargos", or the mountain stork; and which Pliny ^s also makes to be an eagle of the vulture kind. Dr. Shaw says ^t, that near Cairo there are several flocks of the "ach bobba" (white father, differing little from the stork but in its colour), the "percnopterus" or "oripelargos", which like the ravens about London feed upon carrion, and nastiness that is thrown without the city; this the Arabs call "rachama", the same with רחם, Lev 11:18 and רחמה in Deu 14:17 and whatever bird is here meant, it must be one that is tender toward its young, as its name signifies, as Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim observe; and though both the eagle and the vulture are rapacious birds, yet have a great regard to their young; of the eagle see Deu 32:11 and the vulture, with the Egyptians, was an "hieroglyphic" of a tender mother, or any merciful person; it being reported of it, that during the one hundred twenty days its young are under its care, it very rarely flies from them, being so solicitous of nourishing them; and that by making incisions in its thigh, it lets out a bloody flow of milk, when it has nothing else to support them ^u. The Talmudists ^w say, that the bird "racham", as it is here called, is the same with "serakrak", and is by the Targum of Jonathan, and in the Syriac version, here rendered "serakraka", so called from שרק, which signifies to "squall"; and, according to Munster ^x, is thought by some to be the "pica", magpie, or rather the jay; and Dr. Shaw ^y observes, that by a small transmutation of letters, that and the "shagarag" of the Arabs are the same; which he says is of the size and shape of a jay, though with a smaller bill, and shorter legs; the back is brownish; the head, neck, and belly, of a light green; and upon the wings and tail there are several spots or ringlets of a deep blue; it makes a "squalling" noise; and, he adds, it has no small affinity both in voice and plumage with the jay. The Septuagint version renders the word by the "swan"; which if not intended by the first word in this text, may by this, being kind to its young, though otherwise reckoned a cruel and unmerciful bird, as Bochart ^z observes; some think the woodpecker is meant, so called from its love to its parents ^a.

Gill: Lev 11:19

And the stork,..... A bird of passage, Jer 8:7 it has its name from kindness, which it exercises both to its dam, and to its young. Various writers ^b speak of the kindness of these birds to their dams, which when they are old they take care of and feed them, to which the apostle is thought to allude, 1Ti 5:4 and its tenderness to its young is no less manifest: when the city of Delf in Holland was on fire, the storks were seen very busy to save their young from the flames, and which when they could not do, threw themselves into the midst of them, and perished with them, as Drusius from the Dutch historians relates. It is said to feed upon serpents; and hence by Virgil ^c to be "invisa colubris"; and Juvenal ^d says, it nourishes its young with them; and which may be a reason of its being forbid to be eaten, and is the reason given by the Mahometans ^e for the prohibition of it; though on this account it was in great honour in Thessaly, that country being freed from serpents by it, and therefore they made it a capital crime to kill them, as Pliny ^f relates; formerly people would not eat the stork, but at present it is much esteemed for the deliciousness of its flesh ^g.

the heron after her kind; this bird has its name in Hebrew from its being soon angry, as Aben Ezra observes; and Jarchi calls it the angry vulture or kite, as it is in the Talmud ^h; and adds, and it appears to me to be what they call the "heron", one sort of which named "asterias", as there is one sort so called by Pliny ⁱ; it becomes tame in Egypt, and so well understands the voice of a man, as Aelianus ^k reports, that if anyone by way of reproach calls it a servant or slothful, it is immediately exceeding angry. There are three kinds of herons, as both Aristotle ^l and Pliny ^m; and by a learned man of ours ⁿ, their names are thus given, the criel or dwarf heron, the blue heron, and the bittour; some reckon nineteen:

and the lapwing; the upupa or hoopoe; it has its name in Hebrew, according to Jarchi, from its having a double crest; and so Pliny ^o ascribes to it a double or folded crest, and speaks of it as a filthy bird; and, according to Aristotle ^p and Aelian ^q, its nest is chiefly made of human dung, that by the ill smell of it men may be kept from taking its young; and therefore may well be reckoned among impure fowl. Calmet ^r says, there is no such thing as a lapwing to be seen in any part of England; but there are such as we call so, whether the same bird with this I cannot say:

and the bat; a little bird which flies in the night, Aben Ezra says; Kimchi ^s describes it a mouse with wings, which flies in the night, and we sometimes call it the "flitter mouse"; it is a creature between a fowl and a beast; and, as Aristotle says ^t, it partakes of both, and is of neither; and it is the only fowl, as Pliny ^u observes, that has teeth and teats, that brings forth animals, and nourishes them with milk. It is a creature so very disagreeable, that one would think almost there was no need of a law to forbid the eating of it; and yet it is said by some to be eatable, and to be eaten, as Strabo ^w affirms, yea, to be delicious food. It is asserted ^x, that there is a sort of them in the east, larger than ordinary, and is salted and eaten--that there are bats in China as large as pullets, and are as delicate eating. Of these several fowls before mentioned, some are of the ravenous kind, and are an emblem of persecutors and covetous persons, and such as live by rapine and violence; others are of a lustful nature, and are an emblem of those who serve various lusts and pleasures, and give up themselves to uncleanness; others are night birds, and are a proper emblem of them whose works are works of darkness, and love darkness rather than the light; and others never rise higher than the earth, and so may denote earthly minded persons; and others live on impure things, and so fitly represent such who live an impure life; with all such the people of God are to have no fellowship.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Lev 11:13

¹ tn For zoological remarks on the following list of birds see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:662-64; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 159-60.

NET Notes: Lev 11:14

¹ tn Heb “and the buzzard to its kind” (see also vv. 16 and 19 for the same expression “of any kind”).

NET Notes: Lev 11:15

¹ tn Heb “every crow to its kind.” Many English versions (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) render this as “raven.”

NET Notes: Lev 11:16

¹ tn Literally, “the daughter of the wasteland.” Various proposals for the species of bird referred to here include “owl” (KJV), “horned owl” (NIV, NCV), and “ostrich” (ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT).

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 11:9-19

Here is, 1. A general rule concerning fishes, which were clean and which not. All that had fins and scales they might eat, and only those odd sorts of water-animals that have not were forbidden, Lev 11:9, Lev 11:10. The ancients accounted fish the most delicate food (so far were they from allowing it on fasting-days, or making it an instance of mortification to eat fish); therefore God did not lay much restraint upon his people in them; for he is a Master that allows his servants not only for necessity but for delight. Concerning the prohibited fish it is said, They shall be an abomination to you (Lev 11:10-12), that is, "You shall count them unclean, and not only not eat of them, but keep at a distance from them."Note, Whatever is unclean should be to us an abomination; touch not the unclean thing. But observe, It was to be an abomination only to Jews; the neighbouring nations were under none of these obligations, nor are these things to be an abomination to us Christians. The Jews were honoured with peculiar privileges, and therefore, lest they should be proud of those, Transeunt cum onere - They were likewise laid under peculiar restraints. Thus God's spiritual Israel, as they are dignified above others by the gospel-covenant of adoption and friendship, so they must be mortified more than others by the gospel-commands of self-denial and bearing the cross. 2. Concerning fowls here is no general rule given, but a particular enumeration of those fowls that they must abstain from as unclean, which implies an allowance of all others. The critics here have their hands full to find out what is the true signification of the Hebrew words here used, some of which still remain uncertain, some sorts of fowls being peculiar to some countries. Were the law in force now, we should be concerned to know with certainty what are prohibited by it; and perhaps if we did, and were better acquainted with the nature of the fowls here mentioned, we should admire the knowledge of Adam, in giving them names expressive of their natures, Gen 2:20. But the law being repealed, and the learning in a great measure lost, it is sufficient for us to observe that of the fowls here forbidden, (1.) Some are birds of prey, as the eagle, vulture, etc., and God would have his people to abhor every thing that is barbarous and cruel, and not to live by blood and rapine. Doves that are preyed upon were fit to be food for man and offerings to God; but kites and hawks that prey upon them must be looked upon as an abomination to God and man; for the condition of those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake appears to an eye of faith every way better than that of their persecutors. (2.) Others of them are solitary birds, that abide in dark and desolate places, as the owl and the pelican (Psa 102:6), and the cormorant and raven (Isa 34:11); for God's Israel should not be a melancholy people, nor affect sadness and constant solitude. (3.) Others of them feed upon that which is impure, as the stork on serpents, others of them on worms; and we must not only abstain from all impurity ourselves, but from communion with those that allow themselves in it. (4.) Others of them were used by the Egyptians and other Gentiles in their divinations. Some birds were reckoned fortunate, others ominous; and their soothsayers had great regard to the flights of these birds, all which therefore must be an abomination to God's people, who must not learn the way of the heathen.

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 11:13-14

(cf. Deu 14:11-18). Of birds , twenty varieties are prohibited, including the bat , but without any common mark being given; though they consist almost exclusively of birds which live upon flesh or carrion, and are most of them natives of Western Asia.

(Note: The list is "hardly intended to be exhaustive, but simply mentions those which were eaten by others, and in relation to which, therefore, it was necessary that the Israelites should receive a special prohibition against eating them"( Knobel ). Hence in Deuteronomy Moses added the ראהand enumerated twenty-one varieties; and on doubt, under other circumstances, he could have made the list still longer. In Deu 14:11 צפּורis used, as synonymous with עוףin Deu 14:20.)

The list commences with the eagle , as the king of the birds. Nesher embraces all the species of eagles proper. The idea that the eagle will not touch carrion is erroneous. According to the testimony of Arabian writers ( Damiri in Bochart , ii. p. 577), and several naturalists who have travelled (e.g., Forskal . l.c. p. 12, and Seetzen , 1, p. 379), they will eat carrion if it is still fresh and not decomposed; so that the eating of carrion could very properly be attributed to them in such passages as Job 39:30; Pro 30:17, and Mat 24:28. But the bald-headedness mentioned in Mic 1:16 applies, not to the true eagle, but to the carrion-kite, which is reckoned, however, among the different species of eagles, as well as the bearded or golden vulture. The next in the list is peres , from paras = parash to break, ossifragus , i.e., wither the bearded or golden vulture, gypaetos barbatus , or more probably, as Schultz supposes, the sea-eagle , which may have been the species intended in the γρύψ = γρυπαίετος of the lxx and gryphus of the Vulgate, and to which the ancients seem sometimes to have applied the name ossifraga ( Lucret . v. 1079). By the next, עזניּה , we are very probably to understand the bearded or golden vulture . For this word is no doubt connected with the Arabic word for beard, and therefore points to the golden vulture, which has a tuft of hair or feathers on the lower beak, and which might very well be associated with the eagles so far as the size is concerned, having wings that measure 10 feet from tip to tip. As it really belongs to the family of cultures, it forms a very fitting link of transition to the other species of vulture and falcon (Lev 11:14). דּאה ( Deut . דּיּה , according to a change which is by no means rare when the aleph stands between two vowels: cf. דּואג in 1Sa 21:8; 1Sa 22:9, and דּויג in 1Sa 22:18, 1Sa 22:22), from דּאה to fly, is either the kite , or the glede , which is very common in Palestine ( v. Schubert, Reise iii. p. 120), and lives on carrion. It is a gregarious bird (cf. Isa 34:15), which other birds of prey are not, and is used by many different tribes as food ( Oedmann , iii. p. 120). The conjecture that the black glede-kite is meant, - a bird which is particularly common in the East, - and that the name is derived from דּאה to be dark, is overthrown by the use of the word למינהּ in Deuteronomy, which shows that דאה is intended to denote the whole genus. איּה , which is referred to in Job 28:7 as sharp-sighted, is either the falcon, several species of which are natives of Syria and Arabia, and which is noted for its keen sight and the rapidity of its flight, or according to the Vulgate , Schultz , etc., vultur , the true vulture (the lxx have Ἰκτίν , the kite, here, and γρύψ , the griffin, in Deut. and Job), of which there are three species in Palestine ( Lynch , p. 229). In Deu 14:13 הראה is also mentioned, from ראה to see. Judging from the name, it was a keen-sighted bird, either a falcon or another species of vulture ( Vulg . ixion ).

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 11:15

" Every raven after his kind, "i.e., the whole genus of ravens, with the rest of the raven-like birds, such as crows, jackdaws, and jays, which are all of them natives of Syria and Palestine. The omission of ו before את , which is found in several MSS and editions, is probably to be regarded as the true reading, as it is not wanting before any of the other names.

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 11:16-19

היּענה בּת , i.e., either daughter of screaming ( Bochart ), or daughter of greediness ( Gesenius , etc.), is used according to all the ancient versions for the ostrich, which is more frequently described as the dweller in the desert (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13, etc.), or as the mournful screamer (Mic 1:8; Job 30:29), and is to be understood, not as denoting the female ostrich only, but as a noun of common gender denoting the ostrich generally. It does not devour carrion indeed, but it eats vegetable matter of the most various kinds, and swallows greedily stones, metals, and even glass. It is found in Arabia, and sometimes in Hauran and Belka ( Seetzen and Burckhardt ), and has been used as food not only by the Struthiophagi of Ethiopia ( Diod. Sic. 3, 27; Strabo , xvi. 772) and Numidia ( Leo Afric . p. 766), but by some of the Arabs also ( Seetzen , iii. p. 20; Burckhardt , p. 178), whilst others only eat the eggs, and make use of the fat in the preparation of food. תּחמס , according to Bochart, Gesenius, and others, is the male ostrich; but this is very improbable. According to the lxx, Vulg ., and others, it is the owl ( Oedmann , iii. pp. 45ff.); but this is mentioned later under another name. According to Saad. Ar. Erp. it is the swallow ; but this is called סיס in Jer 8:7. Knobel supposes it to be the cuckoo , which is met with in Palestine ( Seetzen , 1, p. 78), and derives the name from חמס , violenter egit , supposing it to be so called from the violence with which it is said to turn out or devour the eggs and young of other birds, for the purpose of laying its own eggs in the nest ( Aristot. hist. an. 6, 7; 9, 29; Ael. nat. an. 6, 7). שׁחף is the λάρος , or slender gull , according to the lxx and Vulg . Knobel follows the Arabic, however, and supposes it to be a species of hawk , which is trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, hares, etc.; but this is certainly included in the genus נץ . נץ , from נצץ to fly, is the hawk , which soars very high, and spreads its wings towards the south (Job 39:26). It stands in fact, as למינהוּ shows, for the hawk-tribe generally, probably the ἱέραξ , accipiter , of which the ancients enumerate many different species. כּוס , which is mentioned in Psa 102:7 as dwelling in ruins, is an owl according to the ancient versions, although they differ as to the kind. In Knobel's opinion it is either the screech-owl , which inhabits ruined buildings, walls, and clefts in the rock, and the flesh of which is said to be very agreeable, or the little screech-owl , which also lives in old buildings and walls, and raises a mournful cry at night, and the flesh of which is said to be savoury. שׁלך , according to the ancient versions an aquatic bird, and therefore more in place by the side of the heron, where it stands in Deuteronomy, is called by the lxx καταῤῥάκτης ; in the Targ . and Syr . נוּנא שׁלי , extrahens pisces . It is not the gull , however ( larus catarractes ), which plunges with violence, for according to Oken this is only seen in the northern seas, but a species of pelican , to be found on the banks of the Nile and in the islands of the Red Sea, which swims well, and also dives, frequently dropping perpendicularly upon fishes in the water. The flesh has an oily taste, but it is eaten for all that.

ינשׁוּף : from נשׁף to snort, according to Isa 34:11, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl ; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu , which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhupuhu . תּנשׁמת , which occurs again in Lev 11:30 among the names of the lizards, is, according to Damiri , a bird resembling the uhu , but smaller. Jonathan calls it uthya = ὠτός , a night-owl . The primary meaning of the word נשׁם is essentially the same as that of נשׁף , to breathe or blow, so called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the strix otus is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix flammea , a native of Syria, which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl ( strix stridula ), which inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu , at other times bane , a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence. קאת , which also lived in desolate places (Isa 34:11; Zep 2:14), or in the desert itself (Psa 102:7), was not the katà , a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (Robinson, ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa 34:11 and Zep 2:14, but the pelican ( πελεκάν , lxx), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem (on Num 14:17) describes as a marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, and uttering an incessant cry. It is the true pelican of the ancients ( pelecanus graculus ), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from קוא to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). רחם , in Deut. רחמה , is κυκνός , the swan, according to the Septuagint; porphyrio , the fish-heron, according to the Vulgate; a marsh-bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus ( Saad. Ar. Erp. ), which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles ( Plin. h. n. 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called ὀρειπέλαργος , the mountain-stork ( Arist. h. an. 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black pinions; but with this exception it is quite white. It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs ( Burckhardt, Syr. p. 1046). It received its name of " tenderly loving "from the tenderness with which it watches over its young ( Bochart , iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, חסידה , avis pia , a bird of passage according to Jer 8:7, which builds its nest upon the cypresses (Psa 104:17, cf. Bochart , iii. pp. 85ff.). In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini and others mentioned by Bochart (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well.

(Note: Oedmann (v. 58ff.), Knobel , and others follow the Greek translation of Leviticus and the Psalms, and the Vulgate rendering of Leviticus, the Psalms, and Job, and suppose the reference to be to the ἐρωδιός , herodius , chasidah p pietatis cultrix ( Petron . 55, 6), whereas, with the exception of the somewhat indefinite passage in Aelian ( Nat. an. 3, 23), καὶ τοὺς ἐρωδιοὺς ἀκούω ποιεῖν ταὐτόν (i.e., feed their young by spitting out their food) καὶ τοὺς πελεκᾶνας μέντοι , Ciconiae quae aetate in Europa sunt, magna hyemis parte ut in Aegypto sic etiam circa Antiochiam et juxta Amanum montem degunt ,"is a sufficient answer to Knobel's assertion, that according to Seetzen there are not storks in Mount Lebanon.)

אנפה , according to the lxx and Vulgate χαραδριός , a marsh-bird of the snipe kind, of which there are several species in Egypt ( Hasselquist , p. 308). This is quite in accordance with the expression "after her kind,"which points to a numerous genus. The omission of ואת before האנפה , whereas it is found before the name of every other animal, is very striking; but as the name is preceded by the copulative vav in Deuteronomy, and stands for a particular bird, it may be accounted for either from a want of precision on the part of the author, or from an error of the copyist like the omission of the ו before את in Lev 11:15.

(Note: On account of the omission of ואת Knobel would connect האנפהas an adjective with החסידה, and explain אנףas derived from ענף frons , ענף< chasidah ,"he supposes, because they have a tuft of feathers at the back of their head, or long feathers hanging down from their neck, which are wanting in the other marsh-birds, such as the flamingo, crane, and ibis. But there is this important objection to the explanation, that the change of אfor עin such a word as ענףfrons, which occurs as early as Lev 23:40, and has retained its עe chasidah b anaphah t chasidah d anaphah w chasidah d chasidah s ha - anaphah from the preceding word, as in Deuteronomy, and to understand it as denoting the plover (?) or heron, as there were several species of both. Which is intended, it is impossible to decide, as there is nothing certain to be gathered from either the ancient versions or the etymology. Bochart's reference of the word to a fierce bird, viz., a species of eagle, which the Arabs call Tammaj , is not raised into a probability by a comparison with the similarly sounding ἀνοπαῖα of Od. 1, 320, by which Aristarchus understands a kind of eagle.)

דּוּכיפת : according to the lxx, Vulg ., and others, the lapwing , which is found in Syria, Arabia, and still more commonly in Egypt ( Forsk, Russel, Sonnini ), and is eaten in some places, as its flesh is said to be fat and savoury in autumn ( Sonn . 1, 204). But it has a disagreeable smell, as it frequents marshy districts seeking worms and insects for food, and according to a common belief among the ancients, builds its nest of human dung. Lastly, העטלּף is the bat (Isa 2:20), which the Arabs also classified among the birds.

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

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.