You shall not eat any abominable thing.
Parallel Translations
-
You shall not eat any abominable thing.
-
Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
-
Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Commandments (1)
The laws of the Torah, each cited and shown as a primary source.
Cross-references (8)
Passages linked to Deuteronomy 14:3 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Ezekiel 4:14 Then I said, “Ah Lord Yahweh! Behold, my soul has not been polluted; for from my youth up even until now I have not eaten of that which dies of itself, or is torn of animals. No abominable meat has come into my mouth!”
- Leviticus 11:43 You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps. You shall not make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled by them.
- Leviticus 20:25 “ ‘You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean fowl and the clean. You shall not make yourselves abominable by animal, or by bird, or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have separated from you as unclean for you.
- Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
- Isaiah 65:4 who sit among the graves, and spend nights in secret places; who eat pig’s meat, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
- Acts 10:12-14 in which were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and birds of the sky. A voice came to him, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
- 1 Corinthians 10:28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” don’t eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for the sake of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, with all its fullness.”
- Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (12 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Deu 14:3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
Deu 14:3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
Ver. 3. Thou shalt not eat any abominable.] {See Trapp on "Lev 11:1"} &c. This law taught them to abstain from communion with wicked men, in whom are found the malignities and evil properties of all other creatures. {Act 10:13; Act 10:17; Act 10:20; Act 10:28} They feed hard on sin, the devil’s excrement; as the Tartars eat the carrion, carcasses of horses, camels, asses, cats, dogs, yea, when they stink and are full of maggots, and hold them as dainty as we do venison.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain i.e. Unclean and forbidden by me, which therefore should…
i.e. Unclean and forbidden by me, which therefore should be abominable to you.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Thou shall not eat any abominable thing. That is…
Thou shall not eat any abominable thing. That is so either in its own nature, or because forbidden by the Lord; what are such are declared in the following verses.
Thou shall not eat any abominable thing. That is so either in its own nature, or because forbidden by the Lord; what are such are declared in the following verses.
Read full note →
Deuteronomy 14:4
deu 14:4
deu 14:4
deu 14:4These are the beasts which they shall eat,.... That is, which they might lawfully eat of, which were allowed for their food; for they were not obliged to eat of them if they did not choose it:
the ox, the sheep, and the goat; which were creatures used in sacrifice, and the only ones, yet nevertheless they might be used for food if chosen.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Abominable - Unclean and forbidden by me, which therefore…
Abominable - Unclean and forbidden by me, which therefore should be abominable to you.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Compare Lev. 11. The variations here, whether omissions or…
Compare Lev. 11. The variations here, whether omissions or additions, are probably to be explained by the time and circumstances of the speaker.
Deu 14:5
Read full note →
The “pygarg” is a species of gazelle, and the “wild ox” and “chamois” are swift types of antelope.
Deu 14:21
The prohibition is repeated from Lev 22:8. The directions as to the disposal of the carcass are unique to Deuteronomy, and their motive is clear. To have forbidden the people either themselves to eat that which had died, or to allow any others to do so, would have involved loss of property, and consequent temptation to an infraction of the command. The permissions now for the first time granted would have been useless in the wilderness. During the 40 years’ wandering there could be but little opportunity of selling such carcasses; while non-Israelites living in the camp would in such a matter be bound by the same rules as the Israelites Lev 17:15; Lev 24:22. Further, it would seem (compare Lev 17:15) that greater stringency is here given to the requirement of abstinence from that which had died of itself. Probably on this, as on so many other points, allowance was made for the circumstances of the people. Flesh meat was no doubt often scarce in the desert. It would therefore have been a hardship to forbid entirely the use of that which had not been killed. However, now that the plenty of the promised land was before them, the modified toleration of this unholy food was withdrawn.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Unclean. See the annotations on Leviticus xi. (Challoner) ---…
Unclean. See the annotations on Leviticus xi. (Challoner) --- Some of the beasts here specified were not mentioned before, as the buffle, &c.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain WHAT MAY BE EATEN, AND WHAT NOT. (Deu. 14:3-21)
WHAT MAY BE EATEN, AND WHAT NOT. (Deu. 14:3-21)
Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing--that is, anything forbidden as unclean (see on Lev 11:1).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain THE ANIMALS THAT WERE TO BE EATEN AND THOSE…
THE ANIMALS THAT WERE TO BE EATEN AND THOSE THAT WERE PROHIBITED, Deu_14:3-21.
3. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing — That is, any thing forbidden as unclean. Comp. Leviticus 11.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 3. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing] The…
3. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing] The same noun as abomination, Deu_7:25, q.v.; a term characteristic of D. The clause being also in the Sg. in a Pl. context (to which Sam., LXX have harmonised it) may be either the original law of D on this subject—cp. every abomination, Deu_12:31—or, like Deu_14:2, an addition by the deuteronomic editor.
3–20. Of Clean and Unclean Beasts, Fishes and Birds
Read full note →
Paralleled with elaborations in H, Lev_11:2-23 (see introductory note above p. 183; and cp. the comparative table in Driver’s Deut. 157 ff.; the chief similarities and differences are noted in the notes below), and very summarily also in Lev_20:25, H: ye shall separate between clean beast and unclean, and between unclean fowl and clean and shall not render your souls detestable (cp. Deu_7:26, Deu_11:31, Deu_12:11) by beast or fowl or anything wherewith the ground creepeth which I have separated from you as unclean.—In JE there is no parallel.—The references below to Tristram are to his Fauna and Flora of Western Palestine in the PEF Survey of W. Pal.; those to Doughty are to his Arabia Deserta.
APPENDIX
On Clean And Unclean Animals
(Deu_14:3-20)
First, some remarks are necessary on the form of the deuteronomic list. While most of the names have been reasonably identified with animals still found in Palestine—the credit of this is largely due to Canon Tristram—yet full success in such identification is not, and may never be, possible. Especially precarious is the equation of the names with single species. The names are generic, not specific. They are popular. They give proofs of a close observation of the structure and habits of the animals. But the statement that the hare and the rock-badger chew the cud is not correct; though Arab hunters still assert this of the rock-badger (see on Deu_14:7), and indeed ‘both in hare and hyrax the peculiar munching movements, the backward and forward movements of the lower jaw, are so strongly suggestive of cud-chewing, that one rather admires the suggestion that they do chew the cud.’
Like that in Lev_11:2-23 the list in Deut. is not exhaustive. It details the clean mammals, both domestic and wild, but not the clean birds. It names the unclean birds, but not the unclean mammals except the camel, hare, and rock-badger, nor the reptiles nor the insects. That some of these, the weasel, mouse, and lizards, are added in Lev_11:29 ff. starts the question whether at the time our list was drawn up it was felt to be enough to count upon the people’s natural repugnance to such vermin, without naming them; and whether the Levitical additions were due to a fresh temptation to use these animals, which Israel had meantime encountered by contact with foreign customs and cults. But this opens up our main subject.
What was the principle of the distinction between clean and unclean animals? Some of the data are obscure and conflicting; and different explanations are possible, none of which is wholly satisfactory. As we shall see, the complex result, which the Law presents, is probably due to many causes, both physical and spiritual.
The following facts are certain.
All Semitic peoples have distinguished between animals lawful and unlawful for food. But their customs, though similar, have varied very much in detail, and flesh which was enjoyed by one tribe was often forbidden to another. Nomad from fellaḥ, coast-dweller from desert-dweller, townsman from rustic, they have differed, and still differ in opinion and in practice as to the cleanness or uncleanness of certain animals.
From the earliest times and long before there was written Law on the subject, the same distinction prevailed in Israel. The O.T. traditions vary as to the origin of flesh-eating. J and P agree that in his first estate man did not eat flesh. In J’s record the fruits of the ground are given to man for nourishment—every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food—and the animals are created to be his companions; not till he is expelled from the garden and has to cultivate the soil cursed for his sake is anything said of his use of animals for clothing or sacrifice; at the same time serpents are cursed; Noah takes into the Ark seven pairs of every kind of clean animals and one pair of every kind not clean, and of the former offers ‘olôth, or whole burnt-sacrifices (Gen_2:9; Gen_2:16; Gen_3:14 f., Deu_7:2; Deu_7:20). In P’s account man is granted dominion over all animals; cereals and fruit trees are given to him for food, but to the animals grass and herbage; Noah takes into the Ark two of every kind of living creature, along with all food wont to be eaten (Gen_1:29 f., Deu_6:19 f.). P knows of no sacrifice nor of any distinction between clean and unclean animals before the legislation at Sinai (see I.P. 76, 80). Up to the establishment of the deuteronomic Law, all slaughter and eating of domestic animals was sacrificial, but venison was eaten without ritual (12). In the earlier histories the only reference to the distinction between clean and unclean foods is in Jdg_13:4; Jdg_13:7; Jdg_13:14, where Manoah’s wife is warned not to eat anything unclean, Heb. tâmé’, during her pregnancy. In Hos_9:3 f. food eaten in exile is unclean, because it is eaten only for appetite and cannot be brought into a, or the, house of Jehovah, where alone the sacrifice is valid by which it is rendered clean1[153].
[153] If the passage is Hosea’s, and therefore earlier than D, we must translate a house of Jehovah: if with Marti the vv. are considered a later addition, we must translate the House, and understand by the consecration of the food that which was secured for the whole harvest and increase of flock and herd by the presentation in the temple of firstlings, first-fruits and tithes.
Again, the marks cited by our law as distinguishing clean from unclean mammals, viz. that they wholly cleave the hoof and that they chew the cud, cannot be intended as the cause or fundamental reason of the distinction. In such features there is nothing to constitute cleanness. They are cited merely as convenient signs for carrying out a distinction which rested on other grounds. They are an afterthought, and as we have seen in the case of the hare and the hyrax they are incorrect.
What then were the grounds on which the distinction rested? The answer has often been given that animals were called clean or unclean according as experience had proved them wholesome or unwholesome fare for man. It is true that the unclean birds of our list are feeders on carrion (only the heron, Deu_14:18, was long enjoyed in Europe); that the hare has often been considered unhealthy food, and that pork is dangerous especially in the East. Yet healthy peoples freely eat of both; the flesh of the rock-badger denied to Israel is, like that of lizards, enjoyed by Arabs; and some Arabs eat the breast of the ostrich, a rank feeder. Nor can unwholesomeness be the reason for denying camel-flesh to Israel; it is one of the commonest flesh-foods in Arabia. Again, within the same nation some forms of flesh are prohibited to one class of adults which are allowed to others. In several ancient religions the priests might not eat things permitted to the laity (W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. 274); and among modern Arabs certain animals in certain conditions may be eaten only by men and others only by women (Musil, Ethn. Ber. 150). Further, camels are eaten in Palestine by Moslems, but not by Christians (Baldensperger, PEFQ, 1905, 120). It is well known that certain kinds of food, harmless to most individuals, disagree with others and may possibly sometimes disagree with whole families. But the differences of usage just cited, occurring as they do between whole tribes or religious bodies or religious ranks, or the sexes, cannot all be explained on physical grounds. It is clear, therefore, that the distinction between clean and unclean flesh-foods does not, at least wholly, rest upon their respective wholesomeness and unwholesomeness1[154].
[154] So already Patrick Fairbairn (Typology of Scripture, ii. 429 f.), who had not the advantage of the modern evidence quoted above, and who came to his conclusion solely on that of the lists in the Hebrew Law.
Another and a wider explanation, to which sufficient attention has not been given, is that a people’s distinction between clean and unclean animals was determined by the degree of their familiarity with them. This would account at least for those cases which are left unexplained by the other theory: the animals, namely, which are counted unclean and are yet wholesome food for man. Thus the camel, forbidden as food to Israel2[155] to whom it came as a foreign beast, takes with the Arabs, to whom it is a domestic animal, a leading rank among their foods, replacing the ox, which is not easily reared in the desert and is regarded by many as the less honourable food (see on Deu_14:4). Again fish, readily eaten by Arabs of the coast and of the well-watered Moab and Gilead, is abhorred by Arabs of the waterless desert (see on 9 f.), though these enjoy lizards and the like. Conversely the ostrich, a bird foreign to Palestine, is forbidden to Israel, but in Arabia, of which it is a native, its breast is eaten. Yet this solution offered for the problem is also not perfect. The hare and the wild-boar were as familiar in Palestine to Israel, to whom they were forbidden, as to the Arabs who enjoy them both.
[155] In Egypt and in the wilderness Israel had no camels, and under the monarchy their first camels are in charge of a man with an Arab name, Jerusalem, i. 323.
From such physical explanations the argument has therefore fallen back on religious beliefs and customs as the sole and sufficient grounds of the distinction.
We may begin with a religious explanation relevant only to the Hebrew Law. Principal Patrick Fairbairn (Typology of Scripture, ii. 427 ff.), developing the views of earlier divines, argues that the law of clean and unclean foods manifests at once the bounty and the discipline of God. For man’s body it provides enough wholesome fare and on this puts a stamp of sacredness; but by ruling out of the list of permitted foods some that are wholesome along with all that are unwholesome it trains the appetite to habits of discrimination and abstinence.
‘The outward distinction was from the first appointed for the sake of the spiritual instruction it was fitted to convey.’ It was ‘a symbol,’ and like others it disappeared with the rise of the higher freedom which is in Christ. Such a theory does justice to the law’s moral influence upon the people in their commerce with foreigners. Like that of the Sabbath, this law of foods helped to maintain Israel’s distinction from the heathen, especially throughout the Greek period. Yet the theory, formed at a time when the comparative study of religions was less advanced than it now is, fails to account for the existence among other Semites of food-customs very similar to those sanctioned by the Hebrew laws. We must seek for the origin of the latter in ideas and impressions common to the whole Semitic race.
While the study of Semitic customs reveals everywhere (as we have seen) the practice of a distinction between clean and unclean foods and discovers great varieties in that practice, all of which cannot be explained on physical grounds alone; it also shows that many of the animals forbidden as food by the Hebrew laws were worshipped or were eaten sacramentally by the neighbours of Israel. Reasons of ritual have therefore been proposed—and by some exclusively proposed—as the basis of the distinction.
Heathen Arabs worshipped the lion and the nasr or carrion-vulture (W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 208 ff.); fish with scales and without were sacred to certain Syrian deities (Rel. Sem. 430), and the people of Ḥarran sacrificed field-mice, dogs and swine (Id. 272 ff.). According to Isa_65:4 some Israelites provoked Jehovah by eating the flesh of swine and broth of foul things, and believed that such rites enhanced their holiness; and, Isa_66:17, they hallowed themselves by eating swine’s-flesh, the detestable thing (sheḳeṣ, or as others read shereṣ, creeping things), and mice (cp. Isa_66:3). Similarly Ezekiel (Eze_8:10 f.) describes secret places in the Temple where every form of reptile and detestable thing and all the idols of the house of Israel were worshipped by the heads of Jewish families. Further sheḳeṣ is a term applied both to unclean beasts and the gods of the heathen.
From this the conclusion has been drawn that ‘the unclean creatures are the divine animals of the heathen’ (Kinship etc., 309); ‘because in one cult something is holy, in another it is impure …; we are led to conclude that it is religious grounds which lie below the prohibitions of certain foods by the Law …; the prohibition of the swine presents itself entirely as a protest against the holiness of that beast in some vanquished or foreign cult’ (Berth. on Leviticus 11). It is also pointed out that the laws against such foods in D, H and P appeared at the time when those cults largely prevailed in W. Asia (their mystical communions having displaced the old national or tribal cults) and had invaded Israel itself (Kinship, 308 f.). The case for this theory is therefore very strong, and is further supported by the reason given for the prohibition of certain foods to Israel in the short summary of H, Lev_20:26 : ye shall be holy to Jehovah, His exclusively and not another god’s.
Yet like the others this explanation fails to account for every case in the lists before us. For example, fish with scales are clean to Israel, though they were regarded as sacred to some Syrian deities; doves were eaten in Israel, though the peculiar symbols of a Syrian goddess; sheep were sacrificed in Israel as well as by all other Semites; and still more the ox was permitted to Israel both as sacrifice and food, although it was worshipped by the Canaanites and its sacredness formed the strongest temptation to idolatry which Israel encountered. Therefore the theory, that the animals forbidden by the Law were unclean to the people of Jehovah because of their sacredness to other deities, needs qualification.
This is offered by another explanation, according to which an animal was unclean to Israel not because it was sacramentally eaten in a heathen shrine, but because Israel themselves believed, or had once believed, that it was the inhabitation of some malignant, supernatural power. Referring to the prohibition of shereṣ or creeping things because so intensely unclean as to infect whatever they touch (Lev_11:29 ff.), W. R. Smith says: ‘So strict a taboo is hardly to be explained except by supposing that like the Arabian ḥanash1[156] they had supernatural and demoniac qualities’ (Rel. Sem. 275, cp. 143 and Kinship, 306). But such a religious belief itself requires explanation. It can have sprung only from these sources:—unfamiliarity with the animals pronounced unclean (as we have seen Arabs of the desert abhorring fish enjoyed by Arabs of the coast, or Israel regarding the camel as unclean while Arabs of all times have partaken of its flesh), or some experience of the pernicious effects of eating certain animals (as the Syrians, with whom fish were sacred to Atargatis, thought that ‘if they ate a sprat or anchovy they were visited with ulcers, swellings and wasting sickness,’ Rel. Sem., 429 f.), or some accidental coincidence between the eating of an animal and an outbreak of disease. It was very natural for men to ascribe to a hostile demon, resident in the animal, both the fear with which the sight of its strange or repulsive shape affected them and any sickness they may have suffered after eating its flesh. So they called this not ‘unwholesome’ but ritually unclean (ṭâmé’). The primary factor, however, in this religious instinct was the strangeness of the beast or its evil taste or the deleterious consequences, real or imaginary, of eating it. And this is confirmed by the primitive rule as to what fruits might be eaten: and Jehovah caused to spring every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food … and commanded men saying, Of every tree in the garden thou mayest surely eat (J, Gen_2:9; Gen_2:16). It is difficult to say whether ṭahôr and ṭâmé’ meant first physically, or ritually, clean and unclean, though the general analogy of such terms in Hebrew would point to the former; but it is at least significant that before animals were divided into ṭahôr and ṭamé’ they were simply called ṭahôr and not-ṭahôr (Gen_7:2).
[156] Which covers reptiles, rats, mice, insects, etc.
Another form of the religious explanation of the distinction between clean and unclean animals derives this from totemism. The totem of a tribe is an animal (less frequently a plant) which the tribe recognise as physically akin to themselves and as invested with supernatural powers. W. R. Smith and others have argued that, like most primitive races, the ancient Semites also had their totems; and the evidence for this is considerable. The names of a number of Semitic persons and tribes are animal names. In the O.T. we find Rahel Ewe, Leah Antelope or wild-cow, Nun Fish, Kaleb Dog, ‘Akbor Mouse, Ḥuldah Weasel, Shaphan Rock-badger, ‘Oreb Raven and ’Ayyah Kite. Among the Arabs there are many more (W. R. Smith, Kinship, 17, 190 ff., gives a list of personal names identical with those both of clean and unclean animals; cp. Musil’s lists in Ethn. Ber. and Von Oppenheim’s in Vom Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf). In Ḥarran the dog, and among the Arabs the rock-badger, were regarded as the brothers of man (Kinship, 201, 204). The totems are most frequently wild animals, for totemism is characteristic of the hunting stage of human life; and nothing does more to break it up than the adoption of pastoral habits along with the notions which these suggest of the kinship of man with his milk-giving beasts through fosterage. But primitively the domestic animals may also have been totems till higher ideas of divinity became attached to them. ‘In almost all ancient nations in the pastoral and agricultural stage the chief associations of the great deities are with the milk-giving animals; and it is these animals, the ox, the sheep, the goat, or in Arabia the camel, that appear as victims in the public and national worship.’ The gods grew out of and replaced the animal demons (Rel. Sem., 336 f.; cp. 129 f.). But the older ideas survived, as is seen from their recrudescence in Syria, in the 8th and 7th centt., when the national and tribal faiths were broken up. The sacredness imputed to all these animals would affect the use of them in different and opposite ways. It would compel abstention from them as common food, but it would also be the motive of their sacramental use upon solemn occasions, when by partaking of its flesh the tribesmen entered into communion with their totem. Tribes uniting with each other would respect the sacredness of their respective totems and thus alter or modify their own food customs. Or again the totem of their enemies might be solemnly slaughtered and eaten by a tribe as if to absorb the qualities of that beast or to signify the destruction of its human kin (Stade, Gesch. Isr., i. 485). Or again totems might be used medicinally. We cannot limit the directions in which the easily startled mind of primitive man will spring under fear, or hate, or hope, or some other passion. No wonder, then, that Stade (loc. cit.) describes all prohibitions of foods as going back to totemism. W. R. Smith (Kinship, 310) adds this argument: ‘that the Hebrew list of forbidden foods is largely made up of the names of creatures that there could be no temptation to eat under ordinary circumstances, is naturally explained by the theory just put forward.’
These general conclusions are, however, precarious. It cannot be proved that every animal unclean to Israel was, or had been, a totem of one of their own tribes or of an alien people. The hare does not appear as such, but on the contrary was believed by the Arabs to be avoided by all demons or jinns (Rel. Sem., 122 n. 1; cp. Jacob, Altarab. Beduinenleben, 20). Probably for that very reason, the use of its head or of one of its bones as an amulet was both ancient and widespread among the Arabs. Arabs also use as medicine one of the birds unclean to Israel, the rakhim or carrion-vulture (Deu_14:17), as well as parts of serpents (Musil, Ethn. Ber. , 19, 151). Yet the fact that all the unclean birds on the Hebrew lists are carrion-feeders leaves it as possible that the prohibition of them was due to the natural disgust they created as that it was due to their being, or to their having once been, the totems of Israelite or other clans. If the absence of any natural temptation to eat them is a reason for seeking a totemistic explanation of their unlawfulness as food, why are the beasts of prey not also detailed by name?
Above all the advocates of a totemistic explanation of the distinction between clean and unclean flesh-foods take no notice of certain other influences which must have disturbed and altered any system of foods based upon totemism. One of these was the frequency of famine as the result either of war or of natural causes. Deprived of their usual and sacred foods tribes would be forced to experiment with kinds of flesh which for one reason or another they had hitherto scrupulously avoided. In famine-cursed Arabia this may have been the origin of the eating of lizards and serpents. Nor can we ignore the common, everyday sagacity of men, always more or less sharpened by the struggle for the means of living. And, besides, there was the moral sense which we have already (in connection with the sacrifice of children) found operative even among the heathen Semites. If excesses in eating or in drinking, or sexual abuses, were developed in connection with rites, whose centre was the enjoyment of the flesh of a particular animal, there may well have been a revolt against the use of that flesh either ordinarily or as a sacrament.
Obviously, then, it is injudicious to allow to totemism more than a contributory part in the formation of those customs in the use of flesh-foods which prevailed throughout the Semitic world. Baldensperger’s description of the distinctions in eating wild beasts and birds observed by the present natives of Palestine implies that these are due to several factors:—tradition, observation of what the beasts and birds eat, and natural disgust at the propensities of some to carrion; but the general rules are evaded by fictitious excuses, and in particular birds regarded as ‘unclean’ will be eaten when accidentally killed (PEF, 1905, 120).
Probably all the causes suggested had something to do with the complex and varying results. Both physical and religious motives were at work; and the latter must have often been suggested by the former. As we have seen the strangeness or the repulsive appearance of an animal or the sickness which followed the eating of its flesh would inevitably start the belief that a demoniac power was present in the animal. In the case of animals adopted as totems other ideas were operative. Where the animal gave milk the sense of blood-kinship came naturally to the tribe living on its milk. Where a beast or bird of prey was adopted as the totem we can guess at the cause in some imagined friendliness on its part, or the wearing of its skin, or some human resemblance in its features, or some weird pride in imitating its habits or in likening its strength to one’s own. The effects of totemism on the tribe’s food-customs may be inferred with greater certainty; but as we have seen they are variable, opposite and even contradictory. And again all such religious and totemistic practices would be crossed and warped both by natural and by historical events; by the stress of famine and the outbreak of plague, or by migration and the alliances and amalgamations of tribes with different totems. For it is only by so complex a variety of influences, both within totemism and acting upon it, that we can account for what seem to be the arbitrary and inconsistent features in the various Semitic systems of the distinction of foods into clean and unclean. We cannot forget that through all the complexity of religious and social customs there must have been constantly operative the practical need of proving what beasts, birds and fishes were good for food and what were deleterious. Only thus can we explain the adoption of fish as food by tribes to which fish had been at first abhorrent. The simple rule to eat what was good for food is remembered in J as primitive and was no doubt always at work. It would require merely another of those religious fictions, in which Semitic societies were expert, to reconcile the happy experience of some new form of food with the religious system under which it had previously been forbidden.
That all such influences had also once affected the tribes which united to form Israel is certain. Even under the written Law Israel’s system of clean and unclean foods remains too similar to the customs of other Semites to leave us in doubt upon that point. But within historical times some of the influences had ceased to act directly on Israel and others came into operation. At the beginning of their history the Hebrews were out of the hunter stage of life and into the pastoral. Totemism, replaced by higher forms of religion, had disappeared or was confined to obscure portions of the people (note, however, as a survival to the days of Hezekiah the Neḥushtan or brazen serpent in the Temple). Food-customs springing from totemism or similar superstitions remained after their origin was forgotten. With the people’s settlement on more fertile lands the ox became, in addition to the goat and sheep, a domestic animal; and the sacredness of the relation of all three to the people is obvious from the fact that they could be eaten only sacramentally. On the other hand, Israel’s free use of certain wild animals may have been determined by the fact that like the domestic animals these ate of herbage only, while as they stood in no sacred relation to the people they might be slain and eaten without sacrifice. The people’s original unfamiliarity with the camel, joined it may be with the fact that it was sacred to foreigners, is a sufficient reason for considering its flesh as unclean. Further effects of their settlement are seen in the differences between others of their food-customs and those of the desert Arabs. They shared that aversion to wild boars and reptiles which (as we have seen) still distinguishes the fellaḥin from the nomads. Whatever may have been their original feelings as to fish, they ate fish in Palestine as freely as the Arabs begin to do after settlement in Moab or Gilead. That they ruled out eels and lampreys, the former with very minute scales the latter with none, is intelligible enough, since in shape these resemble serpents. They abstained from birds which feed on carrion and from loathsome wild animals; but whether the motive to this abstention was solely one of disgust or was due as well to the fact that these animals were sacred to other tribes is a point on which we have not enough evidence. On insects and reptiles Deu_14:9 f. is vague, locusts may or may not be forbidden by it; but H, Lev_11:20-23, defines what locusts may be eaten, and in a Priestly addition to H, Lev_11:2 ff., there are more detailed directions as to unclean beasts. Such differences imply a growth in the customs of Israel, especially with regard to animals on the line of separation and difficult to distinguish in their structure from each other. That the weasel (or rat?) and the mouse, while not mentioned in Deut., are expressly forbidden in Lev_11:29, may be due to the recrudescence in the 6th cent. of those rites in which their flesh was sacramentally enjoyed (see above); but more, probably we owe it to the scribes’ increasing love of detail, since Deuteronomy 14 is itself subsequent to the 7th cent.
We cannot doubt that the higher ethical spirit which distinguishes Israel from their Semitic kinsfolk, even from the earliest times, had some influence on the people’s practice with regard to foods, especially by disciplining the appetite. But of this there are no marks in the written law. There the determining factor is holiness, i.e. ritual separation to Jehovah. Of course from this there followed those ethical effects to which sufficient allusion has been made above.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (3) Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.—That is,…
(3) Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.—That is, anything which Jehovah has pronounced abominable. The distinctions between His creatures were alike established and removed by the Creator. Yet, no doubt, they had also a sanitary purpose in relation to the chosen people.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Any abominable thing. Any abomination, i.e. anything which is…
Any abominable thing. Any abomination, i.e. anything which is an abomination to the Lord, having been by him pronounced unclean and forbidden; "anything which I have put far away from you (i.e. made to be abominable to you)" (Targum Jonath.). "Every creature of God is good," and "there is nothing unclean of itself" (1Ti_4:4; Rom_14:14) "but by the ordinance of God, certain creatures, meats, and drinks were made unclean to the Jews... and this taught them holiness in abstaining from the impure communion with the wicked" (Ainsworth).
Vers. 3-20. The people of God at their own table.
Read full note →
However far these minute regulations may seem at first from being appropriate themes for homiletic teaching, a closer study of them may show that they contain an amount of instruction which we could ill afford to lose. There are two principles, not infrequently noted, that should be brought to bear on this and other chapters which contain regulations that may be entirely unneeded now. One is, that associations of evil may make a custom prejudicial which is in itself harmless; another, that great reasons underlying small actions may lift up action to the height of the reason which prompted it. If, indeed, there should be some of these minute instructions for which we now see no reason, it would be no great tax on one"s understanding, were we asked to give credit to so great a legislator as Moses for having had a good reason for them, although it may not be in force at the present time. Still, we are not altogether in the dark as to some reasons which might then be of great weight for the observance of the distinction between clean and unclean meats. Trapp suggests as reasons:
(1) that they might recognize God"s hand in the supply, and God"s law in the use, of their meats;
(2) that there might be a distinction between them and other peoples:
(3) that they might be taught to study purity. Dr. Jameson suggests also sanitary reasons. We would venture to include these, with others, under seven heads.
1. The Israelites were the children of the Lord their God, and that special relationship was to show itself in the sober, pure, and devout regulation of the several customs at the family table.
2. There was to be a separation between them and other nations; and a more effective barrier to intercourse could scarcely be found than one which made association at the same table all but impossible.
3. They were to learn that even the common business of eating was to be governed by holy laws.
4. Thus, by minute obedience to precept, they were to be indoctrinated into the principles of holiness.
5. Their social board was to be a standing protest against idolatrous customs; and also.
6. A perpetual rebuke of impurity and of any infringement of sanitary law. Let no one, then, think of this distinction between clean and unclean meats as a trifling one. Nothing trifling which helps on the education of souls for God.
7. When, moreover, we glance at the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we cannot but regard these regulations as also symbolic. This distinction in the lower orders of creation" between clean and unclean, symbolized the difference between Israel and the nations from whom they were to dissociate themselves. The mass of the people may not have comprehended this. They were gradually led to understand doctrine by way of obedience to precept.
But, it may be asked, "What has all this to do with Christians now?" We reply, "Little or nothing, so far as these special details are concerned, but much every way, so far as we have to do with the principles which underlie these details." That so far as details go, the Law is done away, is understood. The symbolic meaning is no longer in force, hence the symbol is needed no longer. From the yoke of these forms we are emancipated. (cf. Ac 10; 1Co_10:24-31 Ro 14; 1Ti_4:3-5) But still, there is an analogy, of which it would ill become us to lose sight, between the position of Israel then, and the duty of God"s Israel now. Supposing now we were asked, "In what way does the gospel teach us the duty of God"s people at their own family table?" we might suggest six or seven consecutive lines of thought.
I The Christian is to be, in spirit, as distinct from the world as Israel was from the nations round about. It is not intended by this that, in the ordinary walks of life, a Christian may not act with ungodly men; for in such a case, as Paul teaches, he must needs go out of the world to be free from them. (cf. 1Co 5) But in his own voluntary association, he is not to be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers;" the gospel mandate is, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.
II The Christian, being a redeemed man, by the fact of that redemption is claimed for Christ alone. "Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body and your spirit, which are God"s." "We are the Lord"s." Our body, soul, and spirit are entirely his. The claim of Jesus Christ over us is that he shall govern the whole of us, always and everywhere.
III Hence, loyalty to Christ, and the conservation of our whole life for him, is to regulate every detail of our life, work, walk, and conversation. So the apostle shows in Ro 14 that, e.g. in the tiny matter of "eating herbs," the Lordship of Christ is to be the supreme regulator of religious conviction.
IV Nowhere is this scrupulousness in loyalty to be more exact than in the regulation of our own table. It is at their own board that some strive to make the greatest display, or to pamper their bodies with a superabundance of luxuries. But both "the lust of the flesh" and "the pride of life" are declared to be "not of the Father, but of the world." Hence they can have no place in a consistent believer"s home life.
V A Christian man is bound, not only for Christ"s sake, but for his family"s sake, to cultivate only such associations as will help to make or maintain the purity, piety, and Christian elevation of his home. If he seeks the associations of the wealthy or great, regardless of their religious views or habits, he is exposing his own consistency and his children"s weal to very serious risk.
VI The entire concern of eating and drinking is to be regulated by Christian principle. No doubt with many, without thinking on the matter, sound feeling and common sense keep them from going very far wrong, and perhaps even from going wrong at all. Still, the surest way of keeping right in little things is to recognize fully and clearly the true and proper motive which should impel, even in the trivialities of life.
VII So also it may be that high and holy principle may lead a believer, without laying down a hard-and-fast line for all, to practice abstinence from this or that, out of regard to the well-being of others, or to practice seasons of occasional fasting when preparing for special service. (cf. Rom_14:21; 1Co_8:13)
VIII There is one grand rule given by the Apostle Paul, covering the whole ground, appropriate to all occasions. (1Co_10:31) On referring to that verse, its force will be seen to be this: "You will find many occasions in your walks through life in which it may not at first be clearly manifest to you what course you should adopt. I cannot lay down separate rules for every possible case. Take this as a comprehensive, sufficient rule, at all times, and everywhere, "Whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God. And if we resolve to do only that which will most honor God, and seek grace from above to carry out our resolve, we cannot go far wrong. We shall not be unwise, but shall "prove what the will of the Lord is." We shall be "sincere and without offence till the day of Christ," to the glory of our Lord and Savior.
Vers. 3-21. Clean and unclean.
The distinction of clean and unclean appears to have rested
I ON NATURAL GROUNDS. It is based to some extent on natural preferences and repugnances an index, often, to deeper correlations. We instinctively recognize certain creatures to be unfit for food. The Law of Moses drew the line practically where men"s unguided instincts have always drawn it. A lesson of respect for natural order. In diet, as in higher matters, we do well to follow Nature"s guidance, avoiding violations of her laws, and refraining from obliterating her distinctions.
II ON CEREMONIAL GROUNDS. The prohibition against eating of blood had consequences in the region of cleanness and uncleanness of food. All flesh-eating and blood-eating animals all beasts and birds of prey were of necessity excluded. Ceremonially unclean themselves, they could not be clean to those eating them.
III ON SYMBOLIC GROUNDS. The symbolic traits observable in certain animals may have had to do with their rejection. We can see reason in the exclusion of creatures of cruel and rapacious habits, of those also in whose dispositions we trace a reflection of the human vices. It may be pushing the principle too far to seek recondite meanings in the chewing of the and (meditation) and the dividing of the hoof (separation of walk), or in the possession of fins and scales in fishes (organs of advance and resistance). But a Law impregnated with symbolism could scarcely reckon as clean a filthy and repulsive creature like the sow. The accursed serpent, the treacherous fox, the ravenous jackal, even had they been suitable for food in other respects, could scarcely on this principle have been admitted. The reptile tribes generally, and all tribes of vermin, were similarly unclean by a kind of natural brand. A lesson of seeing in the natural a symbol of the moral. Nature is a symbolic lesson-book, daily open to our inspection.
The distinction once ordained, and invested with religious significance, observance of it became to the Jews a sign and test of holiness. The general lesson taught is that of sanctification in the use of food. Holiness, indeed, is to be carried into every sphere and act of life. Eating, however, is an act which, though on its animal side related to the grossest part of us, is yet, on its spiritual side, of serious religious import. It is the act by which we supply oil to the flame of life. It has to do with the maintenance of those vital functions by which we are enabled to glorify God in the body. There is thus a natural sacredness about food, and it is to be received and used in a sacred fashion. That it may be "clean" to us, it is to be "sanctified by the Word of God and prayer," being "received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth". (1Ti_4:3-5) It is to be remembered, too, that in the sphere of the higher life, if not in the lower, clean and unclean are distinctions of abiding validity. Intellect, heart, spirit, etc. the books we read, the company we keep, the principles we imbibe. J.O.
Vers. 3-11. A holy people will eat sanctified things.
The regulation of the diet of the children of Israel was most important in view of their remaining a "peculiar people" unto God. In no way half so effectual could they, as a nation, be kept distinct from other nations, with whom it was undesirable on religious grounds that they should associate. By interdicting some of the animals used by surrounding and heathen nations, the Lord, as far as possible, prevented Israel"s association with them. To this they had been accustomed in Egypt; for some of the animals they, as Israelites, would eat were regarded as sacred by the Egyptians, and on no account would be slain or eaten by them. Hence the slaves had never commingled with their taskmasters. The two rivers would not coalesce. The Canaanites and Phoenicians, again, ate freely of flesh that the Hebrew dare not touch; and even the Arab would eat such animals as the camel, the hare, and the jerboa, all of which the latter translated mouse were for-hidden to the children of Israel.
I THE REGULATION OF MEATS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT WAY OF SEPARATING ONE NATION FROM ALL OTHER NATIONS. For if association at table is an impossibility, all other association will be very superficial and comparatively harmless. "Nothing more effectual," says Dr. Kitto, "could be devised to keep one people distinct from another. It causes the difference between them to be ever present to the mind, touching, as it does, upon so many points of social and everyday contact; and it is therefore far more efficient in its results, as a rule of distinction, than any difference in doctrine, worship, or morals which men could entertain It is a mutual repulsion continually operating; and its effect may be estimated from the fact that no nation in which a distinction of meats was rigidly enforced as a part of a religious system, has ever changed its religion." And we are surely taught the wisdom of expedients to keep up the desirable separation between the Church and the world. If every religious custom were abandoned, and the conduct of religious people were conformed in all particulars to that of their worldly neighbors, religion would soon become a name, and nothing more. "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind". (Rom_12:2)
II THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ANIMALS SYMBOLIZED THE DISTINCTION WHICH SHOULD EXIST BETWEEN GOD"S PEOPLE AND THE WORLD. An excellent writer has suggested that in individual development we pass through the stages attributed to the organic world as a whole; children, for example, passing, through the "parrot" or the "monkey" stage. "Animated nature" seems designed to mirror human nature," whether in its evil or in its good propensities: Man finds himself in the image of the lower animals as well as, on his higher side, in the image of God. In conformity with this arrangement, then, the Jew was trained to regard certain animals as clean and edible, while others were unclean and forbidden. Towards the one class he was drawn, from the other he was repelled. Now, in the clean animals may be discovered certain good qualities, which make them fit illustrations of the moralities expected from an Israelite. For example, the characteristic of rumination, which belonged to the clean animals, was a fit type of that thoughtfulness and quiet meditation which should characterize the people of God. Again, sure-footedness characterizes the animals with the cloven hoof, which symbolizes the steadfastness of religious character. Speed and cleanliness also characterize the fishes that were accounted clean.
On the other hand, the unclean beasts, birds, and fish illustrate most powerfully the lustful, selfish, and impure spirit which characterizes unregenerate man. Not only, therefore, did the distinction among the animals secure the desired national separation, but also that poetic outlook upon nature which discovers in it a great parable for the soul. Thus Emerson says, "Every rational creature has all nature for his dowry and estate. It is his, if he will He may divest himself of it; he may creep into a corner and abdicate his kingdom, as most men do, but he is entitled to the world by his constitution. In proportion to the energy of his thought and will, he takes up the world unto himself." What a richness of thought is thus afforded to the thoughtful soul!
III THAT WHICH DIED OF ITSELF WAS ALSO EXCLUDED FROM THE DIET OF ISRAEL. In such a case there was no guarantee that the blood had been properly drained from the carcass, and that the atoning element had been solemnly eliminated from it. In fact, in such cases there is not the sacrifice of life which we have seen to obtain in the normal sustenance of the world. God"s people consequently must avoid all contact with death, and keep themselves pure unto him. And this arrangement surely symbolized that watchfulness over our contact with the world, which should characterize all professors of religion. We must "keep our garments unspotted from the world," we must even in certain critical times "let the dead bury their dead," and deny ourselves that intercourse with the spiritually dead which otherwise might be most proper.
IV A KID WAS NOT TO BE SEETHED IN HIS MOTHER"S MILK. A quotation from an old writer will best improve this commandment. This is not the meaning of the command, Content yourselves to eat the kid, but take heed that ye eat not the dam also; neither is this the meaning of it, Ye shall not cat flesh with milk, as the Chaldee paraphrast paraphraseth it; neither is this the meaning of it, Take heed that ye seethe not the kid in the mother"s milk, as the superstitious Jews expound it at this day; they will not seethe flesh and milk in one pot, neither will they cut both flesh and cheese with one knife; and amongst the precepts which they have written of things lawful to be eaten, they forbid the eating of flesh and milk together; but the meaning of the place seemeth to be this, Ye shall not eat of a kid as of a lamb (for so the LXX translate it) so long as it sucketh the dam, for all this time it is as it were but milk; they might sacrifice it when it was but eight days old, but not to eat of it so long as it was sucking. (1Sa_7:9) "Samuel took a sucking lamb and offered. This would consequently form a ceremonial appendix to the sixth commandment, and would teach that abstinence from the semblance of cruelty which should characterize the people of the Lord. In accepting of God"s bounty in the matter of flesh, care should be taken that no unnatural cruelty should be practiced or encouraged.
The sanctified ones are thus taught to keep themselves separate from the world, to regard nature as a great parable for the soul, and to conduct themselves in that considerate spirit which should characterize the disciples of Jesus. R.M.E.
Vers. 3-21. Discrimination in meats.
The prohibition of some kinds of food proceeds upon the principle that it is not wise to gratify every appetite. There must be denial somewhere. If every desire and lust of the body be indulged, injury will ensue to the nobler capacities of the soul. Pruning of the wild growths of carnal desire is essential to real fruitfulness. Divine restraints are acts of genuine kindness. Discrimination in animal food was based on true wisdom.
I BECAUSE IT WAS A SANITARY BENEFIT. In that early age, the sciences of physiology and health were unknown, and even now they are in their earliest infancy. We are, however, now aware of the fact that some (at least) of the flesh prohibited to the Hebrews is more or less unwholesome. Nor is it improbable that in that Eastern climate some flesh is more unwholesome for food than in our own land. As a father cares for the health of his child, so God cared for every part of Israel"s well-being. Nothing escapes God"s attention. "The Lord is for the body." With infinite tenderness, God legislated for the meals of the Hebrews, and gave them the advantage of his unerring judgment.
II BECAUSE PARTIAL ABSTINENCE WAS SALUTARY FOR THE SOUL.
1. It taught them that fleshly appetite was not to be gratified for its own sake not for mere pleasure. To strengthen and broaden the desires of the mind is an advantage in itself; but, excessive strength of bodily appetite is an evil, an injury to the real man. The lesson requires to be early learnt, that our nature requires government, that our highest good can be reached only by self-restraint and self-mortification. Bodily desires and inclinations are designed to be servants, not masters.
2. It exercised them in practical self-denial. The noblest qualities of human character are acquired only by personal discipline. Some parts of our nature have to be repressed; some have to be stimulated. The fleshly propensities have always been unfriendly to the spirit"s life. It is a lesson hard to be learnt, to forego lesser enjoyments for remote advantages. The favor and society of God amply recompense for all minor pains.
3. The general rule of action was typical of higher truths. All such animals might be eaten as "parted the hoof, and chewed the cud." There was, doubtless, a reason for this permission arising out of the constituent nature of the flesh. But spiritual lessons also were suggested, viz. that to be acceptable for God"s service there must be with us mental digestion of his truth, and there must also be practical circumspection in our dally walk a separation from worldly contamination.
III BECAUSE THIS DISCRIMINATION IN MEATS WOULD CONSTITUTE A VISIBLE PARTITION FROM THE HEATHEN. To bring to a successful issue the Divine purposes in the Hebrew race, it was incumbent to maintain broad distinctions between them and the heathen round about. They lived a coarser and more animal life. Animal passions were fostered by the glutting of the appetites. Some of the animals denied as food to the Jews were used by the heathen for divination; therefore it was safest to label such animals and birds as an abomination. A wise captain will give to a sunken reef a wide berth. Further, these differences in social customs and domestic habits would serve as perpetual barriers against intermarriages with neighboring tribes. This might appear unsocial and exclusive. But lesser good has to be sacrificed for loftier and eternal blessing. To every quibble of human reason it is surely enough to reply, "God knows best." This proscription of some kinds of food applied to the Jews only. They might supply to strangers among them food which they were forbidden to eat themselves. Thus a practical lesson was taught them that they were to be pre-eminently holy. The moral attainments of others were not to be the standards by which they should measure conduct. More plainly than speech did such prohibition say, "Be not conformed to the world." What it is allowable for others to do, may be sin for me to practice.
IV BECAUSE THIS ARRANGEMENT SERVED FOR THE DALLY DISCIPLINE OF FAITH. Of the first importance was it that the faith of the Hebrews should be maintained, and that their faith should be practically displayed. Very clearly God had assured them that this was his will concerning them; and, whether any reason appeared for the demand or not, as his acknowledged servants they were bound to obey. Such a requirement had some correspondence with the test imposed on our first parents. The act forbidden might be in itself indifferent having no moral character. Apart from the command, they might have eaten, or abstained from eating, without any violation of conscience. This would make the matter a better test of obedience. In abstaining from such and such meat, they did no one wrong; they violated no law of nature, no law of God: they did themselves no injury. They still had enough to meet all the necessities of hunger. Here, then, was a true test whether men would simply obey God"s word, even though obedience should mean privation. This was the discipline of faith. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 You must not eat any abominable thing
You must not eat any abominable thing
The people of Israel were not supposed to eat anything that God said was unfit for eating.
Read full note →
the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck
These are all types of deer. If your language does not have a word for each animal it can be translated as "all kinds of deer."
the gazelle
This is wild animal with long thin legs that can run quickly. See how you translated this in Deuteronomy 12:15.
the roebuck
a type of deer (See: Translate Unknowns)
ibex, and the antelope
Both of these are types of antelope. If your language does not have a word for each animal it can be translated as "all kinds of antelope."
ibex
a type of antelope (See: Translate Unknowns)
translationWords
cow
ewe
goat
deer
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.