Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them,
Parallel Translations
-
Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them,
-
And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
-
And the LORD spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them:
Cross-references
No cross-references for this verse.
Explain this verse (23 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 Lev 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and…
Lev 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Ver. 1. Unto Moses and to Aaron.] Magistrate and minister must jointly see that God’s laws be duly executed. Queen Elizabeth once in her progress visiting the county of Suffolk, all the justices of peace in that county met her majesty; having every one his minister next to his body; which the queen took special notice of, and thereupon uttered this speech, that she had often demanded of her Privy Council why her county of Suffolk was better governed than any other county, and could never understand the reason thereof, but now she herself perceived the reason. It must needs be so, said she, where Moses and Aaron, the word and the sword, go together.
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 The Lord spake to both Moses and Aaron, because…
The Lord spake to both Moses and Aaron, because the cognizance of the following matters belonged to both; the priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed where any doubt or difficulty arose, and the magistrate was to see the direction here given followed.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Now that Aaron was consecrated a high priest over…
Now that Aaron was consecrated a high priest over the house of God, God spoke to him with Moses, and appointed them both as joint-commissioners to deliver his will to the people. He spoke both to Moses and to Aaron about this matter; for it was particularly required of the priests that they should put a difference between clean and unclean, and teach the people to do so. After the flood, when God entered into covenant with Noah and his sons, he allowed them to eat flesh (Gen 9:13), whereas before they were confined to the productions of the earth. But the liberty allowed to the sons of Noah is here limited to the sons of Israel. They might eat flesh, but not all kinds of flesh; some they must look upon as unclean and forbidden to them, others as clean and allowed them. The law in this matter is both very particular and very strict. But what reason can be given for this law? Why may not God's people have as free a use of all the creatures as other people? 1. It is reason enough that God would have it so: his will, as it is law sufficient, so it is reason sufficient; for his will is his wisdom. He saw good thus to try and exercise the obedience of his people, not only in the solemnities of his altar, but in matters of daily occurrence at their own table, that they might remember they were under authority. Thus God had tried the obedience of man in innocency, by forbidding him to eat of one particular tree. 2. Most of the meats forbidden as unclean are such as were really unwholesome, and not fit to be eaten; and those of them that we think wholesome enough, and use accordingly, as the rabbit, the hare, and the swine, perhaps in those countries, and to their bodies, might be hurtful. And then God in this law did by them but as a wise and loving father does by his children, whom he restrains from eating that which he knows will make them sick. Note, The Lord is for the body, and it is not only folly, but sin against God, to prejudice our health for the pleasing of our appetite. 3. God would thus teach his people to distinguish themselves from other people, not only in their religious worship, but in the common actions of life. Thus he would show them that they must not be numbered among the nations. It should seem there had been, before this, some difference between the Hebrews and other nations in their food, kept up by tradition; for the Egyptians and they would not eat together, Gen 43:32. And even before the flood there was a distinction of beasts into clean and not clean (Gen 7:2), which distinction was quite lost, with many other instances of religion, among the Gentiles. But by this law it is reduced to a certainty, and ordered to be kept up among the Jews, that thus, by having a diet peculiar to themselves, they might be kept from familiar conversation with their idolatrous neighbours, and might typify God's spiritual Israel, who not in these little things, but in the temper of their spirits, and the course of their lives, should be governed by a sober singularity, and not be conformed to this world. The learned observe further, That most of the creatures which by this law were to be abominated as unclean were such as were had in high veneration among the heathen, not so much for food as for divination and sacrifice to their gods; and therefore those are here mentioned as unclean, and an abomination, which yet they would not be in any temptation to eat, that they might keep up a religious loathing of that for which the Gentiles had a superstitious value. The swine, with the later Gentiles, was sacred to Venus, the owl to Minerva, the eagle to Jupiter, the dog to Hecate, etc., and all these are here made unclean. As to the beasts, there is a general rule laid down, that those which both part the hoof and chew the cud were clean, and those only: these are particularly mentioned in the repetition of this law (Deu 14:4, Deu 14:5), where it appears that the Israelites had variety enough allowed them, and needed not to complain of the confinement they were under. Those beasts that did not both chew the cud and divide the hoof were unclean, by which rule the flesh of swine, and of hares, and of rabbits, was prohibited to them, though commonly used among us. Therefore, particularly at the eating of any of these, we should give thanks for the liberty granted us in this matter by the gospel, which teaches us that every creature of God is good, and we are to call nothing common or unclean. Some observe a significancy in the rule here laid down for them to distinguish by, or at least think it may be alluded to. Meditation, and other acts of devotion done by the hidden man of the heart, may be signified by the chewing of the cud, digesting our spiritual food; justice and charity towards men, and the acts of a good conversation, may be signified by the dividing of the hoof. Now either of these without the other will not serve to recommend us to God, but both must go together, good affections in the heart and good works in the life: if either be wanting, we are not clean, surely we are not clean. Of all the creatures here forbidden as unclean, none has been more dreaded and detested by the pious Jews than swine's flesh. Many were put to death by Antiochus because they would not eat it. This, probably, they were most in danger of being tempted to, and therefore possessed themselves and their children with a particular antipathy to it, calling it not by its proper name, but a strange thing. It should seem the Gentiles used it superstitiously (Isa 65:4), they eat swine's flesh; and therefore God forbids all use of it to his people, lest they should learn of their neighbours to make that ill use of it. Some suggest that the prohibition of these beasts as unclean was intended to be a caution to the people against the bad qualities of these creatures. We must not be filthy nor wallow in the mire as swine, nor be timorous and faint-hearted as hares, nor dwell in the earth as rabbits; let not man that is in honour make himself like these beasts that perish. The law forbade, not only the eating of them, but the very touching of them; for those that would be kept from any sin must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, and every thing that looks towards it or leads to it.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the Lord spake unto Moses, and unto Aaron,....…
And the Lord spake unto Moses, and unto Aaron,.... The one being the chief magistrate, and the other the high priest, and both concerned to see the following laws put into execution; according to Jarchi, the Lord spoke to Moses that he might speak to Aaron; but being now in office, and one part of his office being to distinguish between clean and unclean, the following discourse is directed equally to him as to Moses:
saying unto them; as follows.
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 Of clean and unclean beasts, ver. 1-8. Fishes, ver.…
Of clean and unclean beasts, ver. 1-8. Fishes, ver. 9-12. Fowls, ver. 13-19. Creeping things whether flying, ver. 20-28. or creeping upon the earth, ver. 29-43. An exhortation to holiness, ver. 44, 45. The conclusion, ver. 46, 47.
From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belong to all the people. God spake to both of them, because the cognizance of the following matters belonged to both: the priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, where any doubt or difficulty arose; and the magistrate was to see the direction followed.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Laws concerning clean and unclean animals, 1, 2.
CHAPTER XI
Laws concerning clean and unclean animals, 1, 2.
Read full note →
Of QUADRUPEDS, those are clean which divide the hoof and
chew the cud, 3.
Those to be reputed unclean which do not divide the hoof,
though they chew the cud, 4-6.
Those to be reputed unclean also which, though they divide the
hoof, do not chew the cud, 7.
Whosoever eats their flesh, or touches their carcasses, shall
be reputed unclean, 8.
Of FISH, those are clean, and may be eaten which have fins and
scales, 9.
Those which have not fins and scales to be reputed unclean,
10-12.
Of FOWLS, those which are unclean, 13-21.
Of INSECTS, the following may be eaten: the bald locust,
beetle, and grasshopper, 22.
All others are unclean and abominable, their flesh not to be
eaten, nor their bodies touched, 23-25.
Farther directions relative to unclean beasts, 26-28.
Of REPTILES, and some small quadrupeds, those which are
unclean, 29, 39.
All that touch them shall be unclean, 31;
and the things touched by their dead carcasses are unclean
also, 32-35.
Large fountains, or pits of water, are not defiled by their
carcasses, provided a part of the water be drawn out, 36.
Nor do they defile seed by accidentally touching it, provided
the water which has touched their flesh do not touch or moisten
the seed, 37, 38.
A beast that dieth of itself is unclean, and may not be touched
or eaten, 39, 40.
All creeping things are abominable, 41-44.
The reason given for these laws, 45-47.
NOTES ON CHAP. XI
Verse 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses] In the preceding chapter the priests are expressly forbidden to drink wine; and the reason for this law is given also, that they might be able at all times to distinguish between clean and unclean, and be qualified to teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord had spoken, Le 10:10-11; for as inebriation unfits a person for the regular performance of every function of life, it must be especially sinful in those who minister in holy things, and to whom the teaching of the ignorant, and the cure of souls in general, are intrusted.
Scheuchzer has remarked that no Christian state has made any civil law against drunkenness, (he must only mean the German states, for we have several acts of parliament against it in England,) and that it is only punished by contempt. "Custom," says he, "that tyrant of the human race, not only permits it, but in some sort authorizes the practice, insomuch that we see priests and ministers of the Church ascend the pulpit in a state of intoxication, judges seat themselves upon the benches, physicians attend their patients, and others attempt to perform the different avocations of life, in the same disgraceful state." - Physic. Sacr., vol. iii., p. 64.
This is a horrible picture of German manners; and while we deplore the extensive ravages made by this vice, and the disgrace with which its votaries are overwhelmed, we have reason to thank God that it very rarely has ever appeared in the pulpit, and perhaps was never once seen upon the bench, in our own country.
Having delivered the law against drinking wine, Moses proceeds to deliver a series of ordinances, all well calculated to prevent the Israelites from mixing with the surrounding nations, and consequently from being contaminated by their idolatry. In chap. xi. he treats of unclean MEATS. In chap. xii., xiii., xiv., and xv., he treats of unclean PERSONS, GARMENTS, and DWELLINGS. In chap. xvi. he treats of the uncleanness of the PRIESTS and the PEOPLE, and prescribes the proper expiations and sacrifices for both. In chap. xvii. he continues the subject, and gives particular directions concerning the mode of offering, c. In chap. xviii. he treats of unclean matrimonial connections. In chap. xix. he repeats sundry laws relative to these subjects, and introduces some new ones. In chap. xx. he mentions certain uncleannesses practised among the idolatrous nations, and prohibits them on pain of death. In chap. xxi. he treats of the mourning, marriages, and personal defects of the priests, which rendered them unclean. And in chap. xxii. he speaks of unclean sacrifices, or such as should not be offered to the Lord. After this, to the close of the book, many important and excellent political and domestic regulations are enjoined, the whole forming an eccleslastico-political system superior to any thing the world ever saw.
Bishop Wilson very properly observes that, "by these laws of clean and unclean animals, &c., God did keep this people separated from the idolatrous world: and this is a standing proof, even to the present day, of the Divine authority of these Scriptures for no power or art of man could have obliged so great and turbulent a nation to submit to such troublesome precepts as the Jews always have submitted to, had they not been fully convinced, from the very first, that the command was from God, and that it was to be obeyed at the peril of their souls."
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Lev 11:1. The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron…
Lev 11:1. The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron — This charge is given to them jointly; to the one, as chief governor, and to the other, as high-priest; both being greatly concerned in the execution of it. The priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, and the magistrate was to see the direction followed.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Yahweh speaks to Moses and Aaron conjointly. (Compare Lev…
Yahweh speaks to Moses and Aaron conjointly. (Compare Lev 13:1; Lev 15:1.) The high priest, in regard to the legal purifications, is treated as co-ordinate with the legislator.
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 Aaron. God shews him this honour after his consecration,…
Aaron. God shews him this honour after his consecration, though not always. See chap. xii. and xvii., &c. (Worthington)
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).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain Laws of Clean and Unclean Food
FIRST SECTION
Laws of Clean and Unclean Food
Read full note →
“The Cleanness of the Sacrifice—or the Contrast of the Clean and Unclean Animals.”—Lange
Lev_11:1-47
1And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts [animals1] which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed [and completely separates the hoof2], and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5And the coney,3 because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed [and completely separates the hoof4], yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
59These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 612Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle,7 and the ossifrage,8 and the 14ospray,8 and the vulture, 9 and the kite10 after his kind; 11 15every raven after his kind; 16and the owl [ostrich12], and the night hawk [owl13], and the cuckow [gull14], and the hawk after his kind, 17and the little owl,15 and the cormorant, and the great 18owl,16 and the swan,17 and the pelican, and the gier eagle [vulture18], 19and the stork,19 the20 heron21 after her kind, and the lapwing [hoopoe22], and the bat.
20All11 fowls that creep [all winged creeping things23], going upon all four, shall bean abomination unto you. 21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have24 legs above their feet, to leap withal25 upon 22the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust26 after his kind, and the beetle26 after his kind, and the grasshopper after his 23kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. 24And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even. 25And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven footed, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them27 shall be unclean. 27And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts28 that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even. 28And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel,29 and the mouse, and the tortoise [the great lizard30] after his kind, 30and the ferret [gecko31], and the chameleon [strong lizard32], and the lizard [climbing lizard33], and the snail [lizard34], and the mole [chameleon35]. 31These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. 32And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel [thing36] of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel [thing35] it be, wherein [wherewith35] any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. 33And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it. 34Of all meat [food37] which may be eaten, that on which such [om. such38] water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be 35unclean. And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges39 for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. 36Nevertheless a fountain40 or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which41 toucheth their 37carcase shall be unclean. And if any part of their carcase fall upon any42 sowing 38seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean. But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you.
39And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof43 shall be unclean until the even. 40And he that eateth of the carcase of it42 shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it42 shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
41And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. 42Whatsoever goeth upon the belly,44 and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them 43ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall 44ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping 45thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the Lord45 that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
46This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast46 that may be eaten and the beast45 that may not be eaten.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev_11:2. הַחַיָּה is a different word from בְּהֵמָה in the following clause, and the difference should be recognized in the translation, as it is in the Semitic versions. The former is the more general term, the latter (comp. Gen_1:24) refers to the quadrupeds included in this section (Lev_11:1-8) in contradistinction from birds and reptiles.
Lev_11:3. וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע פְּרָסֹת. The idea is that of not merely partially (like the camel), but completely dividing the hoof. The Sam., LXX., Syr. and nine MSS. make this still more indefinite by inserting שְׁתִּי=two before the last word.
Lev_11:5. הַשָּׁפן. The animal is indicated here as one that chews the cud (or appears to do so), in Psa_104:18; Pro_30:26, as living in the rocks, and in the latter as being very weak. It occurs elsewhere only in the parallel place, Deu_14:7. Here the LXX. renders it δασύπους, Aq. λαγωός; in Deu_14:7, the LXX. has χοιρογρύλλιος=bristly animal, which is adopted by the Vulg. in both places. The Sam. translates it Vabr, the Hyrax Syriacus, which is said to be still called tsofun in Southern Arabia. First says: “The Targ. points to the same animal when it translates טַפְסָא ,טַוְזָא ,טַפְזָא (leaper) since the Vabr goes by leaps.” The Duke of Argyle (Reign of Law, p. 264) speaks of a specimen of it in the Zoological Gardens, and states that in the structure of the teeth and the foot it is assimilated to the rhinoceros. Cuvier classed it with the pachyderms. The Rabbins understood it to be a rabbit, and were followed by Luther and the A. V. in the old word Coney. Bochart (Hieroz. Lib. III., c. 33) understands it of the Jerboa or bear-mouse, and so Gesenius, Geddes and others. Although the word in the A. V. is certainly wrong, yet as it is obsolete, it seems unnecessary to make a change which could only be either to the Heb. word, or to the scientific name.
Lev_11:7. The construction is the same as in Lev_11:3. See note2.
Lev_11:9. The Sam., one MS., the LXX. and Syr. prefix the conjunction וְ.
Lev_11:12. The same, with fourteen MSS., here prefix the conjunction.
Lev_11:13. נֶשֶׁר is uniformly translated eagle in the A. V., ἀετός in the LXX., and aquila in the Vulg. Kalisch says this “is beyond a doubt.” The same meaning is given by Fürst and Gesenius, although both would include also the sense of vulture. Clark's proposed emendation, the great vulture, seems therefore unnecessary.
Lev_11:13. עָזְנִיָה פֶּרֶם. Both, by preponderance of authority, species of eagles, and the former sufficiently well described by ossifrage; the latter species is not certainly identified, the word occurring only here and in the parallel, Deu_14:12. The LXX. renders ἁλιαίετος=sea eagle, Fürst prefers Valeria, the black eagle. Kalisch prefers the sense vulture. Gesen. (Thesaur.), black eagle.
Lev_11:14. דָּאָה, a word, ἁπ. λεγ. In the parallel passage, Deu_14:13, it is רָאָה. Its etymology indicates a ravenous bird of swift flight. LXX. γύψ=vulture, Vulg. milvus=kite. Bochart considers it a species of hawk or falcon. So Kalisch. In Deu_14:13 there is mentioned also דִּיָה, making twenty-one varieties of birds; but that word in Deut. is omitted by the Sam. and four MSS.
Lev_11:14. אַיָּה is only to be identified by the fact that it here stands for the name of a class—after his Kind, and that in Job_28:7 it is spoken of for its great keenness of sight. The LXX. renders here kite, in Deut. and Job vulture. Clark makes it milvus regalis.
Lev_11:15 and Lev_11:20. The Sam., many MSS. and versions prefix the conjunction.
Lev_11:16. בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה. LXX. στρουθός. The word is uniformly rendered owl in the text of the A. V.; but in the marg. of Job_30:29; Isa_13:21; Isa_34:13; Isa_43:20, it is rendered ostrich in accordance with the Targ., LXX., Vulg. and Syr., and there can be no doubt that this is the true sense. The fem. stands for the bird collectively, of both sexes. Rosen.: “Vox, בַּת, apposita est ex more quodam Orientalium, qui nomina pater, mater, fuius, filia, animalium quoruneam nominibns præfigrere solent sine respectu ætatis et sexus.” Bochart, however, thinks it means distinctively the female.
Lev_11:16. תַּחְמָם (from חָמַם, to do violence), interpreted by Bochar., and others on his authority, of the male ostrich; but this is now generally rejected. The Targ. Onk. has צִיצָא, and Targ. Jerus. חַטְפִיתָא swallow. Others (Knobel) consider it the cuckoo; but the rendering of the LXX. and Vulg., owl, is now adopted more generally than any other.
Lev_11:16. שַׁחַף occurs only here and in Deu_14:15. Knobel understands it of a species of hawk trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, etc.; but most other interpreters understand it of a sea bird, whether the stormy petrel (Bochart) or more generally the sea gull alter the Vulg. and LXX. λάρος.
Lev_11:17. כּוֹם. There seems no sufficient reason to question the accuracy of the A. V., which is substantially that of the ancient versions. Tristram identities it with the Athene meridionalis common in Syria. Bochart, however, would render Pelican, and Riggs Night-hawk.
Lev_11:17. The A. V. is probably right. The LXX., Vulg. and Targ. Onk. have Ibis. which seems to have arisen from a misplacement of the words of the text, rather than from a different translation of יַנְשׁוּף. They are followed by Riggs and others.
Lev_11:18. תִּנְשֶׁמֶת. The same word is used, Lev_11:30, for mole (probably chameleon): here it refers to a bird, and it is likely that this is the word for which Ibis stands in the LXX. and Vulg. But it is not probable that the Israelites would have come much in contact with the Ibis. The preponderance of authority (see Fürst) is for some variety of owl, according to the Chald., Syr. and Sam.; but there does not appear to be sufficient certainty to warrant a change in the text of the A. V.
Lev_11:18. רָחָם LXX. rendering doubtful. The best authorities agree that some species of vulture is meant. Gesenius (thesaur.) would make it a very small species, of the size of a crow. Others consider it most probably the large Egyptian vulture, Neophron percnopterus. Perhaps something of this kind was meant by gier eagie. Kalisch, governed only by the order of the birds, would translate pelican.
Lev_11:19. חֲסִידָה, LXX., Aq., Symm., Theod., heron, but LXX. in Job_39:13 stork. Either bird answers well enough to the etymology and to the passages when it occurs, and stork is as likely to be right as heron.
Lev_11:19. The Sam. and sixteen MSS. prefix the conjunction which is found in the parallel place in Deut. For the want of it Knobel would connect the word with the preceding as an adjective; but it seems better to consider it as an accidental omission.
Lev_11:19. אֲנָפָה. The meaning of the rendering in Targ. Onk. is unknown, Syr. retains the Heb. word, LXX. χαραδριός, a bird chiefly remarkable for its greediness. The Heb. etymology is uncertain. Clark identifies it with the great plover (Charadrius œdicnemus). Fürst defines it Parrot, and so Gesen. Bochart, following the etymology of the Rabbits, defines it the angry bird, and considers it some species of eagle. It seems probable that the A. V. is wrong, but difficult to determine upon a substitute.
Lev_11:19. דּוּכִיפַת. The bird intended has not been certainly identified; but the authority of the LXX., ἔποπα, and Vulg., upupa, is here followed. The Arab. adopts it, and it is followed by Riggs. Bochart would render mountain cock alter the Chald.
Lev_11:20. כֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. The idea of fowls that creep is not less strange and grotesque in Heb. than in English. The word שֶׁרֶץ by its etymology means those creatures that multiply abundantly, swarm, whence it came to be applied to very much the same creatures as we mean by vermin. It can hardly be better expressed than by creeping things. Going upon all four does not necessarily mean having just lour feet, but going with the body in a horizontal position.
Lev_11:21. For the לֹא of the text the k’ri has לוֹ, and so the Sam. and many MSS. So it must necessarily be understood, as it is in the versions.
Lev_11:21. For בָּהֵן the Sam. and thirty-seven MSS. have בָּהֵם.
Lev_11:22. Beetle is certainly wrong; for this, like the rest, must have been one of the leaping insects. There are no means of identifying these four varieties. Each of them stands for a class “after his kind.” Two of them, the סָלְעָם and the חַרְֹגּל, do not occur elsewhere. The others are of frequent occurrence, and are uniformly translated in the A. V. the first, locust, the last grasshopper. It would probably be better in the other cases to follow the example of the older English and most modern versions in giving simply the Hebrew names without attempting translation.
Lev_11:26. Six MSS. and the LXX. specify, what is sufficiently plain, their carcases.
Lev_11:27. See note1 on Lev_11:2.
Lev_11:29. חֹלֶד occurs nowhere else. The A. V. seems justified in following the LXX. and Targ., although Bochart would render mole, which is still called Chuld by the Arabs.
Lev_11:29. צָב, a word in this sense, ἁπ. λέγ. There seems no doubt that this and all the names following in Lev_11:30 indicate various species of lizard. So Riggs. This particular one is called by the LXX. ὁ κροκόδυλος ὁ χερσαῖος=land crocodile, and so St. Jerome. Bochart considers it a kind of large lizard abounding in Syria, often two feet long. Tristam identifies it with the uromastix spinipes. The translation proposed by Clark, the great lizard, is probably as good as can be had.
Lev_11:30. אֲנָקָה in this sense only here. LXX. μυγάλη=shrew mouse; Onk. יָלֵי=hedge hog; the other oriental versions by various names of lizard. Almost all the authorities concur in making it some variety of lizard. Knobel is certainly wrong in identifying it with the Lacerta Nilotica, an animal four feet long. Fürst only so far defines it as “a reptile with a long narrow neck.” The translation of Rosenmüller, lacerta gecko, seems as probable as any.
Lev_11:30. כֹּחַ, a word of frequent occurrence for strength, power, but as a name of an animal occurring only here. The etymology seems to indicate a characteristic of strength (although Furst makes it the slimy), and the connection, same variety of lizard. The translation chameleon is derived from the LXX., and is probably wrong. Keil shows that Knobel (followed by Clark) is in error in translating by frog. The uncertainty is too great to substitute another word for that of the A. V., which yet must be changed, because the last name belongs to the chameleon. The etymology simply is therefore indicated.
Lev_11:30. לְטָאָה, another word, ἁπ. λέγ. LXX. καλαβώτης, Vulg. stellio. Knobel makes it a crawling, and Fuerst a climbing lizard. The latter is adopted as a probable sense in order to avoid confusion in the text.
Lev_11:30. חמֶֹט, also ἁπ. λέγ. LXX. σαῦρα, Vulg. lacerta, and so also the Syr. The A. V. comes from the Targ. Jesus, and Rabbinical authorities. Otherwise there is a general agreement with Bochart that it should be rendered lizard.
Lev_11:30. תִּנְשָׁמֶת, has already occurred, Lev_11:18, as the name of a bird. Here it is some variety of lizard, and from its etymology—נָשַׁם, to breathe, to draw in air—there is a good degree of unanimity in understanding it of the chameleon, either as inflating itself, or as popularly supposed to live on air.
Lev_11:32. כְּלִי is evidently here used, as in Exo_22:6 (7), in its most comprehensive sense. It is only limited by the clause wherewith any work is done. This change of course makes it necessary to translate בָּהֶם, wherewith, instead of wherein.
Lev_11:34. אֹכֶל means any kind of food, especially cereal. The English meat is now so altered in sense that it is better to change it.
Lev_11:34. The word such is unfortunately inserted in the A. V. The idea is (comp. Lev_11:38) that all meat prepared with water should be rendered unclean by the falling of any of these animals upon it.
Lev_11:35. כִּירַיִם occurs only here, and there is much question as to its meaning. According to Keil it “can only signify, when used in the dual, a vessel consisting of two parts, i.e. a pan or pot with a lid.” So Knobel and the Targums; others a support for the pot like a pair of bricks, LXX. χυρτόπους; others, as Fürst, “a cooking furnace, probably consisting of two ranges of stones which met together in a sharp angle.”
Lev_11:36. The Sam. and LXX. add of waters.
Lev_11:36. Rosenmüller, Keil, and others understand this in the masculine, he who, viz. in removing the carcase. The meaning, however, seems to be more general: the person or the thing touching the carcase, in removing it or otherwise.
Lev_11:37. The Sam., two MSS., and Vulg. omit any; but two MSS. and the LXX. insert it before seed in the following verse.
Lev_11:39-40. Several MSS. and the LXX. have the plural in these places.
Lev_11:42. The letter ו in גִּחוֹן=belly is printed in larger type in the Heb. Bibles to indicate that it is the middle letter of the Pentateuch.
Lev_11:45. The Sam., two MSS. and the Syr. add, as in Lev_11:44, your God.
Lev_11:47. See note on Lev_11:2.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The whole of Lange’s “Exegetical” is here given in full, the remarks of the translator being added in square brackets.
“Cleanness as a condition of the sacrifices—the cleanness of the sacrificial animals, and the cleanness to be regained through the purification of men and of human conditions. Leviticus 11-15. ‘These are regarded in the law as defiling: the use of certain animals, and the touching a carcase (Leviticus 11); the confinement of a woman (Leviticus 12); the leprosy (Lev_13:14); the issue of seed of a man (Lev_15:1-15); the involuntary emission of semen (ib. Lev_15:15-16); the carnal conjunction of the sexes (ib. Lev_15:18); the menses of a woman (ib. Lev_15:19-24); and the lasting issue of blood of the same (ib. Lev_15:25-30); to which Num_19:11-22 adds the touching the dead; but the things mentioned do not all give the same uncleanness,’ etc. Knobel, p. 432. The priests were to administer the laws of cleanness and of purification, so to speak, as the religious district physicians of the theocracy. On the laws of the Gentiles about cleanness, see Knobel, pp. 436–40; on the animals, pp. 443 ss. (the detailed presentation).”
“Chap. 11. The cleanness of the sacrifice, or the contrast of the clean and unclean animals. The clean sacrificial animal is marked out from the four-footed beasts by two characteristics: cleaving the hoof and chewing the cud. The cloven hoof distinguishes the slow-moving, tame animal, naturally adapted to domestication, from the single-hoofed animal, naturally wild, although sometimes capable of being tamed. The rumination characterizes quiet, dispassionate, graminivorous animals, as opposed to the carnivorous beasts of prey, and the unclean omnivorous beasts.”
“Thus especially are the one-hoofed excluded, although they chew the cud; the camel, and (as stated) the rock badger, the hare. And so with those that cleave the hoof and do not chew the cud—the swine. And, of course, the four-footed creatures which lack both characteristics.”
“In regard to all unclean animals, the use of their meat and the touching of their carcase is forbidden. That they certainly might not be offered in sacrifice is therewith presupposed. Lev_11:1-8.”
[From this general view of the chapter, and from several of the particulars, a dissent must be expressed. Although, as has been shown in the preliminary note, the original distinction between clean and unclean animals was in regard to their fitness or unfitness for sacrifice; yet here there is no immediate reference to sacrifice at all, and the animals are classified solely in relation to their being allowed or forbidden for food. Again, in the detail, while among the animals reared by man it may be true that “the cloven hoof distinguishes the slow-moving tame animal;” yet this certainly could not apply to the gazelle and other kinds of deer, which are equally included among the clean animals. Probably Lange’s remark was made because his mind was already fixed upon the classification of animals for sacrifice, although even then it would but imperfectly apply to the goat. Also, on the other side, “the single-hoofed animal, naturally wild, but sometimes capable of being tamed,” is quite insufficient in its description, for the single-hoofed horse is quite as much a domestic animal as the bull or the goat, and it fails altogether to include the many-toed domestic cat and dog, which were eminently unclean.
[The first and larger half of this book is concerned with the means of approach to God. First of all came the laws of sacrifice, chaps. 1–7.; then followed the consecration of the priests by whom the sacrifices were to be offered, with an account of their entrance upon their office, and the connected events, chaps. 8–10; now follow the laws of purity, chaps. 11–15., and of these first, the laws of clean and unclean food, contained in the present chapter. In this connection also the uncleanness produced by contact with the dead bodies of animals unclean for food is emphatically set forth, and thus this chapter is intimately connected with the laws of purification in the following chapters. “In all the nations and all the religions of antiquity we find the contrast between clean and unclean, which was developed in a dualistic form, it is true, in many of the religious systems, but had its primary root in the corruption that had entered the world through sin. This contrast was limited in the Mosaic law to the animal food of the Israelites, to contact with dead animals and human corpses, and to certain bodily conditions and diseases that are associated with decomposition.” Keil.
[Lev_11:1-8 are concerned with the larger quadrupeds. The distinction is so made among these that the Israelites might be in no mistake about them. To an anatomist it might have been enough to say either parteth the hoof, or cheweth the cud; but since several animals apparently had one of these characteristics without the other, or were popularly supposed to have them, for the sake of clearness both are given, and also some animals are excluded, as the camel, which apparently lacked one of them, although anatomically it might be considered as possessing both.
[Lev_11:1. Both Moses, as the lawgiver, and Aaron, as the now fully consecrated high-priest, to whom would especially pertain the enforcement of the laws of purity, are now addressed together.
[Lev_11:3. No enumeration is here made of the animals possessing these qualifications; but there is such an enumeration in the parallel passage, Deu_14:4-5.
[Lev_11:4. The camel has a ball behind the cleft of the foot on which it treads. It comes, therefore, under the class of those with hoofs not completely cloven. So also the swine in Lev_11:7 is spoken of as dividing the hoof, because he does so in all common acceptation, and is so spoken of at this day, although anatomically he has four toes. Correspondingly in Lev_11:5-6 animals are spoken of which appear to the eye to chew the cud, although they do not really; because otherwise the people, guided by the appearance, would be led into transgression. All these animals, it is needless to say, were eaten among surrounding people, some by one nation, some by another.—F. G.]
Lev_11:9-12. “The clean aquatic animals are distinguished likewise by two characteristics—they must have fins and scales. All aquatic animals, on the other hand, which have not these characteristics, should be not only unclean to them, but an abomination. The fish nature must thus appear distinctly marked. Of fitness for sacrifice, nevertheless, nothing is said here” [obviously because fish were not included among sacrificial animals at all]; “as food for fast days, fish could not possibly have been used by the Jews.” [In this, as in the preceding law, the marks of distinction are to be understood of obvious ones: fins and scales that were apparent to the eye. As the law covers all that are in the waters, the crustacea, lobsters, crabs, etc., and the mollusks, oysters, etc., are wholly forbidden.—F. G.]
Lev_11:13-19. “With reference to birds, the unclean varieties are named at length: eagles, hawks, fish-hawks, vultures, kites, and every thing of that kind, all kinds of ravens, the ostrich, the night-owl, the cuckoo, the kinds of sparrow-hawk, the eared owl, the swan, the horned owl, the bat, the bittern, stork, heron, jay, hoopoe, swallow. The clean kinds are not named; they are limited to a few examples. Pigeons and turtle-doves, however, were more especially made use of for sacrifice.” [“Pigeons and turtle-doves” were the only birds used for sacrifice, but they are not mentioned here, because this chapter is not concerned with sacrifice. For the birds intended by this list of twenty Hebrew names, see the Textual notes. All the birds mentioned, so far as they can be identified, feed more or less exclusively upon animal food; but no general characteristic is given. The list is probably only meant to include those prohibited birds with which the Israelites were likely to come in contact. All not included in it, however, would have been lawful under a strict construction of the law. The bat is included in the prohibited list on the general principle of this whole nomenclature; it was popularly regarded as a bird.—F. G.]
Lev_11:20-25. “A remarkable exception is made by the varieties of locusts appended to the birds (locusts, crickets, grasshoppers, green grasshoppers). It is as if these animals were to be an important object of game for the theocracy.” [It is evident that they did, as in the case of John the Baptist, become an important item of food for the poorer classes, and as they are still in the desert regions adjoining Palestine.—F. G.] “But besides these, all winged (four-footed) insects are described as things to be avoided (not abominable).” [This is a general prohibition of all small flying creatures, having more than two feet. Creeping things in the original means also “things that swarm” or multiply in great numbers. Going upon all four seems intended, in contrast to birds which have only two feet, to include all that have more than two feet, and consequently creep in a horizontal position. It is so understood by Jewish writers. From this general prohibition the saltatoria are excepted, which are still, as they have always been, used as an article of food by the poorer classes in the East. These have, like the common grasshopper, very long hind legs for leaping. With this exception, this whole class of creatures is described in Lev_11:23-25 as abominable. Yet the living animal communicated no uncleanness by contact—only its dead body. This is a declaration immediately afterwards (Lev_11:27-28) extended also to the bodies of unclean quadrupeds, and also (Lev_11:39-40) to the bodies of even clean animals that have died of themselves. Washing of the clothes (Lev_11:25; Lev_11:28) required of those who bore their carcases was evidently because contact with the clothes could hardly be avoided in doing this.—F. G.]
Lev_11:26-28. “Once more the characteristics are enjoined—to which, however, the definition is added that also all beasts which go on paws (the stealthy-going beasts of prey) are to be considered unclean.”
Lev_11:29-38. “Moreover there is still a crowd of little animals named in which there is no attempt at a natural history classification, as a resemblance has already appeared in the four-footed flying creatures. Mammalia: mole and mouse; amphibia: the lizard, the Egyptian lizard, the frog, the tortoise, the snail, the chameleon. This division of various animals is more especially prominent because the individuals that compose it could easily make clean objects unclean. First, the dead body of all these creatures is, and makes, unclean; secondly, the water with which one has purified either himself or any object from them; thirdly, utensils, meats and drinks which these creatures” [i.e., their dead bodies] “have touched, Lev_11:29-35. On the other hand, these animals cannot defile the spring, the cistern, or the seeds intended for sowing. The case is different with seed intended for food when wet with water, Lev_11:36-38.” [The names of these creatures have already been treated in the Textual notes. It appears that, except the first mentioned weasel (or mole) and the mouse, they are all of the lizard family. But in Lev_11:32-38 the uncleanness produced by contact with their dead bodies is carried much further than in regard to the animals previously named, doubtless for the reason suggested by Lange that there was more likelihood of contact from them. Any thing of which use was made in doing work (Lev_11:32) must be soaked in water. Skin included in the list refers to the skins used for churning, for holding wine and other liquids, and for a variety of purposes. The earthen vessel (Lev_11:33) into which any of their bodies fell must be broken on the same principle, but with an opposite application, as in Lev_6:28. The ground in both cases is the absorbent character of unglazed earthenware; there it must be broken lest what it had absorbed of the “most holy offering” should be defiled; here lest the defilement it had itself absorbed should be communicated. In Lev_11:34; Lev_11:38 it is provided that if their carcase fell upon any food or seed in a dry state, it should not communicate defilement; but if these were wet, they should be defiled. The reason of the distinction is evident—the moisture would act as a conveyor of the defilement. In Lev_11:35 the strong contamination of these dead bodies is still further expressed; but in Lev_11:36 an exception is made in favor of any large collection of water in fountains or cisterns, on the general principle that God “will have mercy rather than sacrifice.”—F. G.]
Lev_11:39-40. “Finally comes into consideration the carcase of the clean animal that has died a natural death. This also makes unclean (a) by contact, (b) by unconscious using thereof, (c) through carrying and throwing it away. The one defiled must wash his clothes and hold himself unclean until evening.” [Yet from Lev_7:24 it is evident that this precept applied to the dead body as a whole, not to the fat, or probably to the skin, when it had been separated. The reason for the uncleanness of the carcase was evidently that its blood had not been poured out, but was still in the veins and arteries, and spread about in the flesh. This would not apply to the separate fat, nor to the skin, when properly cleaned. The provision for purification of one who had eaten of the flesh may apply not only to unconscious eating (Lange), but also to eating in cases of necessity. It did not constitute a sin, but only a ceremonial defilement, for which purification was provided.—F. G.]
Lev_11:41-42. “At last the true vermin are spoken of. Every thing that crawls, that goes on the belly (in addition to the division already given), four-footed vermin, and those having more than four feet (beetles).” [It was a curious conceit, adopted from Münster by some of the older writers, that flies and worms living upon fruit and vegetables are not here prohibited because they do not “creep upon the earth.” The text evidently intends to forbid all creeping things, and is especially comprehensive in Lev_11:43. The Talmudists also exclude from the operation of the law all the minute creatures supposed by them to be spontaneously generated in vegetables, fruits, cheese, etc., and all the minute parasitic animals. It is plain enough, however, that the law, making its distinctions by obvious and popularly recognized marks, does not enter at all into minutiæ of this sort.]
Lev_11:43-45. [Ye shall not make yourselves abominable.—Lit.] “Ye shall not make your souls an abomination—a strong expression, but the key to this legislation. From the educational standpoint of the law for this morally infant people, purification must be made from all beastly conditions by a strong exclusion of all the lower animal forms, and the people thus be elevated to a consciousness of personal dignity. Therefore it is also further said that this is in conformity with the character of Jehovah your God. Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy—i.e., become sanctified personalities; for I am holy—i.e., the absolute sanctified Personality. They could thus, by the defilement of their body, defile also their souls. This also is made prominent: that Jehovah bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, the country defiled by animal worship.”
Lev_11:46-47. “This is the law.—Although it is not specifically extended over the whole animal kingdom, it is still a general regulating principle according to which the distinctions are to be made. In principle, with this, the distinction is also introduced in regard to the vegetable kingdom, the contrast of edible and inedible plants. Yet the application of this to the manner of living, to the usages, is left untold.”
“In regard to the law of clean animals, we have to distinguish different classes: the specifically clean, or cleanest animals, are those used in sacrifice—old and young cattle, sheep and goats, turtle-doves, and (young) pigeons. These animals form the common food of Jehovah and His people; the symbolical food of Jehovah, and the actual food of the Israelites—a mark of the divine dignity of man, and of his designation as the image of God. Of the vegetables: with this animal centre correspond the cereals, especially barley and wheat, incense, wine, and oil; of the mineral kingdom, salt. The second class is made up of the clean animals which men were allowed to eat, but which were not fitted for sacrifice. The third class is made up of the unclean animals, the touch of which,—so long as they are living.—does not make men unclean, but of which they are not allowed to eat, and whose carcase defiles them, (not the fat of the slain animals). In the fourth class, finally, are the repulsive animals, which even while living are repulsive at least to men, the creeping and crawling animals. That this classification was to be symbolic of spiritual conditions is shown to us very clearly in the vision of Peter in Acts 10; but that the ordinary symbolism is limited by extraordinary symbolical requirements is shown to us by the appearance of the eagle in the forms of the Cherubim. With the New Testament this symbolism generally has reached its end, that is, face to face with Christian knowledge. But yet. conditionally, it remains in the New Testament era proportionately through the Christian national customs, as this can be deduced from the prohibition of the eating of blood, and of things strangled (Acts 15). The condition of natural abhorrence towards all repulsive objects certainly remains more or less ineradicable, although even in this respect, necessity can break iron.”
“We should distinguish here most carefully between the theocratic teleological rules, which have a divine and ideal force, and their exemplification, which belongs to the Jewish sensus communis, and its product, popular usage; as is shown here, particularly by the example of the unruminating animals, the badger and hare (which seemed to the people to ruminate to some extent). Obstinacy in valuing the literal inspiration would certainly make here an irreconcilable conflict between theology, or even nominal belief, and natural science, and the hare would become the favorite wild game of negation as Balaam’s ass is its favorite charger.”
“In regard to the animals mentioned here, we must refer to the detailed treatment of Knobel and Keil, the quoted literature of the latter, and the natural history of Calwer and others.”
[It is to be observed that there is no defilement whatever produced by the contact with any living animal. The distinction between animals which are attractive and those which are repulsive to man is not at all recognized; nor indeed, judging from the habits of different nations, would it be easy to draw any line of distinction on this ground. The law simply prescribes what animals shall be, and what shall not be used for food—between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten, Lev_11:47. The distinction is nevertheless symbolical, as the line of separation is plainly so taken as to exclude from the list of the clean all carnivora, except in the case of fish whose habits are to a great extent hidden under the waves from common observation. But while no living animal defiled, the bodies of all dead animals, not properly slaughtered, did defile. The peculiar care with which defilement is guarded against in the case of the carcasses of certain of the smaller animals (Lev_11:29-38), seems to be due to the greater liability to contact with them. The degree of uncleanness occasioned by contact with the dead body of any animal which died of itself, was the same in all cases, Lev_11:25; Lev_11:28; Lev_11:31; Lev_11:40, even in that of animals otherwise fit for food. The only exception is in case of sacrificial or food animals when properly slaughtered, an exception obviously necessary unless sacrifices and animal food were to be prohibited. The Apostle has expressly taught “that there is nothing unclean of itself” (Rom_14:14); and we must look therefore for the ground of the distinctions made in this chapter, not directly to anything in the nature of the various animals themselves, but to the educational object of the law. That educational object, however, was of course best sub-served by having regard to such characteristics of the animals as should make the lessons to be taught most impressive and most easily apprehended.—F. G.].
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. The doctrinal significance of the distinction between animals clean and unclean for food, must be considered in view of two facts: first, that as far as food is concerned, this is distinctly a part of that law which was “added because of transgressions.” It limited an earlier freedom, and it passed away when the law was superseded by a higher revelation. Secondly, that for the time while the law was in force—the whole period of Israel’s national existence—these precepts were elevated into distinctly religious duties, resting upon the holiness which should characterize the people of a holy God (Lev_11:44-45). These two facts can only be brought into harmony in view of the educational purpose of the law. The people, in their spiritual infancy, could only be taught purity by sensible symbols, and among these there was nothing which entered more thoroughly into all the arrangements of daily life than the selection of food. By this, therefore, they were taught to keep themselves pure from all defilement which God had forbidden.
II. The evil consequences attending a neglect of the precepts in this chapter are represented in a twofold aspect: First, there was sin in disobedience to these as to any other divine commands, and this is described as making yourselves abominable, (Lev_11:43). This phrase precisely is applied only to the eating of creeping things, but is implied in regard to the others (Lev_11:11; Lev_11:13; Lev_11:23). It carries with it the idea that he who offended in these matters put himself in that relation towards God in which these things intended to stand towards man:—he had sinned by transgression, and thus made himself an abomination. The other aspect is that of the violation of the theocratic order, and here the penalty is very light. The kind of un cleanness contracted in any of these instances found a sufficient purification in any case by the washing of the clothes and remaining unclean until the evening. In cases of a secondary defilement of other things, they also must be similarly purified, or be destroyed. Even the eating of a clean animal which had died a natural death required no deeper purification. Here, then, the line is very distinctly drawn between ceremonial defilement and moral sin, even when both were incurred by the same act.
III. All commands to holiness, whether expressed by symbolical act, or to be wrought out in the efforts of the spirit, rest upon the same ground, For I am the Lord your God, …. I am holy.—This is the teaching alike of the Old and the New Testaments, and again brings out in a striking way the impossibility of any true communion between God and man except on the basis of man’s restoration to holiness. This teaching has been already seen to be the object of the Levitical law in regard to sacrifices, and it is here none the less so when the law enters into the details of man’s daily life.
IV. While the uncleannesses here enumerated were purged simply and speedily if attended to at once, if neglected, they required (v. 2) the more serious expiation of the sin offering. Such is the nature of sin; like leaven, it is ever prone to spread and intensify its effects.
V. “The cleanness of the animals for sacrifice and the purification of the sacrificer. Chaps. 11–16.”
“Through sacrifice Israel is made holy, i.e., they become in the fellowship of a personal God, a people of personal dignity belonging to God. The preliminary condition of sanctification by fire is the purification especially produced by water and blood. Only clean, or rather, purified men can serve as sacrificers in the presentation of clean animals.”
“Clean men must be circumcised, sanctified by the symbol of circumcision to the new birth under the power of Jehovah, and thus especially taken out from the confusion of the unclean world; and so, too, the clean animals, as animals of civilization, form a contrast to the unclean creation, as the elite of domestic animals, some of which are too human, too sympathetic (horse, ass, and dog), while swine are too brutally unclean to become domestic animals for the Israelites.”
“Cleanness is the negative side of holiness, and so purification is the negative side of sanctification.” Lange, Dogmatik zum Lev.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The homiletical teaching of this chapter may be briefly summed up in the weighty words of the Apostolic proverb (1Co_15:33) “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” It is easy to deceive ourselves here. It is easy to work out plausible reasons why particular divine commands may not be founded in the nature of things, and hence may not be of binding force upon us. But all God’s commands are binding, and he who chooses to violate them, however unimportant they may seem to him to be, incurs the risk of making himself an abomination.
Sins in matters of little importance, intrinsically and inadvertently committed, may, through the means which God has provided, be readily put away on repentance, and a true seeking of restored communion; but if neglected, or passed over because they seem of little moment, they lead to a heavier guiltiness.
The defiling effect of personal contact with that which is unclean is set forth in this chapter. Origen, in treating of it, calls attention to the corresponding effect of contact with that which is holy as illustrated by the restoration to life of the body of the man which touched the bones of Elisha (2Ki_13:21), and of the woman whose issue of blood was staunched when she had touched the hem of the Saviour’s garment (Mat_9:20). Both serve to show the influence exerted upon us by our associations; the spirit as surely as the body is defiled by contact with the unclean, and elevated by association with the pure.
Certain moral qualities of men are commonly described by reference to the animal creation. As this is frequently done in the New Testament (Mat_7:15; Mat_10:16; Mat_23:33; Luk_13:32; Php_3:2; 2Pe_2:22, etc.), so it appears always to have been common among mankind. Therefore, in the classification as clean, of those animals associated with excellent qualities, and as unclean of those associated with evil qualities, a praise of virtue and a condemnation of evil was introduced into the domestic associations of the daily life. The necessity of such teaching has passed away with the coming of the clearer light of the Gospel.
Parting the hoof and chewing the cud are two marks of the clean animal which go together, and must both be found; though one may be apparently possessed, yet if the other is wanting, the animal is unclean. This Origen applies to one who meditates upon and understands the Scriptures, but does not order his life in accordance with their teaching. So it may be applied to faith and works; neither can truly exist without the other, and the semblance of either alone is unavailing.
Positive Divine laws, simply as laws, and even without regard to their immediate object, have a high moral value from their educationary power. From the garden of Eden down, man has been always subjected to such laws. As disobedience to them has resulted in harm, and placed the transgressor in an attitude of opposition to God; so has the faithful effort to obey them resulted in blessing, and brought those who have undertaken it into nearer relations to God. Whether the ground of the command could be understood, or whether the act enjoined or forbidden might seem to man morally colorless, yet the simple habit of obedience has always had a most salutary effect. “A law, the fitness and utility of which we cannot discover by our natural reason, is more a test of the spirit of obedience than a moral requirement that commends itself to our judgment as good and proper; because our compliance with the latter may be but a compliment to our own intelligence, and not at all an act of deference to the divine authority.” Hallam. The multitude of daily demands made upon the obedience of the Israelites offered to them a great opportunity of blessing, and is repeatedly declared to have been a test whether they had a heart to do God’s will or no. Under the higher dispensation of the Gospel we are allowed to see more clearly the grounds of the Divine commands; nevertheless, the opportunities of rendering obedience, simply as obedience, without seeing the grounds upon which the command rests, is by no means entirely withdrawn from the Christian. Such opportunities improved are means of blessing, and become to us one of the many ways in which we “walk by faith and not by sight.”
Footnotes:
[1]Lev_11:2. הַחַיָּה is a different word from בְּהֵמָה in the following clause, and the difference should be recognized in the translation, as it is in the Semitic versions. The former is the more general term, the latter (comp. Gen_1:24) refers to the quadrupeds included in this section (Lev_11:1-8) in contradistinction from birds and reptiles.
[2]Lev_11:3. וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע פְּרָסֹת. The idea is that of not merely partially (like the camel), but completely dividing the hoof. The Sam., LXX., Syr. and nine MSS. make this still more indefinite by inserting שְׁתִּי=two before the last word.
[3]Lev_11:5. הַשָּׁפן. The animal is indicated here as one that chews the cud (or appears to do so), in Psa_104:18; Pro_30:26, as living in the rocks, and in the latter as being very weak. It occurs elsewhere only in the parallel place, Deu_14:7. Here the LXX. renders it δασύπους, Aq. λαγωός; in Deu_14:7, the LXX. has χοιρογρύλλιος=bristly animal, which is adopted by the Vulg. in both places. The Sam. translates it Vabr, the Hyrax Syriacus, which is said to be still called tsofun in Southern Arabia. First says: “The Targ. points to the same animal when it translates טַפְסָא ,טַוְזָא ,טַפְזָא (leaper) since the Vabr goes by leaps.” The Duke of Argyle (Reign of Law, p. 264) speaks of a specimen of it in the Zoological Gardens, and states that in the structure of the teeth and the foot it is assimilated to the rhinoceros. Cuvier classed it with the pachyderms. The Rabbins understood it to be a rabbit, and were followed by Luther and the A. V. in the old word Coney. Bochart (Hieroz. Lib. III., c. 33) understands it of the Jerboa or bear-mouse, and so Gesenius, Geddes and others. Although the word in the A. V. is certainly wrong, yet as it is obsolete, it seems unnecessary to make a change which could only be either to the Heb. word, or to the scientific name.
[4]Lev_11:7. The construction is the same as in Lev_11:3. See note2.
[5]Lev_11:9. The Sam., one MS., the LXX. and Syr. prefix the conjunction וְ.
[6]Lev_11:12. The same, with fourteen MSS., here prefix the conjunction.
[7]Lev_11:13. נֶשֶׁר is uniformly translated eagle in the A. V., ἀετός in the LXX., and aquila in the Vulg. Kalisch says this “is beyond a doubt.” The same meaning is given by Fürst and Gesenius, although both would include also the sense of vulture. Clark's proposed emendation, the great vulture, seems therefore unnecessary.
[8]Lev_11:13. עָזְנִיָה פֶּרֶם. Both, by preponderance of authority, species of eagles, and the former sufficiently well described by ossifrage; the latter species is not certainly identified, the word occurring only here and in the parallel, Deu_14:12. The LXX. renders ἁλιαίετος=sea eagle, Fürst prefers Valeria, the black eagle. Kalisch prefers the sense vulture. Gesen. (Thesaur.), black eagle.
[9]Lev_11:14. דָּאָה, a word, ἁπ. λεγ. In the parallel passage, Deu_14:13, it is רָאָה. Its etymology indicates a ravenous bird of swift flight. LXX. γύψ=vulture, Vulg. milvus=kite. Bochart considers it a species of hawk or falcon. So Kalisch. In Deu_14:13 there is mentioned also דִּיָה, making twenty-one varieties of birds; but that word in Deut. is omitted by the Sam. and four MSS.
[10]Lev_11:14. אַיָּה is only to be identified by the fact that it here stands for the name of a class—after his Kind, and that in Job_28:7 it is spoken of for its great keenness of sight. The LXX. renders here kite, in Deut. and Job vulture. Clark makes it milvus regalis.
[11]Lev_11:15 and Lev_11:20. The Sam., many MSS. and versions prefix the conjunction.
[12]Lev_11:16. בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה. LXX. στρουθός. The word is uniformly rendered owl in the text of the A. V.; but in the marg. of Job_30:29; Isa_13:21; Isa_34:13; Isa_43:20, it is rendered ostrich in accordance with the Targ., LXX., Vulg. and Syr., and there can be no doubt that this is the true sense. The fem. stands for the bird collectively, of both sexes. Rosen.: “Vox, בַּת, apposita est ex more quodam Orientalium, qui nomina pater, mater, fuius, filia, animalium quoruneam nominibns præfigrere solent sine respectu ætatis et sexus.” Bochart, however, thinks it means distinctively the female.
[13]Lev_11:16. תַּחְמָם (from חָמַם, to do violence), interpreted by Bochar., and others on his authority, of the male ostrich; but this is now generally rejected. The Targ. Onk. has צִיצָא, and Targ. Jerus. חַטְפִיתָא swallow. Others (Knobel) consider it the cuckoo; but the rendering of the LXX. and Vulg., owl, is now adopted more generally than any other.
[14]Lev_11:16. שַׁחַף occurs only here and in Deu_14:15. Knobel understands it of a species of hawk trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, etc.; but most other interpreters understand it of a sea bird, whether the stormy petrel (Bochart) or more generally the sea gull alter the Vulg. and LXX. λάρος.
[15]Lev_11:17. כּוֹם. There seems no sufficient reason to question the accuracy of the A. V., which is substantially that of the ancient versions. Tristram identities it with the Athene meridionalis common in Syria. Bochart, however, would render Pelican, and Riggs Night-hawk.
[16]Lev_11:17. The A. V. is probably right. The LXX., Vulg. and Targ. Onk. have Ibis. which seems to have arisen from a misplacement of the words of the text, rather than from a different translation of יַנְשׁוּף. They are followed by Riggs and others.
[17]Lev_11:18. תִּנְשֶׁמֶת. The same word is used, Lev_11:30, for mole (probably chameleon): here it refers to a bird, and it is likely that this is the word for which Ibis stands in the LXX. and Vulg. But it is not probable that the Israelites would have come much in contact with the Ibis. The preponderance of authority (see Fürst) is for some variety of owl, according to the Chald., Syr. and Sam.; but there does not appear to be sufficient certainty to warrant a change in the text of the A. V.
[18]Lev_11:18. רָחָם LXX. rendering doubtful. The best authorities agree that some species of vulture is meant. Gesenius (thesaur.) would make it a very small species, of the size of a crow. Others consider it most probably the large Egyptian vulture, Neophron percnopterus. Perhaps something of this kind was meant by gier eagie. Kalisch, governed only by the order of the birds, would translate pelican.
[19]Lev_11:19. חֲסִידָה, LXX., Aq., Symm., Theod., heron, but LXX. in Job_39:13 stork. Either bird answers well enough to the etymology and to the passages when it occurs, and stork is as likely to be right as heron.
[20]Lev_11:19. The Sam. and sixteen MSS. prefix the conjunction which is found in the parallel place in Deut. For the want of it Knobel would connect the word with the preceding as an adjective; but it seems better to consider it as an accidental omission.
[21]Lev_11:19. אֲנָפָה. The meaning of the rendering in Targ. Onk. is unknown, Syr. retains the Heb. word, LXX. χαραδριός, a bird chiefly remarkable for its greediness. The Heb. etymology is uncertain. Clark identifies it with the great plover (Charadrius œdicnemus). Fürst defines it Parrot, and so Gesen. Bochart, following the etymology of the Rabbits, defines it the angry bird, and considers it some species of eagle. It seems probable that the A. V. is wrong, but difficult to determine upon a substitute.
[22]Lev_11:19. דּוּכִיפַת. The bird intended has not been certainly identified; but the authority of the LXX., ἔποπα, and Vulg., upupa, is here followed. The Arab. adopts it, and it is followed by Riggs. Bochart would render mountain cock alter the Chald.
[23]Lev_11:20. כֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. The idea of fowls that creep is not less strange and grotesque in Heb. than in English. The word שֶׁרֶץ by its etymology means those creatures that multiply abundantly, swarm, whence it came to be applied to very much the same creatures as we mean by vermin. It can hardly be better expressed than by creeping things. Going upon all four does not necessarily mean having just lour feet, but going with the body in a horizontal position.
[24]Lev_11:21. For the לֹא of the text the k’ri has לוֹ, and so the Sam. and many MSS. So it must necessarily be understood, as it is in the versions.
[25]Lev_11:21. For בָּהֵן the Sam. and thirty-seven MSS. have בָּהֵם.
[26]Lev_11:22. Beetle is certainly wrong; for this, like the rest, must have been one of the leaping insects. There are no means of identifying these four varieties. Each of them stands for a class “after his kind.” Two of them, the סָלְעָם and the חַרְֹגּל, do not occur elsewhere. The others are of frequent occurrence, and are uniformly translated in the A. V. the first, locust, the last grasshopper. It would probably be better in the other cases to follow the example of the older English and most modern versions in giving simply the Hebrew names without attempting translation.
[27]Lev_11:26. Six MSS. and the LXX. specify, what is sufficiently plain, their carcases.
[28]Lev_11:27. See note1 on Lev_11:2.
[29]Lev_11:29. חֹלֶד occurs nowhere else. The A. V. seems justified in following the LXX. and Targ., although Bochart would render mole, which is still called Chuld by the Arabs.
[30]Lev_11:29. צָב, a word in this sense, ἁπ. λέγ. There seems no doubt that this and all the names following in Lev_11:30 indicate various species of lizard. So Riggs. This particular one is called by the LXX. ὁ κροκόδυλος ὁ χερσαῖος=land crocodile, and so St. Jerome. Bochart considers it a kind of large lizard abounding in Syria, often two feet long. Tristam identifies it with the uromastix spinipes. The translation proposed by Clark, the great lizard, is probably as good as can be had.
[31]Lev_11:30. אֲנָקָה in this sense only here. LXX. μυγάλη=shrew mouse; Onk. יָלֵי=hedge hog; the other oriental versions by various names of lizard. Almost all the authorities concur in making it some variety of lizard. Knobel is certainly wrong in identifying it with the Lacerta Nilotica, an animal four feet long. Fürst only so far defines it as “a reptile with a long narrow neck.” The translation of Rosenmüller, lacerta gecko, seems as probable as any.
[32]Lev_11:30. כֹּחַ, a word of frequent occurrence for strength, power, but as a name of an animal occurring only here. The etymology seems to indicate a characteristic of strength (although Furst makes it the slimy), and the connection, same variety of lizard. The translation chameleon is derived from the LXX., and is probably wrong. Keil shows that Knobel (followed by Clark) is in error in translating by frog. The uncertainty is too great to substitute another word for that of the A. V., which yet must be changed, because the last name belongs to the chameleon. The etymology simply is therefore indicated.
[33]Lev_11:30. לְטָאָה, another word, ἁπ. λέγ. LXX. καλαβώτης, Vulg. stellio. Knobel makes it a crawling, and Fuerst a climbing lizard. The latter is adopted as a probable sense in order to avoid confusion in the text.
[34]Lev_11:30. חמֶֹט, also ἁπ. λέγ. LXX. σαῦρα, Vulg. lacerta, and so also the Syr. The A. V. comes from the Targ. Jesus, and Rabbinical authorities. Otherwise there is a general agreement with Bochart that it should be rendered lizard.
[35]Lev_11:30. תִּנְשָׁמֶת, has already occurred, Lev_11:18, as the name of a bird. Here it is some variety of lizard, and from its etymology—נָשַׁם, to breathe, to draw in air—there is a good degree of unanimity in understanding it of the chameleon, either as inflating itself, or as popularly supposed to live on air.
[36]Lev_11:32. כְּלִי is evidently here used, as in Exo_22:6 (7), in its most comprehensive sense. It is only limited by the clause wherewith any work is done. This change of course makes it necessary to translate בָּהֶם, wherewith, instead of wherein.
[37]Lev_11:34. אֹכֶל means any kind of food, especially cereal. The English meat is now so altered in sense that it is better to change it.
[38]Lev_11:34. The word such is unfortunately inserted in the A. V. The idea is (comp. Lev_11:38) that all meat prepared with water should be rendered unclean by the falling of any of these animals upon it.
[39]Lev_11:35. כִּירַיִם occurs only here, and there is much question as to its meaning. According to Keil it “can only signify, when used in the dual, a vessel consisting of two parts, i.e. a pan or pot with a lid.” So Knobel and the Targums; others a support for the pot like a pair of bricks, LXX. χυρτόπους; others, as Fürst, “a cooking furnace, probably consisting of two ranges of stones which met together in a sharp angle.”
[40]Lev_11:36. The Sam. and LXX. add of waters.
[41]Lev_11:36. Rosenmüller, Keil, and others understand this in the masculine, he who, viz. in removing the carcase. The meaning, however, seems to be more general: the person or the thing touching the carcase, in removing it or otherwise.
[42]Lev_11:37. The Sam., two MSS., and Vulg. omit any; but two MSS. and the LXX. insert it before seed in the following verse.
[43]Lev_11:39-40. Several MSS. and the LXX. have the plural in these places.
[44]Lev_11:42. The letter ו in גִּחוֹן=belly is printed in larger type in the Heb. Bibles to indicate that it is the middle letter of the Pentateuch.
[45]Lev_11:45. The Sam., two MSS. and the Syr. add, as in Lev_11:44, your God.
[46]Lev_11:47. See note on Lev_11:2.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 1.) The sacrifices have been instituted, the ritual of…
PURITY AND IMPURITY IN ANIMALS.
1.) The sacrifices have been instituted, the ritual of the altar has been ordained, the Aaronic priests have been consecrated, and under the supervision of Moses have performed their first official service. The nation, typically purged from sin, must be led along the path of holy living. To attain this end the people, unable through lack of intellectual and moral development to grasp broad principles and apply them to their own conduct, must be put into the school of manifold and minute rules of life. Fleshly ordinances were made, to a great extent, the channels of spiritual instruction, and for bringing perpetually into remembrance the grand distinctions of the law respecting good and evil. It was necessary that this should be spread out into a vast variety of forms, as the Mosaic dispensation admitted so very sparingly of direct instruction. The Israelite in the very food he ate must have something to remind him of the law of his God, and feel himself enclosed on every side with the signs and indications of that righteousness which it was his great duty, as a member of the covenant, to cherish and exemplify. Hence the nation in its childhood must be “under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father.” It must be thrust into “bondage to weak and beggarly elements” until the great Emancipator shall proclaim “the royal law of liberty.” As a man’s character is greatly affected by what he puts into his mouth, through the mysterious connexion between body and mind, the divine Lawgiver begins at the foundation and regulates the food of the chosen people. We cannot regard as wholly fanciful the suggestion of Wunderbar, that the animal element may only with great circumspection and discretion be taken up into the life of man, in order to avoid debasing that human life by assimilation to a brutal level, animalizing the affections and disqualifying the soul for drawing near to God. This should be regarded as a limitation to our Saviour’s announcement that “there is nothing from without a man that entering into him call defile him.” For the depression of the moral tone and the darkening of the spiritual intuitions by an improper treatment of the body are of the nature of a defilement.
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 Ch. Lev_11:1-23 [51]. The Distinction between Clean and Unclean…
Ch. Lev_11:1-23 [51]. The Distinction between Clean and Unclean Food
[51] For the sources from which this ch. comes, and its relation from a critical point of view to Deu_14:3 ff. see App. I (c), pp. 162 f.
Read full note →
One principle underlying this distinction appears to have been that animals which were recognised as in any way objects of worship by heathen neighbours, or even supposed by them to be connected with unseen supernatural beings, were to be considered unclean. See Bertholet in KHC., introd. note to this ch. But in other cases the prohibition probably rested on the animal’s repulsive appearance or uncleanly habits, or on sanitary or totemistic grounds. See Driver, Deut. p. 164, and Rob.-Sm. OTJC.2 p. 366.
A list of animals which may and may not be eaten is given in Deu_14:3-20; it has close verbal affinity with Lev_11:2-21 of this ch. The two passages are placed side by side in Driver (ICC.) Deut. P. 157 f.
Both lists are divided into classes:
(a) Beasts Lev_11:2-8. Cp. Deu_14:3-8
Deut. enumerates three domestic, and seven wild animals, as clean beasts which may be eaten. Lev. does not mention the clean beasts, but both give their two distinguishing marks—‘Whatsoever parteth the hoof … and cheweth the cud,’ and specify the same four beasts which have not both of these marks as unclean. Lev. is more diffuse, but employs the same expressions as Deut.
(b) Fishes Lev_11:9-12. Cp. Deu_14:9-10
The same criterion of cleanness, having ‘scales and fins,’ is given both in Lev. and Deut., but Lev. is more diffuse, and introduces a word (Heb. shéḳeẓ) detestation, used frequently in this ch., also in Lev_7:21, and Isa_66:17; Eze_8:10. Another and commoner form (shiḳḳuẓ) occurs in Deu_29:16. No fish is mentioned by name, and the distinction between clean and unclean fishes in particular cases was determined by the Jewish rabbis.
(c) Birds Lev_11:13-19. Cp. Deu_14:11-18
Deut. begins with ‘Of all clean birds ye may eat’ (Lev_11:11), but does not give a list like that of clean beasts. The forbidden birds are almost identical in both.
(d) Winged swarming things Lev_11:20-23. Cp. Deu_14:19-20
Lev. adds ‘that go upon all four’ (Lev_11:20), and in Lev_11:21-22 gives a list of winged swarming things that may be eaten (those that ‘leap’), repeating in Lev_11:23 the prohibition of Lev_11:20. Deut. concludes the list with ‘of all clean fowls (the same Heb. word as for ‘winged things’) ye may eat’ (Lev_14:20), but gives no list.
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 (1) And the Lord spake unto Moses and to…
XI.
(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron.—Lest the rebuke which Moses publicly administered to the priests (see Lev_10:16) should diminish their influence with the people, whom they had to teach the laws of clean and unclean things (see Lev_10:10-11) laid down in the following chapters, the Lord here honours Aaron, as well as Moses, by making this communication to them conjointly. Besides, Aaron as minister was as much concerned in these laws as Moses the legislator. Hence, when a question of defilement had afterwards to be decided, it was brought for judgment before Moses and Aaron conjointly. (See Num_9:6.)
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. H. Mackintosh 1880 · Public Domain Leviticus 11
Leviticus 11
The Book of Leviticus may be termed "the priest’s guide book." This is very much its character. It is full of principles for the guidance of such as desire to live in the enjoyment of priestly nearness to God. Had Israel gone on with Jehovah, according to the grace in which He had brought them up, out of the land of Egypt, they should have been to Him "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Ex. 19: 6) This, however, they failed to do. They put themselves at a distance. They got under law and failed to keep it. Hence, Jehovah had to take up a certain tribe, and from that tribe a certain family, and from that family a certain man, and to him and to his house, was granted the high privilege of drawing nigh, as priests unto God.
Read full note →
Now, the privileges of such a position were immense; but it had its heavy responsibilities, likewise. There would be the ever-recurring demand for the exercise of a discerning mind. "The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." (Mal. 2: 7) The priest was not only to bear the judgement of the congregation, before the Lord, but also to expound the ordinances of the Lord to the congregation. He was to be the ever-ready medium of communication between Jehovah and the assembly. He was not merely to know the mind of God, for himself, but be able also to interpret that mind to the people. All this would demand, of necessity, constant watching, constant waiting, constant hanging over the page of inspiration, that he might drink in, to his very soul, all the precepts, the judgements, the statutes, the laws, the commandments, and the ordinances of the God of Israel, so as to be able to instruct the congregation, in reference to "those things which ought to be done."
There was no room left for the play of fancy, the working of imagination, the introduction of man’s plausible inferences, or the cunning devices of human expediency. Everything was laid down, with the divine precision and commanding authority of a "thus saith the Lord." Minute and elaborate as was the detail of sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies, nothing was left for man’s brain to originate. He was not even permitted to decide upon the kind of sacrifice to be offered, upon any given occasion; nor yet as to the mode in which such sacrifice was to be presented. Jehovah took care of everything. Neither the congregation nor the priest had any authority whatsoever, to decree, enact, or suggest so much as a single item throughout all the vast array of ordinances in the Mosaic economy. The word of the Lord settled all. Man had only to obey.
This, to an obedient heart, was nothing short of an unspeakable mercy. It is quite impossible to overestimate the privilege of being permitted to betake oneself to the oracles of God, and there find the most ample, guidance as to all the details of one’s faith and service, day by day. All that we need is a broken will, a mortified mind, a single eye. The divine guide book is as full as we can possibly desire. We want no more. To imagine, for a moment, that ought is left for man’s wisdom to supply, must be regarded as a flagrant insult offered to the sacred canon. No one can read the Book of Leviticus, and not be struck with the extraordinary painstaking, on the part of Israel’s God, to furnish His people with the most minute instruction upon every point connected with His service and worship. The most cursory reader of the book might, at least, bear away with him this touching and interesting lesson.
And, truly, if ever there was a time when this self-same lesson needed to be read out in the ears of the professing church, this is the time. On all hands, the divine sufficiency of Holy Scripture is called in question;. In some cases this is openly and deliberately done; in others it is, with less frankness, hinted, insinuated, implied, and inferred. The Christian mariner is told, directly, or indirectly, that the divine chart is insufficient for all the intricate details of his voyage that such changes have taken place in the ocean of life, since that chart was made, that, in many cases, it is entirely deficient for the purposes of modern navigation. He is told that the currents, tides, coasts, strands, and shores of that ocean are quite different, now, from what they were from centuries ago, and that, as a necessary consequence, he must have recourse to the aids which modern navigation supplies, in order to make up for the deficiencies in the old chart, which is, as a matter of course, admitted to have been perfect at the time it was made.
Now, I earnestly desire that the Christian reader should be able, with clearness and decision, to meet this grievous dishonour done to the precious volume of inspiration, every line of which comes to him fresh from his Father’s bosom, through the pen of God the Holy Ghost. I desire that he should meet it, whether it comes before him in the shape of a bold and blasphemous statement, or a learned and plausible inference. Whatever garb it wears, it owes its origin to the enemy of Christ, the enemy of the Bible, the enemy of the soul. If, indeed, the Word of God be not sufficient, then where are we? or whither shall we turn? To whom shall we betake ourselves for aid, if our Father’s book be, in any respect, defective? God says that His book can "furnish us thoroughly to all good works." (2 Tim. 3: 17) Man says, no; there are many things about which the Bible is silent, which, nevertheless, we need to know. Whom am I to believe? God or man? Our reply to any one who questions the divine sufficiency of Scripture, is just this, "either you are not a ’man of God,’ or else that for which you want a warrant is not ’a good work,’" This is plain. No one can possibly think otherwise, with his eye resting on 2 Timothy 3: 17.
Oh! for a deeper sense of the fullness, majesty, and authority of the Word of God! We very much need to be braced up on this point. We want such a deep, bold, vigorous, influential, and abiding sense of the supreme authority of the divine canon, and of its absolute completeness for every age, every clime, every position, every department - personal, social, and ecclesiastical, as shall enable us to withstand every attempt of the enemy to depreciate the value of that inestimable treasure. May our hearts enter more into the spirit of those words of the Psalmist, "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgements endureth for ever." (Psalm 119: 160)
The foregoing train of thought is awakened by the perusal of the eleventh chapter of the Book of Leviticus. Therein we find Jehovah entering, in most marvellous detail, into a description of beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles, and furnishing His people with various marks by which they were to know what was clean and what was unclean. We have the summing up of the entire contents of this remarkable chapter in the two closing verses. "This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth; to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten."
With regard to beasts, two things were essential to render them clean, they should chew the cud and divide the hoof. "Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that shall ye eat." Either of these marks would, of itself, have been wholly insufficient to constitute ceremonial cleanness. The two should go together. Now, while these two marks were quite sufficient for the guidance of an Israelite, as to the cleanness or uncleanness of an animal, without any reference as to why or wherefore such marks were given, or what they meant, yet is the Christian permitted to enquire into the spiritual truth wrapped up in these ceremonial enactment’s.
What, then, are we to learn from those two features in a clean animal? The chewing of the cud expresses the natural process of "inwardly digesting" that which one eats; while the divided hoof sets forth the character of one’s outward walk. There is, as we know, an intimate connection between the two, in the christian life. The one who feeds upon the green pastures of the Word of God, and inwardly digests what he takes in - the one who is enabled to combine calm meditation with prayerful study, will, without doubt, manifest that character of outward walk which is to the praise of Him who has graciously given us His word to form our habits and govern our ways.
It is to be feared that many who read the Bible do not digest the word. The two things are widely different. One may read chapter after chapter, book after book, and not digest so much as a single line. We may read the Bible as part of a dull and profitless routine; but, through lack of the ruminating powers - the digestive organs, we derive no profit whatsoever. This should be carefully looked into. The cattle that browse on the green may teach us a wholesome lesson. They, first, diligently gather up the refreshing pasture, and then calmly lie down to chew the cud. Striking and beautiful picture of a Christian feeding upon and inwardly digesting the precious contents of the volume of inspiration. Would that there were more of this amongst us Were we more accustomed to betake ourselves to the Word as the necessary pasture of our souls, we should, assuredly, be in a more vigorous and healthy condition. Let us beware of reading the Bible as a dead form - a cold duty - a piece of religious routine.
The same caution is needful in reference to the public exposition of the Word. Let those who expound Scripture to their fellows, first feed and digest for themselves. Let them read and ruminate, in private, not merely for others, but for themselves. It is a poor thing for a man to be continually occupied in procuring food for other people, And he himself dying of starvation. Then, again, let those who attend upon the public ministry of the Word, see that they are not doing so mechanically, as by the force of mere religious habit, but with an earnest desire to "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" what they hear. Then will both teachers and taught be well-conditioned, the spiritual life nourished and sustained, and the true character of outward walk exhibited.
But, be it remembered, that the chewing of the cud must never be separated from the divided hoof. If one but partially acquainted with the priest’s guide book - unpractised in the divine ceremonial, happened to see an animal chewing the cud, he might hastily pronounce him clean. This would have been a serious error. A more careful reference to the divine directory would, at once, show that he must mark the animal’s walk - that he must note the impression made by each movement - that he must look for the result of the divided hoof. "Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you," &c., &c. (Ver. 4-6)
In like manner, the divided hoof was insufficient, if not accompanied by the chewing of the cud. "The swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." (Ver. 7) In a word, then, the two things were inseparable in the case of every clean animal; and, as to the spiritual application, it is of the very last importance, in a practical point of view. The inward life and the outward walk must go together. A man may profess to love and feed upon - to study and ruminate over the Word of God - the pasture of the soul; but, if his footprints along the pathway of life are not such as the Word requires, he is not clean. And, on the other hand, a man may seem to walk with pharisaic blamelessness; but if his walk be not the result of the hidden life, it is worse than worthless. There must be the divine principle within which feeds upon and digests the rich pasture of God’s Word, else the impression of the footstep will be of no avail. The value of each depends upon its inseparable connection with the other.
We are, here, forcibly reminded of a solemn passage in the First Epistle of John, in which the apostle furnishes us with the two marks whereby we may know those that are of God. "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness, is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." (1 John 3: 10) Here we have the two grand characteristics of the eternal life, of which all true believers are possessed, namely, "righteousness" and "love". The outward and the inward. Both must be combined. Some professing Christians are all for love, so called; and some for righteousness. Neither can exist, in a divine way, without the other. If that which is called love exist without practical righteousness, it will, in reality, be but a lax, soft, easy-going habit of mind, which will tolerate all manner of error and evil. And, if that which is called righteousness exist without love, it will be a stern, proud, pharisaic, self-sufficient temper of soul resting upon the miserable basis of personal reputation. But where the divine life is in energy, there will ever be the inward charity combined with genuine practical righteousness. The two elements are essential in the formation of true Christian character. There must be the love that will express itself in reference to the very feeblest development of that which is of God; and, at the same time, the holiness that shrinks, with intense abhorrence, from all that is of Satan.
We shall now pass on to the consideration of that which the Levitical ceremonial taught with respect to "all that are in the waters." Here again, we find the double mark. "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." (Ver. 9, 10) Two things were necessary to render a fish ceremonially clean, namely, "fins and scales," which, obviously, set forth a certain fitness for the sphere and element in which the creature had to move.
But, doubtless, there was more than this. I believe it is our privilege to discern, in the natural properties with which God has endowed those creatures which move in the waters, certain spiritual qualities which belong to the Christian life. If a fish needs a "fin" to enable him to move through the waters and "scales" to resist the action thereof, so does the believer need that spiritual capacity which enables him to move onward through the scene with which he is surrounded, and, at the same time, to resist its influence - to prevent its penetrating - to keep it out. These are precious qualities. The fin and the scale are pregnant with meaning - full of practical instruction to the Christian. They exhibit to us, in ceremonial garb, two things which we specially need, namely, spiritual energy to move onward through the element which surrounds us, and the power to preserve us from its action. The one will not avail without the other. It is of no use to possess a capacity to get on, through the world, if we are not proof against the world’s influence; and though we may seem to be able to keep the world out, yet if He have not the motive power, we are defective. The "fins" would not do without the "scales," nor the "scales" without the "fins" Both were required, to render a fish ceremonially clean; and we, in order to be properly equipped, require to be encased against the penetrating influence of an evil world; and, at the same time, to be furnished with a capacity to pass rapidly on.
The whole deportment of a Christian should declare him a pilgrim and a stranger here. "Onward" must be his motto - ever and only, onward. Let his locality and his circumstances be what they may, he is to have his eye fixed on a home beyond this perishing, passing world. He is furnished, by grace, with spiritual ability to go forward - to penetrate, energetically, through all, and carry out the earnest aspirations of his heaven-born spirit. And, while thus vigorously pushing his way onward - while "forcing his passage to the skies," he is to keep his inward man fenced round about, and fast closed up against all external influences.
Oh! for more of the onward bent, the upward tendency! For more holy fixedness of soul, and profound retirement from this vain world! We shall have reason to bless the Lord for our meditations amid the ceremonial shadows of the Book of Leviticus, if we are led, thereby, to long more intensely after those graces which, though so dimly portrayed there, are, nevertheless, so manifestly needful for us.
From verse 13 to verse 24 of our chapter, we have the law with respect to birds. All of the carnivorous kind, that is, all that fed on flesh, were unclean. The omnivorous, or those who could eat anything, were unclean. All those which, though furnished with power to soar into the heavens, would, nevertheless, grovel upon the earth, were unclean. As to the latter class, there were some exceptional cases; (ver. 21, 22;) but the general rule, the fixed principle, the standing ordinance was as distinct as possible; "all fowls that creep, going upon all fours, shall be an abomination unto you." (Ver. 20) All this is very simple in its instruction to us. Those fowls that could feed upon flesh; those that could swallow anything or everything; and all grovelling fowls, were to be unclean to the Israel of God, because so pronounced by the God of Israel; nor can the spiritual mind have any difficulty in discerning the fitness of such an ordinance. We can not only trace in the habits of the above three classes of fowl the just ground of their being pronounced unclean; but we can also see in them the striking exhibition of that, in nature, which is to be strenuously guarded against by every true Christian. Such an one is called to refuse everything of a carnal nature. Moreover, he cannot feed, promiscuously, upon everything that comes before him. He must "try the things that differ:" He must "take heed what he hears." He must exercise a discerning mind, a spiritual judgement, a heavenly taste. Finally, he must use his wings. He must rise on the pinions of faith, and find his place in the celestial sphere to which he belongs. In short, there must be nothing grovelling, nothing promiscuous, nothing unclean, for the Christian.
As to "creeping things," the following was the general rule: "And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten." (Ver. 41) How wonderful to think of the condescending grace of Jehovah! He could stoop to give directions about a crawling reptile. He would not leave His people at a loss as to the most trivial affair. The priest’s guide book contained the most simple instructions as to everything. He desired to keep His people free from the defilement consequent upon touching, tasting, or handling ought that was unclean. They were not their own, and hence they were not to do as they pleased. They belonged to Jehovah; His name was called upon them; they were identified with Him. His word was to be their grand regulating standard, in every case. From it they were to learn the ceremonial status of beasts, birds, fishes, and creeping things. They were not to think their own thoughts, to exercise their own reasoning powers, or be guided by their own imaginations, in such matters. God’s Word was to be their sole directory. Other nations might eat what they pleased; but Israel enjoyed the high privilege of eating that only which was pleasing to Jehovah.
Nor was it as to the mere matter of eating ought that was unclean that the people of God were so jealously guarded. Bare contact was forbidden. (See ver. 8, 24, 26-28, 31-41) It was impossible for a member of the Israel of God to touch that which was unclean without contracting defilement. This is a principle largely unfolded, both in the law and the prophets. "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, ask ye now the priests concerning the law, saying, if one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean." (Hag. 2: 11-13) Jehovah would have His people holy in all things. They were neither to eat nor touch ought that was unclean. "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby." Then follows the powerful reason for all this careful separation. "For I am The Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." (Ver. 43-45)
It is well to see that the personal holiness of God’s people - their entire separation from all manner of uncleanness, flows out of their relationship to Him. It is not upon the principle of "stand by thyself, I am holier than thou;’ but simply this, "God is holy," and therefore all who are brought into association with Him must be holy, likewise. It is, in every way, worthy of God that His people should be holy. "Thy testimonies are very sure; holiness becometh thy house, O Lord, for ever." What else save holiness could become the house of such an One as Jehovah If any one had asked an Israelite, of old, "Why do you shrink so from that reptile which crawls along the path?" He would have replied, "Jehovah is holy; and I belong to Him. He has said’ Touch not." So, also, now, if a Christian be asked why he walks apart from the ten thousand things in which the men of this world participate, his answer is simply to be, "My Father is holy." This is the true foundation of personal holiness. The more we contemplate the divine character, and enter into the power of our relationship to God, in Christ, by the energy of the Holy Ghost, the holier we must, of necessity, be. There can be no progress in the condition of holiness into which the believer is introduced; but there is, and ought to be, progress in the apprehension, experience, and practical exhibition of that holiness. These things should never be confounded. All believers are in the same condition of holiness or sanctification; but their practical measure may vary to any conceivable degree. This is easily understood. The condition arises out of our being brought nigh to God, by the blood of the cross; the practical measure will depend upon our keeping nigh, by the power of the Spirit. It is not a man setting up for something superior in himself - for a greater degree of personal sanctity than is ordinarily possessed - for being, in any wise, better than his; neighbours. All such pretensions are utterly contemptible, in the judgement of every right-thinking person. But then, if God, in His exceeding grace, stoop down to our low estate, and lift us into the holy elevation of His blessed presence, in association with Christ, has He not a right to prescribe what our character is to be, as thus brought nigh? Who could think of calling in question a truth so obvious And, further, are we not bound to aim at the maintenance of that character which He prescribes? Are we to be accused of presumption for so doing Was it presumption in an Israelite to refuse to touch Nay, it would have been presumption of the most daring and dangerous character to have done so. True, he might not have been able to make an uncircumcised stranger understand or appreciate the reason of his conduct; but this was not his province. Jehovah had said, "Touch not," not because an Israelite was holier in himself than a stranger; but because Jehovah was holy, and Israel belonged to Him. It needed the eye and the heart of a circumcised disciple of the law of God, in order to discern what was clean and what was not. An alien knew no difference. Thus it must ever be. It is only Wisdom’s children that can justify her and approve her heavenly ways.
Ere turning from Leviticus 11, my reader might, with much spiritual profit, compare it with the tenth chapter of Acts, ver. 11-16. How strange is must have appeared to one who had, from his earliest days, been taught in the principles of the Mosaic ritual, to see a vessel descending from heaven, "wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air;" and not only to see such a vessel, so filled, but also to hear a voice, saying, "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat." How wonderful. No examination of hoofs or habits! There was no need of this. The vessel and its contents had come from heaven. This was enough. The Jew might ensconce himself behind the narrow enclosures of the Jewish ritual, and exclaim, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean;" but, then, the tide of divine grace was rising, majestically, above all such enclosures, in order to embrace, in its mighty compass, "all manner" of objects, and bear them upward to heaven, in the power and on the authority of those precious words, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." It mattered not what was in the vessel, if God had cleansed it. The Author of the Book of Leviticus was about to raise the thoughts of His servant above the barriers which that book had erected, into all the magnificence of heaven’s grace. He would teach him that true cleanness - the cleanness which heaven demanded, was no longer to consist in chewing the cud, dividing the hoof, or any such ceremonial marks, but in being washed in the blood of the Lamb, which cleanseth from all sin, and renders the believer clean enough to tread the sapphire pavement of the heavenly courts.
This was a noble lesson for a Jew to learn. It was a divine lesson, before the light of which the shadows of the old economy must pass away. The hand of sovereign grace has thrown open the door of the kingdom; but not to admit ought that is unclean. This could not be. Nothing unclean can enter heaven. But, then, a cloven hoof was no longer to be the criterion; but "what God hath cleansed." When God cleanses a man, he must needs be clean. Peter was about to be sent to open the kingdom to the Gentiles, as he had already opened it to the Jews; and his Jewish heart needed to be enlarged. He needed to get above the dark shadows of a by-gone age, into the meridian light that was shining from an open heaven, in virtue of a completed sacrifice. He needed to get out of the narrow current of Jewish prejudices, should be borne upon the bosom of that mighty tide of grace which was about to roll through the length and breadth of a lost world. He had to learn, too, that the standard by which true cleanness must be regulated, was no longer carnal, ceremonial, and earthly, but spiritual, moral, and heavenly. Assuredly, we may say, these were noble lessons for the apostle of the circumcision to learn upon the housetop of Simon the tanner. They were eminently calculated to soften, to expand, and elevate a mind which had been trained amid the contracting influences of the Jewish system. We bless the Lord for these precious lessons. We bless Him for the large and wealthy place in which He has set us, by the blood of the cross. We bless Him that we are no longer hemmed round about by "touch not this; taste not that; handle not the other thing; but that His Lord assures us that "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Tim. 4: 4, 5)
C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain THE two preceding parts having made manifest the way…
THE two preceding parts having made manifest the way of approach to God by means of sacrifice and the appointed priesthood of mediation, there follows a part having for its subject that which keeps man apart from God, namely, uncleanness, whether ceremonial uncleanness, which may be removed by ceremonial observances, or moral uncleanness, that is, unrighteousness, which, so far as it is a ceremonial offense, may be also dealt with ceremonially, but in respect to its moral character demands punishment. This part consists of four sections. The first section, comprising chapters 11-15, treats of ceremonial uncleanness, caused
(1) by unclean food (chapter 11);
Read full note →
(2) by childbirth (chapter 12);
(3) by the leprosy of man and of garments and of houses (chapters 13, 14);
(4) by issues (chapter 15).
The second section deals with the uncleanness contracted every year by the whole congregation, to be annually atoned for on the great Day of Atonement (chapter 16), followed by a parenthetical chapter as to the place in which sacrifice is to be offered sacrifice being the means by which purification from uncleanness is to be effected (chapter 17). The third section is on moral uncleanness, or sin (chapters 18, 19), and its punishment (chapter 20). The fourth relates to the ceremonial and moral uncleanness of priests (chapters 21, 22).
The idea underlying ceremonial uncleanness is not peculiar to the Jews. With the Greeks the idea of moral beauty was borrowed from physical beauty, and the standard of moral excellence was the beautiful. With the Hebrews physical ugliness is taken as the symbol of moral ugliness or deformity: whatever is foul is the type of what is evil. That which we have a natural admiration for is good, said the Greek; that which we have a natural repugnance for represents to us what is evil, said the Hebrew. In either case, taste appears to take the place of moral judgment; but in Greek philosophy, moral taste and moral judgment had come to be identical, while the Hebrew knew that what taste condemned was not therefore of itself evil, but only symbolical and representative of evil.
Another principle underlies the Hebrew theory of uncleanness. It is that whatever is itself foul, and therefore symbolical of sin, conveys the quality of foulness, and therefore of ceremonial uncleanness to any one it comes in contact with, and often to anything which it touches. Thus a dead body, quickly assuming a loathsome appearance in the East, where the setting in of corruption is very rapid, is unclean itself, and conveys uncleanness to those who touch it. The leper is unclean, and transmits uncleanness by his touch; and certain foul diseases and fluxes from the human body have the same effect. These and such like things, being always repulsive, always cause uncleanness; but there are others which, while in some associations they are utterly repellent, in others are not so. For example, there are some vermin and insects which are pretty to the eye, but the thought of eating them creates a natural feeling of disgust. These, in so far as they are not repulsive, that is, as creeping or flying creatures, are not unclean, nor does their touch produce uncleanness, but as objects of food they are "an abomination.
Hence we are able to explain the distinction of clean and unclean animals. It does not rest upon a sanitary basis, though the prohibition to eat carnivorous and other animals repulsive to the taste is probably in accordance with the rules of health. Nor is it based on political reasons, though it is probable that the distinction kept the Jews apart kern other nations, and so served an important political purpose. Nor is the injunction in the main theological, though we know that in later times the favourite interpretation was that the clean animals represented the Jews, and the unclean animals the Gentiles. (Act_10:28) Rather it was that certain creatures were forbidden because they were offensive to the taste, and, being so offensive, they were symbolical of vicious things, which must be avoided, lest they make those that partake of them or touch them to become vicious like themselves.
Vers. 2-8 contain the regulations relating to the eating of quadrupeds; verses 9-12, those relating to fish; verses 13-19, those relating to birds; verses 20-23, those relating to flying insects; verses 29, 30, those relating to unwinged creeping things; verses 41-44, those relating to vermin. Verses 23-28 and 31-40 extend the defiling effect to the simple touch of the dead carouses of animals, whether edible or not.
The Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron. Aaron, having now been consecrated high priest, is joined with Moses as the recipient of the laws on cleanness and uncleanness in Lev_11:1 Lev_13:1 Lev_14:33 Lev_15:1. His name is not mentioned in Lev_12:1 Lev_14:1 Lev_17:1 Lev_18:1 Lev_19:1 Lev_20:1 Lev_21:1, 16 22:1, 17, 26. Probably there is no signification in these omissions.
Meats distinguished into clean and unclean now for the first time.
I ORIGINALLY MAN"S LIBERTY WITH RESPECT TO EATING FLESH WAS UNRESTRICTED. Such is St. Paul"s teaching: "Meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving". (1Ti_4:8, 1Ti_4:4) "Unto the pure all things are pure". (Tit_1:15) "The earth is the Lord"s, and the fullness thereof". (1Co_10:26) "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself". (Rom_14:14) And our Lord has taught, that "there is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him". (Mar_7:15)
II THE RESTRAINTS NOW INTRODUCED WERE ONLY TEMPORARY. They were only intended to serve a purpose for a time, while the principle underlying them is of permanent application. So the sabbatical law is of permanent obligation, but the form which that law took in the Mosaic dispensation was temporary, and has been abrogated without injury to the binding force of the sabbatical law, that one seventh of our time should be given to God.
III THE PURPOSE OF THESE RESTRAINTS. Their object was educational. They were intended to teach, in a manner that the Israelites were capable of apprehending, and that was consonant with the rest of the Mosaic legislation, an abhorrence of spiritual evil, by fostering an abhorrence of physical foulness which was taken as the representative of moral evil.
IV THEIR LESSON WAS TAUGHT. When the time of the institution of the new dispensation had arrived, the distinction between good and evil had been taught by the difference between fair and foul, or if not taught, it could be now taught in a better way than by sensible types and figures. Teaching by word had taken the place of teaching by images.
V THEIR INTENTION WAS PERVERTED. The more carnal minded among the Jews rested in the letter of the command, and added other material injunctions to it, "in the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and tables". (Mar_7:4) With them the command had failed in its purpose, and they satisfied themselves with a mere external observance of the letter. This our Lord sharply reproved: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.... Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man". (Mar_7:15-23) This teaching prepared the way for the abolition of the restriction.
VI RESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL LIBERTY. First taught by the vision of St. Peter. "Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: and he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time,
What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven". (Act_10:9-16) The first purpose of this vision was to show the acceptance of the Gentiles, who, according to the now received Jewish interpretation, were represented by the unclean beasts; but that was not the only lesson taught; there was also involved the conception that the whole system of clean and unclean meats was abolished. This doctrine, as we have seen, was adopted and enforced by St. Paul, and be says that it is as a Christian that he has learnt this lesson, "I know, and am persuaded by (in) the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself.... All things indeed are pure". (Rom_14:14-20) "Meat commendeth us not to God". (1Co_7:8) "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost". (Rom_14:17)
VII PROHIBITION OF BLOOD, AND THINGS STRANGLED, CONTINUED BY THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. The Council of Jerusalem, in deciding the terms on which the Gentiles should be admitted to the Christian Church, forbade the eating of things offered to idols, and blood, and things strangled. The first of these restrictions rested on a different principle; the second and third are a continuation of the Mosaic regulations, and the reason why they are retained is given. "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every sabbath day". (Act_15:21) Inasmuch as the Christian Church consisted of Jews and Gentiles, and the former of these regarded themselves as bound by the Mosaic legislation, the Synod of Jerusalem desired that the Gentiles should concede to their brethren so far as not to partake of those things which Jewish Christians thought themselves bound to abstain from, lest there should be a schism between the two divisions of the Church. This law had become one of charity solely, and would naturally be abrogated, or rather cease to bind, when the occasion for it ceased. As in the parallel case of meats offered to idols, "no man" was to "put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother"s way". (Rom_14:13) "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak". (Rom_14:21) "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend". (1Co_8:13) But no flesh was now forbidden by a positive regulation of God. The rule had become one of charity, and when the number of Jewish Christians ceased to be considerable in relation to Gentiles, it naturally came to an end.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Chapter 11The religious use of nature.
cf. Ps 104 Ps 107 Job 38 Job 41 Mt 13 2Sa_22:34. We pass now to the relation in which the Lord"s people are to stand to animated nature. So far from treating it with indifference, they were bound to regard certain animals as clean and certain others as unclean, and to regard their use of and contact with them as of religious importance. The temptation to use nature as something outside religious considerations was hereby avoided, and the Jew was led to regard every animal as having some religious significance to him. A literal watchfulness was thus inculcated of the most painstaking character. The Jew, wherever he went, was on his guard against the unclean, and was providing for his use only what was legally clean and pure.
I NATURE IS A REVELATION OF GOD IF WE ONLY HAD ITS KEY. It is too often forgotten that nature was the first revelation of God to his creatures. The Bible is the supplementary revelation necessitated by sin. To our first parents before the Fall, nature had a deeper meaning, most probably, than it has yet had to us. The interpretation of nature is most important, and there is no need that it should be "agnostic" or irreligious. Provided scientific fact be welcomed, there is no detriment, but rather there is gain, in looking at our surroundings in a religious spirit. Science is not bound to become a department of theology, and to be running up into theological statements; neither, on the other hand, is it bound to indulge in atheistic ones. The "argument of design" may not be a part of science, but it is just as true that the argument of chance, which is the only alternative, is no part of true science either. But while science is under no obligation to become theological, it is right that nature should be regarded religiously, Natural religion has its sphere just as well as supernatural religion.
II WE INSTINCTIVELY USE ANIMATED NATURE TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MANKIND. The animals become our picture alphabet, by whose help we spell out character. Indeed, so close are the affinities between the lower animals and the successive stages of human character, that one ingenious foreign writer points out an analogy between the development in nature and the development in individual human nature "Man passes still today," says M. Secretan, "through the form of the ape, and he passes through it visibly; the embryonic evolution continues itself in the transformations of the first age, the spiritual development allies itself to the corporeal evolution, it is regulated by the same laws. Just as the human body reproduces in summary form the whole history of organized nature, the spirit of a civilized person reproduces in abridgment the whole history of the human spirit, and the two histories are inseparable. The characteristic of the ape, imitation without intelligence, is also the characteristic of the child when he is put in possession of his organs. This phase is essential; the child would not learn to eat, he would not learn to walk, he would not learn especially to speak, and by consequence to think, were he not, during some period and in certain respects, a little parrot and a little ape, Simian imitation is the process by which the acquisitions of the species are appropriated by the individual. Simian imitation, by which I mean the reproduction of movements of which the intention is not comprehended, is the normal and desired transition between instinct and the reflective intelligence, which is the properly human condition." There seems, therefore, to be a reason in the very nature of things for the illustration of moral or immoral qualities from the animals. Amid other uses served by the lower creation, there is certainly this one of furnishing illustrations of character. Our Lord"s parables embody the principle of the spiritual significance of nature in its broadest applications.
III BY THE DIVISION OF THE ANIMALS HERE PROPOSED IMPORTANT MORAL QUALITIES ARE COMMENDED AND IMMORAL ONES CONDEMNED. A scientific division was not needed for a religious purpose. A popular division, easily apprehended, would serve infinitely better. The distinctions drawn are such as may be seen at a glance.
1. Quadrupeds. The clean are those who divide the hoof and chew the cud. In other words, the ruminants are to be regarded as the clean. All other quadrupeds are to be accounted unclean. That there may be no mistake, the camel, coney, hare, and swine are emphasized as unclean, because possessing only one of the required characteristics. The flesh of the ruminants is generally considered as more wholesome than that of the other quadrupeds; but this would scarcely determine the division. Let the fact, however, be noted that reflection finds its fitting illustration in the rumination of these animals, and that they are justly regarded as both sure-footed and cleanly; then we see a moral purpose in the distinction. If the Lord"s people were to associate with these animals and use them for food, while the other quadrupeds were to be avoided, it was to teach them to reflect faithfully upon what God gave them, to be steadfast in running the race he sets before them, and to be pure in their walk and conversation. That such moral ideas were associated with the clean animals is corroborated by such passages as 2Sa_22:34 Psa_18:33 Heb_3:19; with which may be compared 1Sa_2:9.
2. Fishes. Here, again, the clean ones are those which have both fins and scales. All that have not these two characteristics are to be deemed an abomination, such as sharks, eels, and the swarmers generally (xrv). That moral characteristics are illustrated in fish as well as in quadrupeds is acknowledged by the common usage of language. Do we not call men of a rapacious disposition "sharks;" and say of men of uncertain and cunning ways that they "wriggle like eels"? It seems certain, therefore, that the distinction here made, while perhaps having some foundation in the quality of the flesh, is primarily to illustrate disposition, and to guard the Jews against the selfishness and rapacity associated with the unclean fishes. It could hardly be locomotion which is referred to in this animal kingdom, since some of the unclean fishes, for example, the sharks, are remarkable for their speed. Moreover, the fact of sharks and some other fishes having scales, though of almost microscopic character, is no argument against the fidelity of the record. The Law was given primarily to a people of simple and not scientific habits not to microscopists. Its popular style and adaptation to common life are among its highest recommendations.
3. Birds. Here, again, when the words are looked carefully into, the distinction seems to be that clean birds are such as feed. on grain and grasses, while the carnivorous birds are excluded as unclean. In no more striking way could unholy appetites be illustrated and condemned. Restraint and purity were thus inculcated.
4. Reptiles. Of these permission is given to eat four kinds of locust, all of which are distinguished as leapers, and not runners. Locomotion in this case, rather than food, is the ground of the distinction. When besides, we remember the migratory character of these insects, there is conveyed an excellent illustration of the stranger spirit, which alights on earth only so far as is needful, and takes more kindly to the air. If God"s people should be "strangers and pilgrims upon earth," if they should be setting their affections on things above, the locust tribes, which the Jews were allowed to eat, most admirably illustrated the required spirit. On the other hand, the mole, the mouse, the lizard (bx, not "tortoise," as in English "Version), gecko (hqga, not "the ferret," as in English Version), monitor (jko, from its great strength not "the chameleon"), lizard and sand-lizard (fmjo, from lying on the ground not "snail," for they are eaten by Jews and Orientals, as not unclean), and. chameleon are to be regarded as unclean. Earthliness and ugliness in one word, the repulsiveness of sin seem indicated by this distinction.
We have thus inculcated, by this easy, popular division of the animals, important moral qualities to be cultivated and immoral qualities to be avoided. Animated nature became thus a mirror for human nature. The living world around man was thus made to take up a parabolic language and promote his sanctification.
IV THE DEFILING CHARACTER OF DEATH THROUGH NATURAL CAUSES WAS TO BE CONSTANTLY RECOGNIZED. Even a clean animal which had died of itself was not to be eaten or touched with impunity. Defilement was the result of such contact. The lesson of mortality as the penalty of sin was thus illustrated. Men might devote an animal to death for sacrificial purposes or for their own use, but when death came as the debt of nature, at once its defiling character must be realized, and purification sought accordingly.
The laws of this chapter entailed constant watchfulness. No careless living was possible under the Jewish regime. In the same spirit surely should we "watch and. pray, lest we enter into temptation." In the same spirit should we ask ourselves, What spiritual lessons is surrounding nature communicating to our spirits? Not in vain, and not for mere utility, has such an environment been thrown around us. R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-8. Clean and unclean.
As man is made after the image of God, so is the outward and sensible world constituted as a kind of apographa to represent the spiritual world which is the subject of faith. (Rom_1:20) The key to unlock the mysteries of this system is to be found in the Scriptures of truth; and animals, according to it, are to be viewed as representing men.
I THE LAW DISTRIBUTES THEM INTO TWO CLASSES.
1. The clean. The marks of cleanness are:
(1) That they "divide the hoof." By the division of the hoof, as in the ox and sheep, the animal is able so to order its steps as not to throw up the mud upon itself, as the horse does whose hoof is not cloven.
(2) They "chew the cud." So their food is more perfectly prepared for digestion. The manner in which this is done, while the creature rests, is so suggestive of thoughtfulness and meditation that it is described as ruminating.
(3) The clean animals were therefore chosen to represent the Israelites, who were a holy nation. They were ceremonially holy:
(a) So walking in the ways of God"s commandments as not to be polluted with the abominations of idolatry.
(b) So meditating upon the Law as inwardly to digest it to their nourishment. (see Psa_1:2 1Ti_4:13-15)
(c) Thus also they became morally greatly superior to the nations around them.
2. The unclean.
(1) The Gentiles in contrast to the Jews were so, ceremonially, and were therefore shut out from communion with the Jews. But it was competent to them to be made holy by becoming proselytes.
(2) They were in general idolaters, and so morally abominable. It was mainly to keep the Israelites from being contaminated with the idolatries of their neighbours, that these laws were instituted. (see verse 45; 20:23-25; Deu_14:1-3)
3. There are but two classes of men.
(1) Though some animals divide the hoof, they are not clean unless they also chew the cud. The hog is of this order, and is filthy to a proverb. (2Pe_1:2) So it does not make men clean to have the faculty for walking cleanly when their disposition otherwise leads them to wallow in the mire of sin.
(2) Though some chew the cud, yet if they divide not the hoof they are unclean. The "camel," the "coney," and the "hare, or whatever creature, the word tbnra may describe, are of this order. For what good is the semblance of meditation and repentance, if the walk of the life be not clean? (Jam_1:20)
(3) As there are varieties of clean and also of unclean animals, so are there varieties and degrees of goodness, on the one hand, and of wickedness on the other, amongst men. Still the classes are but two. The one is led by Christ, the other by Satan. (Mat_12:30 Mat_25:2, Mat_25:32, Mat_25:33) To which class do you belong?
II THE LAW IN THE LETTER IS NOW CHANGED.
1. The gospel is freely preached to the Gentiles.
(1) They are not now under obligation to be proselyted to Judaism. This subject was debated in the early Church, and settled at the Council of Jerusalem.
(2) The same decision, which was at the instance of Peter to whom the Lord had assigned that distinction, (see Mat_16:19) released the Jews also from the yoke of the Law (see Acts 15).
2. This was according to prophetic indication.
(1) Under the figure of the unclean wolf dwelling with the lamb, etc., (Isaiah 11) describes the Gentile and Jew as to be wonderfully reconciled in the days of Messiah.
(2) To show that the Jew must have no fellowship with the Gentile, the Law forbade the yoking together of the clean ox with the unclean ass. (Deu_22:10) But prophecy anticipates the blessedness of the time when the seed, viz. of the gospel, should be sewn beside all waters not those of Judea only, but of the wide world; and that in this business the ox and the ass the Jew and the Gentile should become fellow-workers. (see Isa_32:20; comp. also Deu_25:4 1Co_9:9-11 1Ti_5:18)
3. Peter"s vision instructed him that this lime was come.
(1) The animals contained in the sheet were those described as unclean in the Law, and represented the Gentiles. Peter, therefore, when commanded to kill and eat, hesitated, for that he "had never eaten anything that was common or unclean." He therefore held that "it was an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation.
(2) But the linen sheet which enclosed the animals was the emblem of purity; and they were thrice lifted into the heavens. To these symbols agreed also the voice which said, "What God hath cleansed that call not thou common.
(3) When therefore Peter had all this corroborated by the counter-vision of Cornelius, he was convinced that henceforth he "should not call any man common or unclean." For the universality of the mercy of the gospel had been testified in that the sheet was knit at the four corners, showing that the Gentiles were to be gathered together from the four quarters of the world.
III THE LAW IN ITS SPIRIT STILL ABIDES.
1. For the gospel is that spirit.
(1) The glory on the face of Moses was veiled to the Jews. So concerned were they with the letter that they could not steadfastly look upon the true glory of their own Law. Moses therefore put a vail upon his face, viz. the vail of the letter. This vail is still upon their hearts, and must so remain until they turn to the Lord, or become converted to Christ.
(2) When Moses turned to the Lord, from whom he derived his glory, he took off the vail; and it is the same glory which falls upon us. The only difference is that in the spirit of the Law we see the glory of the Lord reflected from the face of Moses; but in the spirit of the gospel we see the same glory as Moses himself saw it, immediately, in the face of Jesus.
(3) Thus passing from the Law to the gospel, a spiritual person is changed from glory to glory. This brightening transfiguration is effected "by the Spirit of the Lord," or, as the margin construes it, "by the Lord who is the Spirit," viz. of the Law. The Spirit of the Lord is the Spirit of the Law.
2. The gospel insists upon moral purity.
(1) We have seen that the law of yoking together the ox and the ass is repealed under the gospel. This was as to the letter. But we shall find it still insisted upon, viz. as to the spirit. For Paul clearly refers to it (2Co_6:14) when he forbids the unequal yoking together of Christians and infidels.
(2) In the spirit of it Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, the Law, and that to the jot and tittle. (Mat_5:17-20) What a rebuke is here to the antinomian! What a stumbling-block to the Jew is the antinomianism in false theories of Christianity! Christians who neglect the study of the Law miss the benefit of many glorious views of precious gospel truth. How just is the remark of Augustine, that "the Old Testament, when rightly understood, is one great prophecy of the Sew"! J.A.M.
Vers. 1-47. Holiness.
Verse 45, "For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
I THE BASIS ON WHICH HOLINESS RESTS. The Divine call.
1. All religion must find its real strength as well as its root in Divine love. "We love him because he first loved us." A redeemed life must be holy. "He that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." We begin our holiness with the cross of Christ. He has cleansed us with his blood, therefore we must be clean.
2. The deliverance effected by God for his people is made the pledge of an eternal life by the special covenant, which separated them from all others. We must have fact and positive revelation and direct premise to fall back upon. He also calls us to himself, declares himself our God. He says, "Be ye holy; for I am holy." Likeness to God is our rule; fellowship with God is our strength and joy.
II THE NATURE AND METHOD OF HOLINESS.
1. The holiness which God requires is personal holiness holiness in life, manners, habits, food, everything which concerns the man himself. The distinctions of clean and unclean animals, etc., refer to natural laws of health and life.
2. Holiness must be the characteristic of God"s people as a community. The laws of cleanliness separated the nation as a whole from other nations. They applied to all classes, and to every individual. The Church must be a holy Church. The lack of discipline is a terrible hindrance to the advance of religion. We must keep off the unclean. The covenant blessing will not be given unless the covenant law be observed, "Let a man examine himself." Defilement of sacred things is judgment to ourselves.
3. The holiness of this world"s life is a promise and prediction of the higher holiness of the everlasting life. The clean and unclean animals were distinguished that the taint of death might be removed in the case of those fit for food. The distinction itself seemed to say all would be clean to you if it were not for death. When we are above the conditions of earthly life, then to be holy will be to be really like God not in a mere negative purity of not being contaminated, not sinning; but being spiritually created afresh, with immortal natures, with perfect hearts to serve God, with life interpenetrated by his Divine glory. The holiness of the best Christian on earth is but an imperfect thing, largely a holiness of external regulation and separation from the unclean; but the holiness of the angelic nature will be a real and positive participation of the Divine. R.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain WITH chapter 11 begins a new section of this…
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, AND DEFILEMENT BY DEAD BODIES
Lev_11:1-47
Read full note →
WITH chapter 11 begins a new section of this book, extending to the end of chapter 15, of which the subject is the law concerning various bodily defilements, and the rites appointed for their removal.
The law is given under four heads, as follows:
I. Clean and Unclean Animals, and Defilement by Dead Bodies: chapter 11.
II. The Uncleanness of Childbirth: chapter 12.
III. The Uncleanness of Leprosy: chapters 13, 14.
IV. The Uncleanness of Issues: chapter 15.
From the modern point of view this whole subject appears to many, with no little reason, to be encompassed with peculiar difficulties. We have become accustomed to think of religion as a thing so exclusively of the spirit, and so completely independent of bodily conditions, provided that these be not in their essential nature sinful, that it is a great stumbling block to many that God should be represented as having given to Israel an elaborate code of laws concerning such subjects as are treated in these five chapters of Leviticus: a legislation which, to not a few, seems puerile and unspiritual, if not worse. And yet, for the reverent believer in Christ, who remembers that our blessed Lord did repeatedly refer to this book of Leviticus as, without any exception or qualification, the Word of His Father, it should not be hard, in view of this fact, to infer that the difficulties which most of us have felt are presumably due to our very imperfect knowledge of the subject. Remembering this, we shall be able to approach this part of the law of Moses, and, in particular, this chapter, with the spirit, not of critics, but of learners, who know as yet but little of the mysteries of Gods dealings with Israel or with the human race.
Chapter 11 may be divided into two sections, together with a concluding appeal and summary (Lev_11:41-47). The first section treats of the law of the clean and the unclean in relation to eating (Lev_11:1-23). Under this head, the animals which are permitted or forbidden are classified, after a fashion not scientific, but purely empirical and practical, into
(1) the beasts which are upon the earth (Lev_11:2-8);
(2) things that are in the waters (Lev_11:9-12);
(3) flying things, -comprising, first, birds and flying animals like the bat (Lev_11:13-19); and, secondly, insects, "winged creeping things that go upon all four" (Lev_11:20-23).
The second section treats of defilement by contact with the dead bodies of these, whether unclean (Lev_11:24-38), or clean (Lev_11:39-40).
Of the living things among the beasts that are upon the earth (Lev_11:2-8), those are permitted for food which both chew the cud and divide the hoof; every animal in which either of these marks is wanting is forbidden. Of the things which live in the waters, those only are allowed for food which have both fins and scales; those which lack either of these marks, such as, for example, eels, oysters, and all the mollusca and crustacea, are forbidden (Lev_11:9-12). Of flying things (Lev_11:13-19) which may be eaten, no special mark is given; though it is to be noted that nearly all of those which are by name forbidden are birds of prey, or birds reputed to be unclean in their habits. All insects, "winged creeping things that go upon all four" (Lev_11:20), or "whatsoever hath many feet," or "goeth upon the belly," as worms, snakes, etc., are prohibited (Lev_11:42). Of insects, a single class, described as those "which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth," is excepted (Lev_11:21-22): these are known to us as the order Saltatoria, including, as typical examples, the cricket, the grasshopper, and the migratory locust; all of which, it may be noted, are clean feeders, living upon vegetable products only. It is worthy of notice that the law of the clean and the unclean in food is not extended, as it was in Egypt, to the vegetable kingdom.
The second section of the chapter (Lev_11:24-40) comprises a number of laws relating chiefly to defilement by contact with the dead bodies of animals. In these regulations, it is to be observed that the dead body, even of a clean animal, except when killed in accordance with the law, so that its blood is all drained out (Lev_17:10-16), is regarded as defiling him who touches it; while, on the other hand, even an unclean animal is not held capable of imparting defilement by mere contact, so long as it is living. Very minute charges are given (Lev_11:29-38) concerning eight species of unclean animals, of which six (Lev_11:20, Lev_11:30, R.V) appear to be different varieties of the lizard family. Regarding these, it is ordered that not only shall the person be held unclean who touches the dead body of one of them (Lev_11:31), but also anything becomes unclean on which such a dead body may fall, whether household utensil, or food, or drink (Lev_11:32-35). The exception only is made (Lev_11:36-38), that fountains, or wells of water, or dry seed for sowing, shall not be held to be by such defiled.
That which has been made unclean must be put into water and be unclean until the even (Lev_11:32); with the exception that nothing which is made of earthenware, whether a vessel, or an oven, or a range, could be thus cleansed; for the obvious reason that the water could not adequately reach the interior of its porous material. It must therefore be broken in pieces (Lev_11:33-34). If a person be defiled by any of these, he remained unclean until the even (Lev_11:31). No washing is prescribed, but, from analogy, is probably to be taken for granted.
Such is a brief summary of the law of the clean and the unclean as contained in this chapter. To preclude adding needless difficulty to a difficult subject, the remark made above should be specially noted, -that so far as general marks are given by which the clean is to be distinguished from the unclean, these marks are evidently selected simply from a practical point of view, as of easy recognition by the common people, for whom a more exact and scientific mode of distinction would have been useless. We are not therefore for a moment to think of cleanness or uncleanness as causally determined, for instance, by the presence or absence of fins or scales, or by the habit of chewing the cud, and the dividing of the hoof, or the absence of these marks, as if they were themselves the ground of the cleanness or uncleanness, in any instance. For such a fancy as this, which has diverted some interpreters from the right line of investigation of the subject, there is no warrant whatever in the words of the law, either here or elsewhere.
Than this law concerning things clean and unclean nothing will seem to many, at first, more alien to modern thought, or more inconsistent with any intelligent view of the world and of mans relation to the things by which he is surrounded. And, especially, that the strict observance of this law should be connected with religion, and that, upon what professes to be the authority of God, it should be urged on Israel on the ground of their call to be a holy people to a holy God, -this, to the great majority of Bible readers, certainly appears, to say the least, most extraordinary and unaccountable. And yet the law is here, and its observance is enforced by this very consideration: for we read (Lev_11:43-44): "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Lord your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy." And, in any case, explain the matter as we may, many will ask, How, since the New Testament formally declares this law concerning clean and unclean beasts to be no longer binding, {Col_2:16; Col_2:20-23} is it possible to imagine that there should now remain anything in this most perplexing law which should be of spiritual profit still to a New Testament believer? To the consideration of these questions, which so naturally arise, we now address ourselves.
First of all, in approaching this subject it is well to recall to mind the undeniable fact, that a distinction in foods as clean and unclean, that is, fit and unfit for mans use, has a very deep and apparently irremovable foundation in mans nature. Even we ourselves, who stumble at this law, recognise a distinction of this kind, and regulate our diet accordingly; and also, in like manner, feel, more or less, an instinctive repugnance to dead bodies. As regards diet, it is true that when the secondary question arises as to what particular animals shall be reckoned clean or unclean, fit or unfit for food, nations and tribes differ among themselves, as also from the law of Moses, in a greater or less degree; nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that such a distinction is recognised among all nations of culture; and that, on the other hand, in those who recognise it not, and who eat, as some do, without discrimination, whatever chances to come to hand, -insects, reptiles, carrion, and so on, - this revolting indifference in the matter of food is always associated with gross intellectual and moral degradation. Certainly these indisputable facts should suffice to dispose of the charge of puerility, as sometimes made against the laws of this chapter.
And not only this, but more is true. For while even among nations of the highest culture and Christian enlightenment many animals are eaten, as, e.g., the oyster, the turtle, the flesh of the horse and the hog, which the law of Moses prohibits; on the other hand, it remains true that, with the sole exception of creatures of the locust tribe, the animals which are allowed for food by the Mosaic code are reckoned suitable for food by almost the entire human family. A notable exception to the fact is indeed furnished in the case of the Hindoos, and also the Buddhists (who follow an Indian religion), who, as a rule, reject all animal food, and especially, in the case of the former, the flesh of the cow, as not to be eaten. But this exception is quite explicable by considerations into which we cannot here enter at length, but which do not affect the significance of the general fact.
And, again, on the other hand, it may also be said that, as a general rule, the appetite of the great majority of enlightened and cultivated nations revolts against using as food the greater part of the animals which this code prohibits. Birds of prey, for instance, and the carnivora generally, animals having paws, and reptiles, for the most part, by a kind of universal instinct among cultivated peoples, are judged unfit for human food.
The bearing of these facts upon our exposition is plain. They certainly suggest, at least, that this law of Leviticus 11 may, after all, very possibly have a deep foundation both in the nature of man and that of the things permitted or forbidden; and they also raise the question as to how far exceptions and divergencies from this law, among peoples of culture, may possibly be due to a diversity in external physical and climatic conditions, because of which that which may be wholesome and suitable food in one place-the wilderness of Sinai, or Palestine, for instance-may not be wholesome and suitable in other lands, under different physical conditions. We do not yet enter into this question, but barely call attention to it, as adapted to check the hasty judgment of many, that such a law as this is necessarily puerile and unworthy of God.
But while it is of no small consequence to note this agreement in the fundamental ideas of this law with widely extended instincts and habits of mankind, on the other hand, it is also of importance to emphasise the contrast which it exhibits with similar codes of law among other peoples. For while, as has just been remarked, there are many most suggestive points of agreement between the Mosaic distinctions of clean and unclean and those of other nations, on the other hand, remarkable contrasts appear, even in the ease of those people with whom, like the Egyptians, the Hebrews had been most intimately associated. In the Egyptian system of dietary law, for instance, the distinction of clean and unclean in food was made to apply, not only in the animal, but also in the vegetable world; and, again, while all fishes having fins and scales are permitted as food in the Mosaic law, no fishes whatever are permitted by the Egyptian code. But more significant than such difference in details is the difference in the religious conception upon which such distinctions are based. In Egypt, for example, animals were reckoned clean or unclean according as they were supposed to have more predominant the character of the good Osiris or of the evil Typhon. Among the ancient Persians, those were reckoned clean which were supposed to be the creation of Ormazd, the good Spirit, and those unclean whose origin was attributed to Ahriman, the evil Spirit. In India, the prohibition of flesh as food rests on pantheistic assumptions. Not to multiply examples, it is easy to see that, without anticipating anything here with regard to the principle which determined the Hebrew distinctions, it is certain that of such dualistic or pantheistic principles as are manifested in these and other instances which might be named, there is not a trace in the Mosaic law. How significant and profoundly instructive is the contrast here, will only fully appear when we see what in fact appears to have been the determining principle in the Mosaic legislation.
But when we now seek to ascertain upon what principle certain animals were permitted and others forbidden as food, it must be confessed that we have before us a very difficult question, and one to which, accordingly, very diverse answers have been given. In general, indeed, we are expressly told that the object of this legislation, as of all else in this book of laws, was moral and spiritual. Thus, we are told in so many words (Lev_11:43-45) that Israel was to abstain from eating or touching the unclean, on the ground that they were to be holy, because the Lord their God was holy. But to most this only increases the difficulty. What possible connection could there be between eating, or abstinence from eating, animals which do not chew the cud, or fishes which have not scales, and holiness of life?
In answer to this question, some have supposed a mystical connection between the soul and the body, such that the former is defiled by the food which is received and assimilated by the latter. In support of this theory, appeal has been made to verse 44 of this chapter (Lev_11:44), which, in the Septuagint translation, is rendered literally: "Ye shall not defile your souls." But, as often in Hebrew, the original expression here is simply equivalent to our compound pronoun "yourselves," and is therefore so translated both in the Authorised and the Revised Versions. As for any other proof of such a mystical evil influence of the various kinds of food prohibited in this chapter, there is simply none at all.
Others, again, have sought the explication of these facts in the undoubted Divine purpose of keeping Israel separate from other nations; to secure which separation this special dietetic code, with other laws regarding the clean and the unclean, was given them. That these laws have practically helped to keep the children of Israel separate from other nations, will not be denied; and we may therefore readily admit, that inasmuch as the food of the Hebrews has differed from that of the nations among whom they have dwelt, this separation of the nation may therefore have been included in the purpose of God in these regulations. However, it is to be observed that in the law itself the separation of Israel from other nations is represented, not as the end to be attained by the observance of these food laws, but instead, as a fact already existing, which is given as a reason why they should keep these laws. {Lev_20:24-25} Moreover, it will be found impossible, by reference to this principle alone, to account for the details of the laws before us. For the question is not merely why there should have been food laws, but also why these laws should have been such as they are? The latter question is not adequately explained by reference to Gods purpose of keeping Israel separate from the nations.
Some, again, have held that the explanation of these laws was to be found simply in the design of God, by these restrictions, to give Israel a profitable moral discipline in self-restraint and control of the bodily appetites; or to impose, in this way, certain conditions and limitations upon their approach to Him. which should have the effect of deepening in them the sense of awe and reverence for the Divine majesty of God, as their King. Of this theory it may be said, as of the last-named, that there can be no doubt that in fact these laws did tend to secure these ends; but that yet, on the other hand, the explanation is still inadequate, inasmuch as it only would show why restrictions of some kind should have been ordered, and not, in the least, why the restrictions should have been such, in detail, as we have here.
Quite different from any of these attempted explanations is that of many who have sought to explain the law allegorically. We are told by such that Israel was forbidden the flesh of certain animals, because they were regarded as typifying by their character certain sins and vices, as, on the other hand, those which were permitted as food were regarded as typifying certain moral virtues. Hence, it is supposed by such that the law tended to the holiness of Israel, in that it was, so to speak, a continual object lesson, a perpetually acted allegory, which should continually remind them of the duty of abstaining from the typified sins and of practising the typified virtues. But, assuredly, this theory cannot be carried out. Animals are in this law prohibited as food whose symbolic meaning elsewhere in Scripture is not always bad, but sometimes good. The lion, for example, as having paws, is prohibited as food; and yet it is the symbol of our blessed Lord, "the Lion of the tribe of Judah." Nor is there the slightest evidence that the Hebrews ever attached any such allegorical significance to the various prescriptions of this chapter as the theory would require. Other expositors allegorise in a different but no more satisfactory manner. Thus a popular, and, it must be added, most spiritual and devout expositor, sets forth the spiritual meaning of the required conjunction of the two marks in clean animals of the chewing of the cud and the dividing of the hoof in this wise: "The two things were inseparable in the case of every clean animal. And as to the spiritual application, it is of the very last importance in a practical point of view A man may profess to love and feed upon, to study and ruminate over, the Word of God-the pasture of the soul; but if his footprints along the pathway of life are not such as the Word requires, he is not clean."
But it should be evident that such allegorising interpretation as this can carry with it no authority, and sets the door wide open to the most extravagant fancy in the exposition of Scripture.
Others, again, find the only principle which has determined the laws concerning defilement by the dead, and the clean and unclean meats, to be the presence in that which was reckoned unclean, of something which is naturally repulsive to men; whether in odour, or in the food of a creature, or its other habits of life. But while it is true that such marks distinguish many of the creatures reckoned unclean, they are wanting in others, and are also found in a few animals which are nevertheless permitted. If this had been the determining principle, surely, for example, the law which permitted for food the he-goat and forbade the horse, would have been exactly the opposite; while, as regards fishes and insects permitted and forbidden, it is hard to see any evidence whatever of the influence of this principle.
Much more plausible, at first sight, and indeed much more nearly approaching the truth, than any of the theories above criticised, is one which has been elaborated with no little learning and ingenuity by Sommer, according to which the laws concerning the clean and the unclean, whether in regard to food or anything else, are all grounded in the antithesis of death and life. Death, everywhere in Holy Scripture, is set in the closest ethical and symbolical connection with sin. Bodily death is the wages of sin; and inasmuch as it is the outward physical expression and result of the inner fact that sin, in its very nature, is spiritual death, therefore the dead is always held to be unclean; and the various laws enforcing this thought are all intended to keep before the mind the fact that death is the visible representation and evidence of the presence of sin, and the consequent curse of God. Hence, also, it will follow that the selection of foods must be governed by a reference to this principle. The carnivora, on this principle, must be forbidden, -as they are, -because they live by taking the life of other animals; hence, also, is explained the exclusion of the multitudinous varieties of the insect world, as feeding on that which is dead and corrupt. On the other hand, the animals which chew the cud and divide the hoof are counted clean; inasmuch as the sheep and the cattle, the chief representatives of this class, were by everyone recognised as at the furthest possible remove from any such connection with death and corruption in their mode of life; and hence the familiar marks which distinguish them, as a matter merely of practical convenience, were taken as those which must distinguish every animal lawful for food.
But while this view has been elaborated with great ability and skill, it yet fails to account for all the facts. It is quite overlooked that if the reason of the prohibition of carnivorous birds and quadrupeds is to be found in the fact that they live by the destruction of life, the same reason should have led to the prohibition of all fishes without exception, as in Egypt; inasmuch as those which have fins and scales, no less than others, live by preying on other living creatures. On the other hand, by the same principle, all insects which derive their sustenance from the vegetable world should have been permitted as food, instead of one order only of these.
Where so much learning and profound thought has been expended in vain, one might well hesitate to venture anything in exposition of so difficult a subject, and rest content, as some have, with declaring that the whole subject is utterly inexplicable. And yet the world advances in knowledge, and we are therefore able to approach the subject with some advantage in this respect over earlier generations. And in the light of the most recent investigations, we believe it highly probable that the chief principle determining the laws of this chapter will be found in the region of hygiene and sanitation, as relating, in this instance, to diet, and to the treatment of that which is dead. And this in view of the following considerations.
It is of much significance to note, in the first place, that a large part of the animals which are forbidden as food are unclean feeders. It is a well-ascertained fact that even the cleanest animal, if its food be unclean, becomes dangerous to health if its flesh be eaten. The flesh of a cow which has drunk water contaminated with. typhoid germs, if eaten, especially if insufficiently cooked, may communicate typhoid fever to him who eats it. It is true, indeed, that not all animals that are prohibited are unclean in their food; but the fact remains that, on the other hand, among those which are allowed is to be found no animal whose ordinary habits of life, especially in respect of food, are unclean.
But, in the second place, an animal which is not unclean in its habits may yet be dangerous for food, if it be, for any reason, specially liable to disease. One of the greatest discoveries of modern science is the fact that a large number of diseases to which animals are liable are due to the presence of low forms of parasitic life. To such diseases those which are unclean in their feeding will be especially exposed, while none will perhaps be found wholly exempt.
Another discovery of recent times which has a no less important bearing on the question raised by this chapter is the now ascertained fact that many of these parasitic diseases are common to both animals and men, and may be communicated from the former to the latter. All are familiar with the fact that the smallpox, in a modified and mild form, is a disease of cattle as well as of men, and we avail ourselves of this fact in the practice of vaccination. Scarcely less familiar is the communication of the parasitic trichinae, which often infest the flesh of swine, to those who eat such meat. And research is constantly extending the number of such diseases. Turkeys, we are now told, have the diphtheria, and may communicate it to men; men also sometimes take from horses the loathsome disease known as the glanders. Now in the light of such facts as these, it is plain that an ideal dietary law would, as far as possible, exclude from human food all animals which, under given conditions, might be especially liable to these parasitic diseases, and which, if their flesh should be eaten, might thus become a frequent medium of communicating them to men.
Now it is a most remarkable and significant fact that the tendency of the most recent investigations of this subject has been to show that the prohibitions and permissions of the Mosaic law concerning food, as we have them in this chapter, become apparently explicable in view of the above facts. Not to refer to other authorities, among the latest competent testimonies on this subject is that of Dr. Noel Gueneau de Mussy, in a paper presented to the Paris Academy of Medicine in 1885, in which he is quoted as saying:
"There is so close a connection between the thinking being and the living organism in man, so intimate a solidarity between moral and material interests, and the useful is so constantly and so necessarily in harmony with the good, that these two elements cannot be separated in hygiene It is this combination which has exercised so great an influence on the preservation of the Israelites, despite the very unfavourable external circumstances in which they have been placed The idea of parasitic and infectious maladies, which has conquered so great a position in modern pathology, appears to have greatly occupied the mind of Moses, and to have dominated all his hygienic rules. He excludes from Hebrew dietary animals particulary liable to parasites; and as it is in the blood that the germs or spores of infectious disease circulate, he orders that they must be drained of their blood before serving for food."
If this professional testimony, which is accepted and endorsed by Dr. Behrends, of London, in his remarkable paper on "Diseases caught from Butchers Meat," be admitted, it is evident that we need look no further for the explanation of the minute prescriptions of these dietary laws which we find here and elsewhere in the Pentateuch.
And, it may be added, that upon this principle we may also easily explain, in a rational way, the very minute prescriptions of the law with regard to defilement by dead bodies. For immediately upon death begins a process of corruption which produces compounds not only obnoxious to the senses, but actively poisonous in character; and what is of still more consequence to observe, in the case of all parasitic and infectious diseases, the energy of the infection is specially intensified when the infected person or animal dies. Hence the careful regulations as to cleansing of those persons or things which had been thus defiled by the dead; either by water, where practicable; or where the thing could not be thus thoroughly cleansed, then by burning the article with fire, the most certain of all disinfectants.
But if this be indeed the principle which underlies this law of the clean and the unclean as here given, it will then be urged that since the Hebrews have observed this law with strictness for centuries, they ought to show the evidence of this in a marked immunity from sickness, as compared with other nations, and especially from diseases of an infectious character; and a consequent longevity superior to that of the Gentiles who pay no attention to these laws. Now it is the fact, and one which evidently furnishes another powerful argument for this interpretation of these laws, that this is exactly what we see. In this matter we are not left to guessing; the facts are before the world, and are undisputed. Even so long ago as the days when the plague was desolating Europe, the Jews so universally escaped infection that, by this their exemption, the popular suspicion was excited into fury, and they were accused of causing the fearful mortality among their Gentile neighbours by poisoning the wells and springs. In our own day, in the recent cholera epidemic in Italy, a correspondent of the Jewish Chronicle testifies that the Jews enjoyed almost absolute immunity, at least from fatal attack.
Professor Hosmer says:
"Throughout the entire history of Israel, the wisdom of the ancient lawgivers in these respects has been remarkably shown. In times of pestilence the Jews have suffered far less than others; as regards longevity and general health, they have in every age been noteworthy, and, at the present day, in the life-insurance offices, the life of a Jew is said to be worth much more than that of men of other stock."
Of the facts in the modern world which sustain these statements, Dr. Behrends gives abundant illustration in the article referred to, such as the following:
"In Prussia, the mean duration of Jewish life averages five years more than that of the general population. In Furth, the average duration of Jewish life is 37, and of Christians 26 years. In Hungary, an exhaustive study of the facts shows that the average duration of life with the Croats is 20.2, of the Germans 26.7, but of the Jews 46.5 years, and that although the latter generally are poor, and live under much more unfavourable sanitary conditions than their Gentile neighbours."
In the light of such well-certified facts, the conclusion seems certainly to be warranted, that at least one chief consideration which, in the Divine wisdom, determined the allowance or prohibition, as the food of Israel, of the animals named in this chapter, has been their fitness or unfitness as diet from a hygienic point of view, especially regarding their greater or less liability to have, and to communicate to man, infectious, parasitic diseases.
From this position, if it be justified, we can now perceive a secondary reference in these laws to the deeper ethical truth which, with much reason, Sommer has so emphasised; namely, the moral significance of the great antithesis of death to life; the former being ever contrasted in Holy Scripture with the latter, as the visible manifestation of the presence of sin in the world, and of the consequent curse of God. For whatever tends to weakness or disease, by that fact tends to death, -to that death which, according to the Scriptures, is, for man, the penal consequence of sin. But Israel was called to be a people redeemed from the power of death to life, a life of full consecration to God. Hence, because redeemed from death, it was evidently fitting that the Israelite should, so far as possible in the flesh, keep apart from death, and all that in its nature tended, or might specially tend, to disease and death.
It is very strange that it should have been objected to this view, that since the law declares the reason for these regulations to have been religious, therefore any supposed reference herein to the principles of hygiene is by that fact excluded. For surely the obligation so to live as to conserve and promote the highest bodily health must be regarded, both from a natural, and a Biblical and Christian point of view, as being no less really a religious obligation than truthfulness or honesty. If there appear sufficient reason for believing that the details of these laws are to be explained by reference to hygienic considerations, surely this, so far from contradicting the reason which is given for their observance, helps us rather the more clearly to see how, just because Israel was called to be the holy people of a holy God, they must needs keep this law. For the central idea of the Levitical holiness was consecration unto God, as the Creator and Redeemer of Israel, -consecration in the most unreserved, fullest possible sense, for the most perfect possible service. But the obligation to such a consecration, as the essence of a holy character, surely carried with it by necessary consequence, then, as now, the obligation to maintain all the powers of mind and body also in the highest possible perfection.
That, as regards the body, and, in no small degree, the mind as well, this involves the duty of the preservation of health so far as in our power; and that this, again, is conditioned by the use of a proper diet, as one factor of prime importance, will be denied by no one. If, then, sufficient reason can be shown for recognising the determining influence of hygienic considerations in the laws of this chapter concerning the clean and the unclean, this fact will only be in the fullest harmony with all that is said in this connection, and elsewhere in the law, as to the relation of their observance to Israels holiness as a consecrated nation.
It may very possibly be asked, by way of further objection to this interpretation of these laws: Upon this understanding of the immediate purpose of these laws, how can we account for the selection of such test marks of the clean and the unclean as the chewing of the cud, and the dividing of the hoof, or having scales and fins? What can the presence or absence of these peculiarities have to do with the greater or less, freedom from parasitic disease of the animals included or excluded in the several classes? To which question the answer may fairly be given, that the object of the law was not to give accurately distributed categories of animals, scientifically arranged, according to hygienic principles, but was purely practical; namely, to secure, so far as possible, the observance by the whole people of such a dietary as in the land of Palestine would, on the whole, best tend to secure perfect bodily health. It is not affirmed that every individual animal which by these tests may be excluded from permitted food is therefore to be held specially liable to disease; but only that the limitation of the diet by these test marks, as a practical measure, would, on the whole, secure the greatest degree of immunity from disease to those who kept the law.
It may be objected, again, by some who have looked into this question, that, according to recent researches, it appears that cattle, which occupy the foremost place in the permitted diet of the Hebrews, are found to be especially liable to tubercular disease, and capable, apparently, under certain conditions, of communicating it to those who feed upon their flesh. And it has been even urged that to this source is due a large part of the consumption which is responsible for so large part of our mortality. To which objection two answers may be given. First, and most important, is the observation that we have as yet no statistics as to the prevalence of disease of this kind among cattle in Palestine and that, presumably, if we may argue from the climatic conditions of its prevalence among men, it would be found far less frequently there among cattle than in Europe and America. Further, it must be remembered that, in the case even of clean cattle, the law very strictly provides elsewhere that the clean animal which is slain for food shall be absolutely free from disease; so that still we see here, no less than elsewhere, the hygienic principles ruling the dietary law.
It will be perhaps objected, again, that if all this be true, then, since abstinence from unwholesome food is a moral duty, the law concerning clean and unclean meats should be of universal and perpetual obligation; whereas, in fact, it is explicitly abrogated in the New Testament, and is not held to be now binding on anyone. But the abrogation of the law of Moses touching clean and unclean food can be easily explained, in perfect accord with all that has been said as to its nature and intent. In the first place, it is to be remembered that it is a fundamental characteristic of the New Testament law as contrasted with that of the Old, that on all points it leaves much more to the liberty of the individual, allowing him to act according to the exercise of an enlightened judgment, under the law of supreme love to the Lord, in many matters which, in the Old Testament day, were made a subject of specific regulation. This is true, for instance, regarding all that relates to the public worship of God, and also many things in the government and administration of the Church, not to speak of other examples. This does not indeed mean that it is of no consequence what a man or a Church may do in matters of this kind; but it is intended thus to give the individual and the whole Church a discipline of a higher order than is possible under a system which prescribes a large part of the details of human action. Subjection to these "rudiments" of the law, according to the Apostle, belongs to a condition of religious minority, {Gal_4:1-3} and passes away when the individual, or the Church, so to speak, attains majority. Precisely so it is in the case of these dietary and other laws, which, indeed, are selected by the Apostle Paul {Col_2:20-22} in illustration of this characteristic of the new dispensation. That such matters of detail should no longer be made matter of specific command is only what we should expect according to the analogy of the whole system of Christian law. This is not, indeed, saying that it is of no consequence in a religious point of view what a man eats; whether, for instance, he eat carrion or not, though this, which was forbidden in the Old Testament, is nowhere expressly prohibited in the New. But still, as supplying a training of higher order, the New Testament uniformly refrains from giving detailed commandments in matters of this kind.
But, aside from considerations of this kind, there is a specific reason why these laws of Moses concerning diet and defilement by dead bodies, if hygienic in character, should not have been made, in the New Testament, of universal obligation, however excellent they might be. For it is to be remembered that these laws were delivered for a people few in number, living in a small country, under certain definite climatic conditions. But it is well known that what is unwholesome for food in one part of the world may be, and often, is, necessary to the maintenance of health elsewhere. A class of animals which under the climatic conditions of Palestine may be specially liable to certain forms of parasitic disease, under different climatic conditions may be comparatively free from them. Abstinence from fat is commanded in the law of Moses, {Lev_3:17} and great moderation in this matter is necessary to health in hot climates; but, on the contrary, to eat fat largely is necessary to life in the polar regions. From such facts as these it would follow, of necessity, that when the Church of God, as under the new dispensation, was now to become a worldwide organisation, still to have insisted on a dietetic law perfectly adapted only to Palestine would have been to defeat the physical object, and by consequence the moral end for which that law was given. Under these conditions, except a special law were to be given for each land and climate, there was and could be, if we have before us the true conception of the ground of these regulations, no alternative but to abrogate the law.
This exposition has been much prolonged; but not until we have before us a definite conception as to the principle underlying these regulations, and the relation of their observance to the holiness of Israel, are we in a position to see and appreciate the moral and spiritual lessons which they may still have for us. As it is, if the conclusions to which our exposition has conducted be accepted, such lessons lie clearly before us. While we have here a law which, as to the letter, is confessedly abrogated, and which is supposed by the most to be utterly removed from any present day use for practical instruction, it is now evident that, annulled as to the letter, it is yet, as to the spirit and intention of it, in full force and vital consequence to holiness of life in all ages.
In the first place, this exposition being granted, it follows, as a present day lesson of great moment, that the holiness which God requires has to do with the body as well as the soul, even with such commonplace matters as our eating and drinking. This is so, because the body is the instrument and organ of the soul, with which it must do all its work on earth for God, and because, as such, the body, no less than the soul, has been redeemed unto God by the blood of His Son. There is, therefore, no religion in neglecting the body, and ignoring the requirements for its health, as ascetics have in all ages imagined. Neither is there religion in pampering, and thus abusing, the body, after the manner of the sensual in all ages. The principle which inspires this chapter is that which is expressed in the New Testament by the words: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God". {1Co_10:31} If, therefore, a man needlessly eats such things, or in such a manner, as may be injurious to health, he sins, and has come short of the law of perfect holiness. It is therefore not merely a matter of earthly prudence to observe the laws of health in food and drink and recreation, in a word, in all that has to do with the appetite and desires of the body, but it is essential to holiness. We are in all these things to seek to glorify God, not only in our souls, but also in our bodies.
The momentous importance of this thought will the more clearly appear when we recall to mind that, according to the law of Moses, {Lev_5:2} if a man was defiled by any unclean thing, and neglected the cleansing ordered by this law, even though it were through ignorance or forgetfulness, he was held to have incurred guilt before God. For it was therein declared that when a man defiled by contact with the dead, or any unclean thing, should for any reason have omitted the cleansing ordered, his covenant relation with God could only be reestablished on his presentation of a sin offering. By parity of reasoning it follows that the case is the same now; and, that God will hold no man guiltless who violates any of those laws which He has established in nature as the conditions of bodily health. He who does this is guilty of a sin which requires the application of the great atonement.
How needful it is even in our day to remind men of all this, could not be better illustrated than by the already mentioned argument of many expositors, that hygienic principles cannot have dominated and determined the details of these laws, because the law declares that they are grounded, not in hygiene, but in religion, and have to do with holiness. As if these two were exclusive, one of the other, and as if it made no difference in respect to holiness of character whether a man took care to have a sound body or not!
No less needful is the lesson of this law to many who are at the opposite extreme. For as there are those who are so taken up with the soul and its health, that they ignore its relation to the body, and the bearing of bodily conditions upon character; so there are others who are so preoccupied with questions of bodily health, sanitation, and hygiene, regarded merely as prudential measures, from an earthly point of view, that they forget that man has a soul as well as a body, and that such questions of sanitation and hygiene only find their proper place when it is recognised that health and perfection of the body are not to be sought merely that man may become a more perfect animal, but in order that thus, with a sound mind in a sound body, he may the more perfectly serve the Lord in the life of holiness to which we are called. Thus it appears that this forgotten law of the clean and the unclean in food, so far from being, at the beast, puerile, and for us now certainly quite useless, still teaches us the very important lesson that a due regard to wholeness and health of body is essential to the right and symmetrical development of holiness of character. In every dispensation, the taw of God combines the bodily and the spiritual in a sacred synthesis. If in the New Testament we are directed to glorify God in our spirits, we are no less explicitly commanded to glorify God in our bodies. {1Co_6:20} And thus is given to the laws of health the high sanction of the Divine obligation of the moral law, as summed up in the closing words of this chapter: "Be ye holy; for I am holy."
This law concerning things unclean, and clean and unclean animals, as thus expounded, is also an apologetic of no small value. It has a direct and evident hearing on the question of the Divine origin and authority of this part of the law. For the question will at once come up in every reflecting mind: Whence came this law? Could it have been merely an invention of crafty Jewish priests? Or is it possible to account for it as the product merely of the mind of Moses? It appears to have been ordered with respect to certain facts, especially regarding various invisible forms of noxious parasitic life, in their bearing on the causation and propagation of disease, - facts which, even now, are but just appearing within the horizon ofmodern science. Is it probable that Moses knew about these things three thousand years ago? Certainly, the more we study the matter, the more we must feel that this is not to be supposed.
It is common, indeed, to explain much that seems very wise in the law of Moses by referring to the fact that he was a highly educated man, "instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." But it is just this fact of his Egyptian education that makes it in the last degree improbable that he should have derived the ideas of this law from Egypt. Could he have taken his ideas with regard, for instance, to defilement by the dead, from a system of education which taught the contrary, and which, so far from regarding those who had to do with the dead as unclean, held them especially sacred? And so with regard to the dietetic laws: these are not the laws of Egypt; nor have we any evidence that those were determined, like these Hebrew laws, by such scientific facts as those to which we have referred. In this day, when, at last, men of all schools, and those with most scientific knowledge, most of all, are joining to extol the exact wisdom of this ancient law, a wisdom which has no parallel in like laws among other nations, is it not in place to press this question? Whence had this man this unique wisdom, three thousand years in advance of his times? There are many who will feel compelled to answer, even as Holy Scripture answers; even as Moses, according to the record, answers. The secret of this wisdom will be found, not in the court of Pharaoh, but in the holy tent of meeting; it is all explained if we but assume that what is written in the first verse of this chapter is true: "The Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Food: Permitted and Prohibited
Food: Permitted and Prohibited
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Read full note →
Lev_11:2.—These are the beasts which ye shall eat. [For scientific and sanitary information respecting the animals, reptiles, birds, and fishes specified, valuable information will be found in Whitlaw’s Code of Health; also in Calmet; and a useful summary in the Critical and Explanatory Commentary on this chapter]
How noteworthy the fact that the glorious Jehovah should extend his oversight of Israel to such minute dietic and sanitary regulations. But the minute is not less within God’s thought than the majestic; the “hairs of your head” are guarded (Mat_10:30) with a providence which equally controls dynasties and kings (Mat_10:18). There is nothing unimportant with Him “whose we are” He careth for you with a care which gathers all into consideration—each single step, “lest we dash our foot against a stone”; each moment of life, lest “sudden destruction” come upon us; each item which makes for health, for happiness, for holiness; for God thinks of us in every particular.
The special purposes effected by these dietic regulations for the Hebrew people were:—
1. Sanitary: to effect health and cleanliness in the individual and the family. And beyond question the classification of meats is founded upon the wholesomeness of the creatures as man’s food, while the stringent laws respecting the “dead” were of emphatic importance in an Oriental country and climate. It is Bacon’s testimony that “cleanliness of body was ever esteemed to proceed from a due reverence of God”; and Thomson affirms that “health is the vital principle of bliss.”
2. Political: to enforce a distinction between the Hebrew and surrounding nations, restricting them, by minute prohibitions in diet, from mingling with other people in the usages and indulgences of social life; enforcing on them a constant necessity of avoiding all close familiarity with “strangers.” This distinction, in habits at the table, and in all festivities, rendered them “a peculiar people,” and restrained them from a perilous intermingling with idolatrous neighbours; thus conserving the Theocracy, and marking out Israel as a nation selected and governed by Jehovah.
3. Religious: The distinction of meats rested on a moral, a religious, a theological basis. The creatures here classified were images of virtues and vices, suggestive to the Oriental mind of moral and sacred truths; were a pictorial delineation, therefore, of theological instructions. Certainly those creatures pronounced “clean” have been acknowledged most wholesome as man’s meat in all after times; and this enforced limitation on Israel that only “clean” food should pass their lips carried the important lesson to every man, woman, and child, that “God had called them not to uncleanness but unto holiness” (1Th_4:7).
Every enactment of the old dispensation aimed at cultivating virtue, purity, sanctity in God’s people; and equally, even more solemnly, every requirement of the gospel and all the provisions of our Lord’s atonement summon us to be “clean every whit.” “Be ye holy,” saith God, “for I am holy.”
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: DISTINGUISHING THE PRECIOUS FROM THE VILE (Lev_11:4-7)
“He is unclean unto you.”
God’s charge, through Ezekiel, against the faithless priests was that “they put no difference between the holy and profane, neither showed difference between the unclean and the clean” (Eze_22:26). It was also His requirement from Jeremiah in order to his being dignified as God’s acknowledged messenger: “If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as My mouth” (Jer_15:19).
The emphasis with which Jehovah insists upon this habitual and minute distinguishing the unclean from the clean proclaims therefore a foremost law in godly conduct. Consider—
I. That God’s people, the spiritual Israel, move in a SCENE OF MINGLED GOOD AND EVIL.
Man coveted in Eden to “know good and evil.” From that hour the “clean and unclean” have been around him in every path of life.
1. In the sphere of daily life we have contact with both. The world around us—earth, air, and sea—all elements, all scenes, are occupied with these physical and moral opposites, “clean and unclean.” A character, a quality, is upon all that lives. And this fact in the lower orders of creatures forcibly indicates the like realities of moral and spiritual contrasts in the human lives which throng our sphere.
2. Our contact with them entails the danger of contamination. Taste the unclean and we thereby become defiled. God has marked specifically and minutely the things which are to be accounted “an abomination” (Lev_11:12; Lev_11:20, etc.). So in the human sphere, there are interdicted pleasures, companionships, alliances. The ban of heaven is upon much which the world sanctions. We cannot “have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” without being made “unclean” (Lev_11:26). “Every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.”
3. In such a defiling sphere our duty is to separate the precious from the vile. God has separated them for us by His prohibitions and permissions; by His “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not.” We are to act out His commands, work along the line of His directions. Ignorance is inexcusable when God hath “shown us what is good, and what the Lord requires of us” (Mic_6:8).
II. That in life’s mingled scene the godly MUST EXERCISE CONTINUOUS VIGILANCE.
People who knew not the Lord put no difference between things clean and unclean. But the “Israel of God” would need to hourly walk as amid treachery and hazard; they could not eat of the dish of an alien without possibility of tasting the condemned food. This enforced a divided life upon the Israelite, as Christianity still does, leading us to “abhor that which is evil and cleave to that which is good,” and maintain a “separation from sinners.”
1. We enter, by relationship with Christ, into a separated life. As Israel was by these dietic ordinances severed from intimacy and festivity with the heathen, so are Christians called aside, led out from near intercourse with unsanctified society, to “put a difference between the unclean and the clean” (Lev_11:43-47). We are separated unto God in Christ: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (Joh_17:16).
2. Such a separated life must assert itself in habitual avoidance of prohibited things. The “unclean” is to be marked, repudiated, shunned, as “an abomination.” It entails an hourly watchfulness, a quick habit of penetrating into the moral differences which underlie society, men, and manners, pastimes and pursuits. Things must be looked at, not from their popularity, their advantages, their attractions, but faced with a challenge as to their moral quality and tendency. Will this defile? Is it “clean or unclean”? We must “take the precious from the vile.”
3. Minute distinctions are forced upon us by this principle of conduct. The “unclean” things are not glaringly so; the “clean” are not manifestly different from the “abominable.” These creatures—beasts, reptiles, fishes, etc.—are so similar that the lines seem almost to converge and intersect. We may easily avoid sinful men, shun their society, hide from their power; and yet men throw out their influence where they themselves are invisible and unsuspected. We might loathe the company of a vile man, and yet think it no risk to read his thoughts as they appear on the printed page. “Thereby many are defiled.” Thoughts read enter our minds, are within us to soil and fret us. The sentiments, maxims, and ideas of worldly-wise men gain currency as motives to common conduct, as rules of life. They may act as decoys. Let us challenge their “cleanness” in God’s sight, and estimate them by His truth. Our age is charmed with the specious plea of “expediency,” “tolerance,” “utilitarianism.” Let us separate the “precious from the vile.”
III. That by strictest adherence to divine directions SANCTITY OF LIFE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. “Ye shall not make yourselves abominable, etc.; ye shall sanctify yourselves” (Lev_11:43-44).
1. Every godly soul is, to a degree, put in trust with the imparted sanctity. All Israel’s peculiar and distinguishing holiness was the bestowment of Jehovah’s grace; as all our Christian purity and piety are derived from Christ. Yet sanctity is not a passive condition of the soul, but a cultivated quality of temperament and behaviour. “Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing” (Lev_11:44). Godliness is to be wrought out into life, shunning the “corruptions which are in the world,” and cultivating the holiness which assimilates us to God.
2. Derived sanctity is no assurance against defilement if we forsake God’s commands. The Israelite only maintained his spiritual status as he held by his sacred separateness from the heathen; repudiating their festivities, broadening rather than obliterating the line of demarcation which distinguished him from the godless world. The admonitory word to us is this: “As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to your former lusts in your ignorance; but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation” (1Pe_1:14-15). It is our covenant privilege to be as God’s sanctified household amid alienated peoples; with His sanctuary amongst us, admitted through a High Priesthood into the holiest of all; accepted by sacrifice, sanctified by the Spirit It therefore behoves us to shun the vile, touch not and eat not “the unclean,” but live in delightful observance of His commands, and thus “perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord” (2Co_7:1). [See Addenda to chap. xi., Separate from Sinners.]
Topic: FORBIDDEN FOODS
“Neither shall ye defile yourselves” (Lev_11:44).
The details of these ceremonial restrictions are unimportant to us. They had their meaning and purpose for the Jew. But the suggestiveness of these prohibitions comes powerfully upon us who are not under Jewish ceremonialism.
“Govern well thy appetite, lest Sin
Surprise thee, and her black-attendant Death.”
Paradise Lost, Bk. vii line 546.
I. Man’s duty is—That his PHYSICAL HEALTH AND PURITY BE SEDULOUSLY MAINTAINED.
The lust of the eye, the caprices of appetite, are not to rule him. He may give no license to cravings whose indulgence would violate the health and sanctity of his physical frame. Every fitful fancy, every low desire, can find gratification in the varieties of meats and drinks which are within man’s reach. Yet that is no justification for his indiscriminate and unrestricted indulgence. His self-respect, his intelligence, his sense of propriety, his regard for purity, his recoil from vicious and vitiating habits, and his recognition of responsibility to God, should restrain him from any gratification which is low and degrading, which will inflame the blood, intoxicate the brain, disease the body, defile the conscience.
“Keep thyself pure” (1Ti_5:22). Such is man’s duty. If he trifle with his health, and defile his flesh, he mars the work of God’s hands. [Addenda to chapter xi., Feasting.]
“All philosophy,” says Epictetus, “lies in two words—‘Sustain’ and Abstain’ ”
II. Man’s dignity is—THAT HIS ENTIRE NATURE BE HALLOWED AND SANCTIFIED.
“For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy, for I am holy; neither shall ye defile yourselves” (Lev_11:44).
All God’s solicitous care for Israel’s physical health and purity was but the index to His supreme desire for their moral rectitude and spiritual holiness He does not interdict delights, but He requires that no defilement be admitted into the temple of the human life, sensuous, intellectual, or spiritual.
“Religion does not censure or exclude
Unnumbered pleasures, harmlessly pursued” (COWPER’S Retirement),
but it lays prohibition on all that would demoralise us and offend God. “Unless the vessel be pure,” says Horace, “whatever is put in will turn sour.” [Sincerum est nisi vas, quodcunque infundis acescit.] The first requirement, therefore, to a hallowed life is a purified body; its passions subdued, its vile affections extinguished, its immoral tendencies arrested. Conversion proves itself by the renunciation of all sins of the flesh. From the mental nature must then be excluded all “evil thoughts”; the intellectual citadel of man must be purged of impure imaginations, decoying fallacies, fitful reasonings, and “every thought be brought into the obedience of Christ” (2Co_10:5). The spiritual life can only be perfected in holiness, dignified with sanctity, as the tabernacle in which it dwells is preserved inviolate. Hence the appeal, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2Co_6:17-18).
Note: The word “holy” has its root in the ancient Saxon word halig, hale, sound, whole; and health is therefore the primal idea of holiness—an unblemished, unimpaired, perfect physique. It glides into the higher application—perfect in a moral sense; pure in heart, pious in thought and life.
Inferentially: All Jehovah’s regulations for Israel’s physical cleanness and health carried with them the higher demand—“a clean heart and a right spirit.” For only he that is “clean every whit” has attained to the divine ideal of man’s true dignity—“Holiness unto the Lord.”
Topic: A RESTRAINT UPON FESTIVITIES
The design of God’s directions concerning food was not guidance to nutritious diet. The palate suffices man to discern between the luscious and the harmful. And the classification is not into salubrious and insalubrious, tasteful and tasteless, but clean and unclean. The results of these distinctions and directions are:
I. REMOVAL FROM ALL SOCIAL CONTACT AND FELLOWSHIP WITH THE HEATHEN.
God’s chosen tribes could hold no intimacy, share no festivity with idol worshippers. The tables of the nations were unclean. The Jew could have no seat at impure boards.
The principle is divine. The need of separateness remains, for the world is still the world. Its baits, its indulgences, its corruptions are unchanged. It extends its nets for unwary souls. Hence Scripture’s voice still cries, Beware. Beacons still show a coast bestrewed with wrecks, and wisdom calls the holy pilgrim from the treacherous path.
A clear precept interdicts the world. Believers must not cross the line. They must dwell apart, avoid intimacies, share no vile festivities.
1. Mark the divine goodness in this separating law. The climate of the world checks growth in grace. A coiling serpent sucks the life blood. Rough contact blunts the edge. Solomon’s lustre becomes clouded with shame because his heart declined to pleasure’s charms. All indulgent intimacies with the world cause holiness to sicken and wane. Therefore Mercy warns, “Be not conformed to this world” (Rom_12:2). [See Addenda to chap. xi. Separate from Sinners.]
2. Consider that the world wars incessantly against Christ and His honour. It declares itself Christ’s open foe: it proclaims hostility against sacred truth. Is it not, then, a traitor’s part to feast with the enemy? The true believer shows himself on the Lord’s side, in company, act and step. We are the “salt of the earth”: but, mixed with corruption, the salt loses its savour.
3. Usefulness is neutralised where godliness is accommodating. Suspicion fastens on the faltering steps, on the compromising profession. Society will heed no warning words from one who courts to share its vanities. Therefore Jesus says, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (Joh_17:14). Tread down the barrier line, stray out beyond the limits of Israel’s fellowship, and you wrong your own soul, shadow the glory of Christianity, and enfeeble the witness of gospel truth. The second result is—
II. UNCEASING VIGILANCE WAS ENFORCED UPON GOD’S PEOPLE.
God’s dividing line was drawn everywhere, on all scenes, on every hour, between clean and unclean. Its lesson is to us—
1. That at every step we inquire Is this a lawful path? The quality of cleanness or uncleanness stamps every movement of every mind, every act throughout each day. Each minutest thing is the seed of some result. We may contract defilement from veriest trifles. This law enforces us to apply a constant test.
2. No act is neutral—void of quality, good or ill. We always stand in a path which is right or wrong. Ask continuously, Am I in a “clean” path? and it will be found often impossible to tarry. Examine thoughts by this test: dispel those found to be “unclean.” Put words before this criterion, and “set a watch upon the door of thy lips.” Place books at this bar of judgment; and how many trifling offsprings of a worldly pen will be consigned to oblivion! Bring employ to this light; and flee from what stands rebuked in the light of gospel truth.
Is your soul clean or unclean? By nature it is vile. But there is a Saviour’s blood and a purifying Spirit. Jesus can cleanse, the Spirit can sanctify.—Compare Dean Law’s “Christ is All.”
Topic: LEGAL PROHIBITIONS ABROGATED BY CHRISTIANITY (Lev_11:44-47)
The ceremonial dispensation made righteousness and sanctity dependant on external observances and habits. Judaism “stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation.”
The spiritual dispensation institutes an inward life of holiness, the Christian being “sanctified in Christ Jesus.” Hence for us the Levitical restrictions and regulations are set aside. “Every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving” (1Ti_4:4).
Peter received a special revelation upon this matter (Acts 10), which at once and for ever swept away the distinctions between clean and unclean creatures; and with it abrogated that righteousness of moral life and religious feeling, which consisted in attendance to mere details of ceremonialism. The vision to Peter was especially intended to abolish the distinction between the Jewish and Gentile nations: since the gospel offered cleansing to all people, and Christ, by His atonement as the Lamb of God, took away the sin of the whole world (Joh_1:29; 1Jn_2:2).
Paul likewise received instruction direct from Christ on this same truth: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself.” So that we are under an economy based upon grand principles rather than punctilious rites.
I. CHRISTIANITY REGARDS NOTHING AS IRREMEDIABLY UNCLEAN.
Its message is that the unclean may be made clean: that what was before forbidden and “cast away” may now find acceptance, and be placed among the sanctified. Nothing is so impure but it may be purified: the human heart, the godless will, the evil imaginations, the defiled habits, the guilty conscience, the degraded soul. “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” Christianity declares that none, nothing, is unchangeably impure: defilement may be removed; God’s prohibition is withdrawn: the “handwriting against us” is abolished; the sinner may be “washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1Co_6:2).
II. CHRISTIANITY DENOUNCES NOTHING BECAUSE OF ITS BEING UNCLEAN.
The law had denounced much. Not foods only, but people. The Gentiles were excluded from spiritual fellowship with Israel. But the doom has been revoked: the “middle wall of partition” has been broken down (Eph_2:14); all may enter the sacred enclosure and become accepted in Christ.
Every sin-defiled soul is in its sinfulness a separated and forbidden thing; in its uncleanness it is put aside, it has no place among the pure, no part in the heritage of them who are sanctified through faith in Jesus. But not denounced! Guilt renders it necessary that the sinner should be thus excluded so long as guilt remains; “without holiness no man shall see the Lord;” for “the unclean can not stand in His sight.” Yet Christianity offers, opens “salvation even to the uttermost;” declares that “where sin abounded grace doth much more abound.”
Men who missed the large and loving truth denounced the “publican and the harlot”; Jesus Christ set the door open wide to them and because their Friend. “Behold a friend of publicans and sinners.”
III. CHRISTIANITY ABANDONS NOTHING HOWEVER UNCLEAN.
No! it goes down to the depths. The leper was abandoned—socially and ceremonially—left to perish; his plaintive cry “Unclean! unclean!” winning no help till Christ “touched the leper” and healed his leprosy and restored him to society again. Until the possibility and potency of Christ’s redemption and sanctity came to our souls, we were thus outcasts. The kingdom of God on earth was closed upon the unclean; and heaven too: “Nothing entereth that defileth.”
No more now; a “new and living way” affords us entrance even “into the holiest of all.” The grace of the Lord Jesus avails for each; and “him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.” Not a soul need remain unclean. Christ can cleanse. There is hope for the vilest.
“The Cross! it takes our guilt away
It holds the fainting spirit up.”
Topic: SYMBOLS OF CLEANNESS IN THE LOWER FORMS OF LIFE
“To make a difference between the unclean and the clean” (Lev_11:41).
i. With regard to “BEASTS,” two distinctive marks point out those which are clean and may be eaten; they should chew the cud and divide the hoof. Either of itself would be insufficient to constitute ceremonial cleanness. What spiritual truth may we learn from such marks being given? The chewing of the cud expresses the natural process of “inwardly digesting” that which one eats; while the divided hoof sets forth the character of one’s outward walk. He who feeds upon the green pastures of the Word of God, and inwardly digests what he takes in, combines calm meditation with prayerful study, will manifest the character of outward walk which should distinguish him who obeys the Word.
The one without the other was insufficient (Lev_11:4-8). A man may profess to love and feed upon the Word of God as the pasture of his soul; but, if his footprints along the pathway of life are not such as the Word requires, he is not clean. And also, though a man walk blamelessly, if his walk be not the result of the hidden life it is worthless. The impression of the foot is of no avail without the divine principle within which feeds upon and digests the rich pasture of God’s Word.
ii. With respect to “all that are IN THE WATERS,” the double mark of cleanness again is given. Two distinctions were necessary, “fins and scales” (Lev_11:9-10). A fish needs the “fin” to enable it to move through the water, and “scales” to resist their penetrating action. And so does the believer require that spiritual capacity which enables him to move onward through the elements surrounding him, and at the same time to resist their penetrating influence. Both are essential. Encased against the action upon us of the evil world, yet endowed with the energy to pass onward through it.
iii. The law with respect to BIRDS was that the carnivorous, the omnivorous, the grovelling, were unclean (Lev_11:13-24). A striking exhibition is therein given of what must be strenuously shunned by every Christian. He must refuse everything of a “carnal” nature. Nor may he feed promiscuously upon everything which comes before him; he must “make a difference between unclean and clean”; must exercise a discerning mind, a spiritual judgment, a heavenly taste. Finally, he must use his wings: rise on the pinions of faith, and find his place in the celestial sphere to which he belongs. Nothing grovelling, nothing promiscuous, nothing unclean for the Christian.
iv. As to “CREEPING THINGS” there was entire prohibition (Lev_11:41-43). Jehovah would have his people free from the defilement consequent upon contact with, touching or tasting anything unclean. They were not their own; they belonged to Jehovah: His name was called upon them. Other nations might eat what they pleased: but Israel enjoyed the high distinction of being regulated by the Lord in every detail of life.
(a) Their entire separation from all manner of uncleanness flows out of their relationship to Him. It is not the principle of “stand by thyself, I am holier than thou”; but simply this, “God is holy,” and therefore all who are brought into association with Him must be holy likewise. If a Christian be now asked why he walks apart from the ten thousand things in which men of the world participate, his answer is simply “My Father is holy.” This is the true foundation of personal holiness.
(b) They are bound to aim at the maintenance of the character which He prescribes. If God, in His exceeding grace, stoops down to our low estate, and lifts us in association with Christ, has He not a right to prescribe what our character should be? And a true Israelite will maintain that “difference between the unclean and the clean.”
(c) How strange to one who had scrupulously observed these ceremonial distinctions all his days, must have been that vision of the vessel containing “all manner of four-footed beasts, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air” (Act_10:11-16) let down from heaven, and to have heard the voice say, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat.” No examination of hoofs and habits; no need now of this. The soul was now to rise above all ceremonial barriers into the magnificence of heaven’s grace. True cleanness, the cleanness God required, was no longer outward and ceremonial, but should consist in being washed in the blood of the Lamb, which cleanseth from all sin, and renders the believer clean enough to tread the sapphire pavement of the heavenly courts.
The door of the kingdom is thrown open by the hand of Sovereign grace; but not to admit aught that is unclean. Nothing unclean could enter heaven. But a “cloven hoof” was no longer to be the criterion: but this—“what God hath cleansed.”
The standard by which true cleanses must be regulated is no longer carnal, ceremonial, earthly; but spiritual, moral, and heavenly. We are no longer hemmed round about by “touch not, taste not, handle not”; but the divine Word assures us that “every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer” (1Ti_4:4-5).—C. H. M.
Topic: JEHOVAH’S CONCERN FOR ISRAEL’S WELL-BEING (Lev_11:1-43)
Doubtless the laws concerning clean and unclean animals were symbolic, conveying lessons specially adapted to Israel at the time; they were also typical of moral truths to be observed by worshippers of Jehovah through all time. So far as regards the animals themselves they were all on the same moral level in the sight of God; each followed the instincts implanted by the great Creator, acquired the habits, and exercised the passions peculiar to its nature. Some were more repulsive to man than others, of less service when alive, less utility when dead.
Animals had been classified by the patriarchs and among heathen nations; some animals had been considered more sacred than others. But these laws definitely fixed the line of demarcation to be drawn, the main distinction being twofold: All animals were unclean except those which divided the hoof and chewed the cud. The directions for determining the difference were numerous and minute, entailing careful and constant discrimination. Origen and other allegorical writers have found symbol and type in every permitted or prohibited thing; but the course is dangerous, and likely to lead to most erroneous conclusions. General truths are suggested, such as—
I. DIVINE CONCERN FOR THE TEMPORAL WELFARE OF ISRAEL.
Laws of purity enjoined would obviously conduce to their physical comfort. Cleanliness is a safeguard against many bodily ills. Nothing was interdicted in these restrictions that would tend to health and longevity. Caring for Israel as a father for his children, Jehovah would have them partake only of food that was nutritious. Nothing is beneath His notice that affects the welfare of the children of men.
II. DIVINE CONCERN FOR THE NATIONAL UNITY OF ISRAEL.
Elected to special privileges and responsibilities, the Hebrew nation was to be clearly distinguished from all other nations on the earth. The laws would keep the people from joining with the heathen in their ordinary meals and sacred feasts; would be a barrier against every intruder; for the Canaanites ate some of the animals these laws prohibited, and offered others in sacrifice to heathen gods. Nothing tends to obliterate national differences and to throw social distinctions into oblivion more than sitting together at the same table and partaking of common food. Israel’s observance of the directions given in this chapter would set a hedge around the family life, and indicate a peculiar people.
III. DIVINE CONCERN FOR THE EXCLUSIVE WORSHIP OF ISRAEL.
Rites and ceremonies had already been instituted that would exclude other nations from mingling with the Hebrew in the worship of the tabernacle; now a guard is put around the social as well as sacred table. Tent, as well as tabernacle, to be consecrated to the Lord. Here we see Jehovah’s sovereignty exercised, His jealousy for the exclusive worship of His people. Whether the people ate or drank, they were to do all to the glory of God. They were to come out from the ungodly and be separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and thus become the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty. Nothing less than cheerful obedience to divine regulations for private and public life would satisfy the claims Jehovah made upon the loyalty and worship of His people.
IV. DIVINE CONCERN FOR THE COMPLETE PURITY OF ISRAEL.
While purity of heart and mind were of the first importance, the body also was to be kept pure. Nothing to be eaten that would make it gross, or vitiate the blood. Even the dwellings of the people, their garments, and every article for use or ornament, to be ceremonially clean. These minute and exact requirements would impress Israel with the holiness of the Lord with whom they had to do. In avoiding the proscribed animals—the habits and appearance of which in many cases would beget natural disgust—the people would be reminded (a) of the vileness and loathsomeness of sin; (b) of the need of constant circumspection to avoid contamination with evil; (c) of the necessity of complete purity in the sight of Jehovah. Attention thus called to the body and physical things would show that the human frame is not the vile product (as the Gnostics contended) of a malevolent deity, but created and cared for by Him who breathed into it at first the breath of life, and made man a living soul.
V. DIVINE CONCERN FOR THE EXALTED PIETY OF ISRAEL.
Selfishness is the root of all sin, pride of all impiety. These laws would tend to humble the people, teach them self-denial. Having to abstain from eating animals savage and voracious in their nature, unattractive in their form, repulsive in their habits, would remind Israel that the most scrupulous sanctity of heart was required by Him who demanded such purity in meaner things. These unclean animals may be regarded as types of persons it is always well to avoid. Thus the brute creation is a book full of useful lessons upon what we may with advantage adopt, and what we ought to shun. In all these things we see the wisdom and goodness of the Lord, conducing to well-being here, and furnishing stepping-stones to blessedness hereafter.—F. W. B.
Topic: JEHOVAH’S CONCERN FOR HIS OWN GLORY (Lev_11:44-47)
The regulations taught Israel that Jehovah was their—
I. SUPREME RULER. “For I am the Lord your God.” All authority resided in Him. He had sovereign right to command and restrain. The people were not to study their own preferences, or conveniences, but obey the mandates that issued from the King of kings.
II. SPOTLESS KING. “For I am holy.” The constant reiteration of this truth must have engraved it deeply in the consciences of the congregation, and impressed them most solemnly with the purity of the divine nature. Israel could never have conceived of so holy a Being, surrounded as they had been, and were still, by hideous and degrading idolatry.
III. GREAT DELIVERER. “For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt.” The people were under vast obligation to the Almighty. He had wrought signal deliverances for them They were His by redemption. He had a right to expect obedience from them. He had brought them out of Egypt for the specific purpose of making them a people for Himself. These laws would test their faith, gratitude, and obedience; teach them self-denial, and restraint. Their spiritual nature was to be in ascendancy over everything carnal and temporal.
In the New Testament a new interpretation is given to these Levitical laws; we are shown that, not what we eat or drink defiles the soul, but what comes out of it. The root and seat of evil are within; yet, care needs to be exercised against temptation and contamination. Touching the unclean thing, such as pernicious literature, places of ill-fame, sinful companionship, may lead to moral defilement, to spiritual degeneracy. In the gospel—
(1) Special emphasis is laid upon spiritual purity;
(2) With spiritual purity is associated our highest joy.
Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost; they ought, therefore, to be kept pure. The Church is the Body of Christ: from it, therefore, everything should be excluded that is unclean. Into the celestial city “there shall in no wise enter anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination”; all there shall be for ever, “Holiness unto the Lord.”—F. W. B.
Topic: THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN
“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat” (Lev_11:2-3).
As the Mosaic was peculiarly a typical dispensation, we shall not exaggerate the uses of the text if we show that there was something instructive to us and something typical of the better covenant in the command given that the people were to eat no creatures but those which divided the hoof and those which chewed the cud.
I. These distinctions of meat were laid down TO KEEP THE JEWS AS A DISTINCT PEOPLE, and that herein they might be a type of the people of God, who are also, throughout all ages, to be a distinct and separate people—not of the world, even as Christ was not of the world.
With this Levitical rule it was quite impossible for the Hebrews to mix with any other nation without violating the statutes they were commanded to keep. Their food was so restricted that they could not possibly enter into social intercourse with any of the neighbouring peoples. The Canaanites, for instance, ate everything, even the flesh that had been torn by dogs, and the dogs themselves. Now, a Jew could never sit at a Canaanite’s table, because he could never be sure that there would not be the flesh of some unclean and accursed thing upon it. The Jews could not even eat with the Arabs, who were near akin to them, for they frequently partook of the flesh forbidden to the Jew. This command made them a distinct and isolated republic so long as they were obedient to the law. Just so the Mohammedan regulations, less strict than those of the Jew, prevent their becoming socially intermingled either with the idolators or with Christians. Now, what is the use of this to us? It is the earthly type of a heavenly mystery. Thus all who name the name of Christ are solemnly bound to be for ever separated from the world. Our Saviour “was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” He was with them, but He was never of them; among them, but always distinct and separate from them. He hath set us an example. Be among men as a light in the midst of darkness, as salt scattered over putridity, as heavenly angels in the midst of fallen men; a distinct people, a chosen generation.
But in what respects are we to be distinguished?
1. In a pure consistency always, in vain eccentricity never. Not in our garments; not by any peculiar jargon in speech; such artificial separations we leave to the people whose vanity feeds on its own conceit. Not trying to make ourselves look like Christians. Heavenly realities within do not always need to be labelled outside, so that everybody may say, “There goes a saint.” There are other modes of being distinguished from the world than any of these.
2. We ought ever to be distinguished from the world in the great object of our life Our main and principal motive as Christians should always be to live for Christ. You can make the commonest calling become really sacred. You may take the highest orders by dedicating your daily life wholly to the service of Jesus. There is such a thing—and let those that deny the possibility stand self-convicted that they obey not the precept—“Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”
3. By our spirit as well as our aim we should likewise be distinguished; a spirit which watcheth humbly before God, and seeketh to know His will and to do it through the grace of God given.
4. Our maxims and rules which regulate us should be very different from those of others. A Christian never considers what is usual, but what is right. The believer reads things, not in man’s light, in the obscurity of which so many blind bats are willing to fly, but he reads things in the sunlight of heaven. If a thing be right, though he lose by it, it is done; if it be wrong, though he should become as rich as Crœsus by allowing it, he scorns the sin for his Master’s sake.
3. Our actions should be distinctive. Let your conduct talk out your soul. Let the main sermon of your life be illustrated by all your conduct, and it shall not fail to be illustrious. This will furnish the best proof that you have been with Jesus.
4. A Christian is distinguished by his conversation. If he would have a jest, he picks the mirth but leaves the sin; his conversation is not used to levity; it is not mere froth, but it ministereth grace unto the hearers. Oh! commend me to the man who talks like Jesus; who will not for the world suffer corrupt communications to come out of his mouth. You know the value of the gold of heaven too well to pawn it away for the counterfeits of earth. “Come ye out from among them; be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.” By a holiness which merely moral men cannot equal, stand as on a pedestal aloft above the world. Thus men may know you to be of the seed of Jesus, even as they knew the Jew to be the seed of Israel.
II. The distinction drawn between clean and unclean animals was intended by God TO KEEP HIS PEOPLE ALWAYS CONSCIOUS THAT THEY WERE IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF SIN.
An oriental Jew, sensible and intelligent, walks out in the fields. He walks along close by the side of the high-road, and what should he see but a string of camels going along? “Ah!” he says to himself “those are unclean animals.” Sin, you see, is brought at once before his mind’s eye. He turns away from the road and walks down one of his own fields, and as he goes along a hare starts across his path. “Ah!” says he, “an unclean animal again; there is sin in my path.” He gets into a more retired place; he walks on the mountains; surely he shall be alone there. But he sees a coney burrowing among the rocks; “Ah!” says he, “unclean; there is sin there!” He lifts his eye up to heaven; he sees the osprey, the bald eagle, flying along through the air, and he says, “Ah! there is an emblem of sin there!” A dragon-fly has just flitted by him—there is sin there. There are insects among the flowers; now every creeping thing, and every insect, except the locust, was unclean to the Jew. Everywhere he would be reminded that this world, however beautiful, still has sin in it. Even the fish, in sea, or river, or inland lake, had their divisions; those that had no scales or fins were unclean to the Jew, so the little Hebrew boys could not even fish for minnows in the brook but they would know that the minnow was unclean, and so their young hearts were made to dread little wrongs and little sins, for there were little sins in the little pools, even as there were leviathan sins floating in the deep and nude sea. We want to have this more before our minds. Not a spot is there in the universe where the curse of sin has never inflicted a blight, or where the hope of redemption should not inspire a prayer. See that you put on the whole panoply of God, and watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation. Every morning we ought to ask the Lord to keep us from unknown sins, to preserve us from temptation that we cannot foresee, to check us in every path of life if we are about to go wrong, and hold us up every hour that we sin not. May the Lord set sin straight before your eyes, and then set the cross of Christ there too, and so you will be saved.
III. This injunction was also intended to be A RULE OF DISCRIMINATION BY WHICH WE MAY JUDGE WHO ARE CLEAN AND WHO ARE UNCLEAN, that is, WHO ARE SAINTS AND WHO ARE NOT.
There are two tests, but they must both be united. The beast that was clean was to chew the cud, here is the inner life; every true-hearted man must know how to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the sacred Word. The man who does not feed upon gospel truth, and so feed upon it, too, that he knows the sweetness and relish of it, and seeks out its marrow and fatness, that man is no heir of heaven. You must know a Christian by that which supports his life and sustains his frame. But then the clean creatures were also known by their walk. The Jew at once discovered the unclean animal by its having an undivided hoof; but if the hoof was thoroughly divided, then it was clean, provided that it also chewed the cud. So there must be in the true Christian a peculiar walk such as God requires. You cannot tell a man by either of these tests alone, you must have them both. But while you use them upon others apply them to yourselves. You may profess the faith within, but if you do not walk aright without, you belong to the unclean. On the other hand, you may walk aright without, but unless there is a real feeding upon precious truth in the heart, all the right walking in the world will not prove you to be a Christian. That holiness which is only outward is moral not spiritual; it does not save the soul. That religion which is only inward is but fancy; it cannot save the soul either. But the two together, the inwards parts made capable of knowing the lusciousness, the sweetness, the fatness of Christ’s truth; and the outward parts conformed to Christ’s image and character; these conjoined point out the true and clean Christian with whom it is blessed to associate here, and for whom a better portion is prepared hereafter.—C. H. Spurgeon, in “Metro. Tab. Pulpit.”
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 11
SEPARATE FROM SINNERS:—
This was Christ’s distinction: it should distinguish all who are Christ’s.
“The friendships of the world are oft
Confederacies in vice, or leagues of pleasure.
Ours has severest virtue for its basis,
And such a friendship ends not but with life.”—ADDISON: Cato iii. 1.
“There are three friendships which are advantageous, and three which are injurious. Friendship with the upright, friendship with the sincere, and friendship with the man of observation; these are advantageous. Friendship with the men of specious airs, friendship with the insinuatingly soft, and friendship with the glib-tongued; these are injurious.”—CONFUCIUS: Analects iii.
“Nature and religion are the bands of friendship; excellency and usefulness are its great endearments. But as all cannot actually be of our society, so neither can all be admitted to a special, actual friendship.”
—JEREMY TAYLOR.
“Not with the light and vain,
The man of idle feet and wanton eyes;
Not with the world’s gay, ever smiling train;
My lot be with the grave and wise.
“Not with the trifler gay,
To whom life seems but sunshine on the wave;
Not with the empty idler of the day;
My lot be with the wise and grave.
“Not with the jesting fool,
Who knows not what to sober truth is due;
Whose words fly out without an aim rule;
My lot be with the wise and true.
“With them I’d walk each day,
From them time’s solemn lessons would learn,
That false from true and true from false I may
Each hour more patiently discern.”
—BONAR.
FEASTING:—
“Simple diet is best; for many dishes bring many diseases.”—PLINY.
“They eat, they drink, and in communion secret.
Quaff immortality and joy.”—MILTON.
“Health and liberty
Attend on those bare meals: if all were blest
With such a temperance
There would be no slaves, no syncophants
At great men’s tables.—MAY.
“Fatal effects of luxury and ease!
We drink our poison, and we eat disease,
Indulge our senses at our reason’s cost,
Till sense is pain, and reason hurt or lost.
—CHANDLER.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain Subdivision 2. (Lev 11:1-47; Lev 12:1-8; Lev 13:1-59; Lev…
Subdivision 2. (Lev 11:1-47; Lev 12:1-8; Lev 13:1-59; Lev 14:1-57; Lev 15:1-33.)
Putting a difference.
Read full note →
We come now to look at the other side of our associations. We have seen how God has in grace associated us with His dear Son. Thus belonging to the priestly family, and brought near to God, fellowship with Him must mean dissociation from all that is contrary to His mind and will. Linked with God upon the one side, we cannot upon the other link Him with what would dishonor Him. Our associations become in this way a matter of the most vital importance to our highest interests here. Innocence is gone from us; the knowledge of evil is that from which we can no longer escape; and God in His wondrous way has turned this into a means of holiness, and of fellowship with Himself: "the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil;" and we are of those "who by reason of use" are to "have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb 5:14).
Even when born again, and our hearts turned to God, it has not pleased Him to deliver us at once from that indwelling sin, which if any man saith he hath not, he deceiveth himself (1Jn 1:8). Nay, it is then we are brought face to face with it, not surely to fulfill its lusts, but to realize it in its abominable character, and to learn in the light with Him His own hatred of it.
In the world around too we find it in ten thousand shapes, many gross, many alluring, and in beings like ourselves connected with us in various ways, and exercising various influences upon us. From these we cannot withdraw ourselves: the prayer of our High-Priest was, "not that Thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldst deliver them from the evil" (Joh 17:15.) We have thus to conquer, not to flee, -to conquer where we stand; separated from that in the midst of which we are, "in the world, not of it," and to carry out this separation while alive to all the infinite claims upon us of those who are with ourselves of Adam’s fallen race, -yea, in sympathy with the tears of Him who wept over His rejectors.
Here on every side is evil ready to defile us, and in those in whom we have to distinguish its various workings, for their sakes and our own learning to "make a difference:" of some having compassion; others saving with fear (Jud 1:22-23); others only able to withdraw from utterly with horror. Such things we come to look at now in the fruitful types in which God once taught to a people just emerged from association with the heathen around, His holiness. Of this man, fallen from his place, had in himself so little knowledge, that God must take up the beast below him, to teach it to him. In truth, nature is one great parable, and God, in drawing out such lessons from it, but uses it for what it is.
1. First, then, we have to learn here as to food, what is clean and what is unclean. The German materialist’s bald sophism we are taught to realize in another sense as a most important truth, "man ist was er iszt," -"what we eat we are." Spiritually, our food declares our character, as it also forms it. He that eateth Christ shall not only live by Him, but His life will be practically assimilated to His also. Thus, in what is here permitted to be the food of the people of God, we find depicted the spiritual life of the people of God. And this is the real and ultimate meaning of these divisions. That wholesomeness as diet should go with this would not be wonderful in view of this very symbolism which is in all things round us. That which is fullest in meaning is also truest in fact, as there need be no doubt. Nevertheless, the matter of health is never brought forward: it is not of what is wholesome or unwholesome, but of what is clean or unclean that the law treats.
(1) Of clean beasts -mammals, as they are best distinguished -there is but one class, those that ruminate, or chew the cud; but among these also those are excluded who have not a hoof entirely divided. There must be the union of these two characters, the power of rumination and the divided hoof, to constitute the animal clean for the Israelite.
It is not hard to realize the spiritual meaning of rumination: we are well accustomed to the use of it for "meditation," quiet reflection; and it would seem almost needless to insist upon the necessity of this for proper apprehension of the truth. The cloven foot, besides its suitability for a light, firm tread, and so for speed, prevents miring in soft ground. These opposed hoofs, uniting to give stability in this way, may perhaps intimate to us how the truths of the Word that seem most opposed to one another, in fact only give balance and firm tread to him that rests on them; while they certainly prevent being mired in the very place of pasture. The speed for which the foot is, above all, made surely reminds us that where spiritual digestion is found in the believer, faith that looks at what is unseen makes the Christian course a race. Altogether the type here is a bright and suggestive one: may it speak to our souls with all the power the Spirit of God can give it!
But now look at the exceptions: of the really ruminating animals only one -the camel. It is plain he is no racer: two and a half to three miles is his pace, and he travels it with a burden. Made for the desert, not for the pasture-lands, ungainly, irritable, not like the rest of his class, -may he not remind us of how many Christians, while ever learning, as one would think, the things of God, go yet heavily burdened through the world, as if the desert was their all? The camel-Christian may be indeed a real one, as his representative is a ruminant, and yet what a poor bungled copy does he seem! Cares of this world burden him. He is earthly-heavenly: according to the Word of God "unclean."
The other animals named here are not ruminants at all, and many have wondered that the hare and the coney -the hyrax -should be put among them. But it has been well urged, that these are practical directions for simple people, and not studies in natural history; and to people ordinarily the hare and the coney, though merely grinding their teeth, appear to be ruminating. They are professors of rumination without reality, taken here as God takes men according to their profession: but it cannot make them clean.
The last animal here is a very different one from the rest, and the very type of uncleanness. In the swine there was no pretense of rumination, but there was the cloven foot; if one looked only at that, the swine would seem clean. Surely they are the type of such as, openly slighting faith and the Word of God, plead their good conduct. "He can’t be wrong whose life is in the right." In fact, the life is not right: loving the mire, and rooting up the ground, the swine is a typical destroyer. God judgeth not as man judgeth, but His judgment alone is true.
(2) We now come to the inhabitants of the waters, and here that which was clean had fins and scales, means of movement and defense; but the opposition of a denser element than before -the water -seems to make movement itself here a conflict in which the "fin" is the offensive, as the "scale" is the defensive weapon. So we are reminded here that the life of faith is a warfare also, and one from which we cannot be excused: we cannot be non-combatants and clean; to be unarmed is to be overcome; every step of progress must be a victory.
(3) The birds speak to us of that heavenly character which as Christians surely belongs to us; yet here also in what assumes to be that, there may come in that which is unclean, and then we have proportionately what is worst. In the parables of Mat 13:1-58 the birds of the heavens carry off the good seed, and are devils.
Here there is no rule given for distinguishing the clean, in general to belong to this class was to be so: individual exceptions are named, without any specified characters to distinguish those either. Certainly each one of them has meaning, and the name alone is given, probably the name is enough, as in Bunyan’s allegories, but I can attempt nothing as to this. It has been remarked that the list consists almost exclusively of birds which feed on flesh in whole or in part; under which come necessarily also the omnivorous; while in the bat we have an illustration of those flying things that go upon all fours mentioned just afterward, although, of course, a much larger class. "We can trace," says Mackintosh, "in the habits of the above three classes the just ground of their being pronounced unclean; but we can also see in them the striking exhibition of that in nature, which is to be strenuously guarded against by every true Christian. Such an one is called upon to refuse every thing of a carnal nature. Moreover, he cannot feed promiscuously upon every thing that comes before him. He must ’try the things that differ.’ He must ’take heed what he hears.’ He must exercise a discerning mind, a spiritual judgment, a heavenly taste. Finally, he must use his wings: he must rise on the pinions of faith and find his place in the celestial sphere to which he belongs. In short, there must be nothing groveling, nothing promiscuous, nothing unclean, for the Christian." -(Notes on Leviticus.)
The "flying creeping things" would seem to be unclean as belonging to two spheres at once, from which those whose mode of progression was a leap were excepted, the leap being perhaps a repulsion of the earth (?). The earth-taint here in question accounts for the introduction of legislation as to death, the touch even of the carcasses of the unclean defiling. Here too, naturally from this point of view, are mentioned as unclean the beasts that go upon their "hands," -i.e., whose feet are unprotected by hoofs. The classification in this way shows clearly how a moral symbolism governs it: there is otherwise no order apparent.
(5) The reptiles follow, but along with these also the weasel and the mouse, -showing the same absence as before of any merely natural classification. Nor indeed does there seem at first a reason for the specification of certain species here when the whole class of creeping things is presently declared unclean (v. Mat 13:41). Commentators seem only able to say that these are mentioned as being of those from whom there was special danger of defilement in the way immediately particularized as dropping into vessels, etc, being generally found in houses or in the abodes of men. But we see also how differently they affect what they come into contact with -the comparative receptivity of defilement. Thus every vessel of wood, or garment or skin or sack, upon which they fell when dead, was to be put into water and would be clean at even; but the earthen vessel could only be broken. The fountain or well could not be defiled; nor seed intended to be sown, but if it had been moistened with water, to be used for food, then it would be defiled. That which died of itself also, though otherwise clean, became unclean, -death in this way being the type of that which had come in through sin. Whether we can read these things or not, it is plain that they imply a different susceptibility as to evil, and a difference in the treatment of that which was defiled, which should be to us suggestive and important.
2. Through the woman death had come in, and through the woman life comes in, but the life which she brings in is tainted with its origin: "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" asks Job. We must answer with him, Naturally, "not one." Hence the truth that we are taught here, that human increase is human defilement. Every child born into the world but adds to the evil in it: although this is not permitted to stand alone, but we are made to see also that "where sin abounded grace has much more abounded."
In the case of a man-child the mother remains seven days wholly unclean, and rendering unclean all she touches. Thus the child also, if for no other reason, begins life defiled by the uncleanness of its mother. These seven days over, the child is circumcised, the eighth day showing us that cleansing can only come through new creation, so inveterate is the evil he has derived. Circumcision spiritually also is the "putting off the body of the flesh" (Col 2:11) condemned in the cross of Christ, "our old man crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be annulled, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom 6:6.) "We are the circumcision who worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." (Php 3:3.)
God’s grace has thus come in, yet the mother remains thirty-three days more in the blood of her purification, completing the full number of forty days. For the female child all these numbers are doubled, -the witness, no doubt, to the entrance of sin by the woman. In either case, purification is completed by the offering of a lamb for a burnt-offering and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering. The reversal of the usual order in which these are mentioned is emphasized by the disproportion of the offerings, God putting foremost that perfect obedience of Christ which has glorified Him in view of Adam’s disobedience. Only where poverty required, another dove or pigeon might take the place of the lamb.
The number of this section most naturally points, I think, to sin as an inheritance, two being evidently, as an ordinal number, that which speaks of succession and dependence. It is in theology the doctrine of "original sin."
3. We now come to the subject of leprosy, which is treated at length. As the most inveterate and loathsome of diseases, so slight in its beginnings, so sure in its retentive hold and in its power to spread both within and around the unhappy subject of it, so awful in its end, it is used as the fit type of the corruption of sin. God Himself therefore takes it into His own hand, as indeed the only One competent to deal with it, and with whom alone its cure was found. All researches into its nature, which have been many, have proved of singularly little help in the interpretation of the Word, which is (as ever,) sufficient for itself. The spiritual meaning is really the whole thing -what even for Israel God had in mind always; and now fully opened -or lying open -to us, "upon whom the ends of the ages are come." Thus, if there is no natural remedy given or hinted at for this disease, for the spiritual malady we shall surely find it in the ordained means for cleansing the leper.
Leprosy speaks of the outbreak of that which the last chapter has shown us to be in the nature of every one that is born of a woman. In the child of God it still remains as "flesh," which "lusteth against the Spirit;" but we are not left helpless under the power of it. Circumcision we have seen to be its remedial antidote, -the cross its judgment before God for our deliverance, and the effect of this for the true circumcision "no confidence in the flesh." Our boasting, then, is in Christ Jesus, and our "walk in Him," His strength perfected in our confessed and utter weakness. If we walk thus in the Spirit, we "shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh;" but the evil is there, and if we do not maintain a humble and subject mind, it will break out: the power of the world will act upon us, the energy of an independent will will carry us away, and this is leprosy.
Here it is in Israel, among the people of God, and this gives it peculiar importance. The Israelite is in relation to God and to His people. All this has to he considered and provided for. The tabernacle of God must not be defiled; the camp of Israel must be kept holy. The question raised by the mere suspicion of leprosy has mainly to do with this. As for the man himself, if it be true leprosy, others are powerless: he must be left to God; but the glory of God must be maintained, and the blessing of His people not sacrificed. Here, for us, now that God has a Church on earth, the house in which He dwells, and where membership is in the body of Christ, there is what is of gravest meaning and deepest solemnity, though little heeded, -nay, practically unknown to the mass of even true Christians today, whose associations are so largely characterized by man’s will, often by even contemptuous disregard of Scripture, and whose fear of God is so often "taught by the precept of men." May God give us ears to hear! for His Word will, in the end, vindicate itself against all the reproaches and slights which may be cast upon it -nothing can be more sure than that: no syllable that He has uttered shall be lost or in vain; no truth of His, if it seem ever so practically dead, but shall have its resurrection-day, and face its opposers in the time to come!
(1) The identification of leprosy is of course the first thing; and for this the marks are given at length. Not every thing that might appear to be this was so in fact, while that which did not appear so might in result turn out to be. Thus there was need of patient discrimination, giving full heed to all existing signs, and opportunity for new developments. And of these the priest was to be the interpreter -for us the spiritual man, able to draw near to God, and having the mind of God. In no case could the judgment be left to him who was in question. His opinion was not sought and could not be accepted, an opinion of that in which he was too much concerned to be dispassionate.
If, then, there were certain indications that looked like leprosy, the man who showed them was to be brought to the priest. It was not to be expected that he would volunteer. Nor was suspicion in this case wrong, when there was that which would naturally provoke it. On the other hand, suspicion was not to be acted upon: there must be positive proof before any thing could be pronounced leprosy; and there were signs which (though patience might be needed,) would not deceive.
First, the hair turned white is the sign of departing strength, and decay of spiritual strength will be very plainly discernable in such cases: freshness and vigor are gone, although there may be as much activity apparently as before, but with more effort, perhaps even more external life, while internally it is weakened and languishes.
Then the spot looks "deeper than the skin." This requires much closer attention than the white hair, and it is correspondingly difficult to indicate its spiritual counterpart. Of course, it is simple enough to say that it means what is not superficial; but how is this to be known in the case of sin before us for judgment? Here is what is designed, no doubt, to give us exercise, and make us realize our need of God; and we are never left without reminding of this. God’s Word itself only furnishes "the man of God." His precepts are not meant to mark out a way for us apart from living guidance. Were they of this sort, they would do us injury. On the contrary, they bring us to God in the conviction of our need of wisdom, and then there is no uncertainty about the meeting of the need: "If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." (Jas 1:5.)
The New Testament reaffirms this distinction between two things which to ordinary eyes might look much the same, but where one was superficial and the other not. The one who is called a brother, but is "covetous, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one," we are, "no, not to eat." (1Co 5:11.) Not all these things can in every case be decided off-hand. The case of one "overtaken in a fault" (Gal 6:1) may be confounded with such, if there be not due care, and power to discern between things that really differ.
If these two things were really found together -the white hair, and the fact of its being deeper than the skin, -then the man in whom they concurred was to be pronounced unclean. If not, and still there was room for doubt, he was to be shut up for awhile -not shut out, but shut up. Israel must not be defiled by a possible leper, while on the other hand the man must not be treated as what he may not be. God’s people must not act in the dark, but in the light. The great decisive point would now be, whether or not the disease would spread or was stopped. If it did not spread, he was to be bidden wash his clothes, and he would be clean -minor uncleanness there had been, or there would have been no need of this suspension of judgment; but if on the other hand, even after this, the disease spread, the former decision must be recalled: the man was unclean.
In the next case supposed, the appearance of living raw flesh was the decisive proof. In addition to the characteristic spot, there was an ulcer which had bared the flesh. It was a genuine uprise from beneath -something clearly not superficial, but working deeply, so as to manifest the very man himself. Here was uncleanness, and no need of hesitation. On the other hand, suppose that the disease had come all to the surface, the man was covered with it, and yet in fact the vital power had thrown it off: here, if there were no raw flesh, the man was to be pronounced clean. Sin thus manifested in confession and open assumption of the shame -a genuine, hearty, unreserved break-down before God and man, -here God’s grace has wrought, and grace must be shown.
This is a principle which applies both to the sinner who is brought to God and the saint who is brought back to Him. The latter is what the type supposes here, but the apostle’s application of the similar thirty-second psalm justifies it in this case. It is a principle of God’s dealing with men, which is the necessary result of what He is. Grace is His delight, but it is where truth is in the inward parts it can be shown; -not to self-righteousness, but to sinners truly convicted and confessed.
We are next shown how leprosy may develop out of an abscess or out of a burn. An infirmity unwatched may thus become an occasion of the most serious defilement. But however it may arise, the signs of leprosy are the same substantially, and the treatment of the leper is ever the same. His clothes rent, his head bare, his upper lip covered, he is to take his place and proclaim his shame. He was to dwell alone, outside the camp. Separated from the assembly, and in his true place, he might yet hope in God, from whom alone could come help and healing in so great a strait.
(2) In the garment, we have what is related to man, but separable from him. Leprosy may manifest itself here, as in our occupations, must etc. Here again extension and incurability are the fatal signs. The judgment must still be that of the spiritual man; there must be patient examination where there is any cause for doubt; the Word of God must be brought to bear on it, as in the washing; or the part in which the evil was might be taken out, and the rest remain. If still it showed itself unchanged, and even though not spreading, the garment must be burned.
(3) We have now to look at what is God’s way of restoration when the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper. The healing and the purification are different things; the man healed is not thereby cleansed for God: no work in the soul, however needful, can in the proper sense restore; for this, God’s grace in Christ must come in, and, while it is certain that that grace will not be wanting when the sinner, or the saint that has wandered from God, takes his place in true confession before Him; yet He will have us to know, both for His own glory and our true blessing, the power of that work of Christ which alone brings nigh, whether in position or in inward reality.
There are in this work of restoration two distinct parts, which must not be confounded: first, the restoration to a place among the people of God, from whom he had been separated; and this is done upon the first day, when he returns to the camp; secondly, on the eighth day, there is a new and only now complete cleansing, by which he is brought fully to God, and restored to his tent also. In the first part, the man who has been in living death is restored, as it were, to life; in the second part, he is brought back into communion with God, and thus with His people.
In the application of the first part to the believer who has been away from God -the strict application of the type, as is evident, -there is needed a word of warning, that here, as in so many places, the law, which had a shadow of good things to come, was not the very image. Israel were the people of God, and in this, what Christians are today, and yet standing on what a different footing! in how different a relationship! They were a nation taken from among the nations of the earth; brought, in a sense, nigh to God; and having the adoption -God a Father to them (Rom 9:4; Isa 64:8; Jer 31:9). But all this was -however different under the new covenant it is to be, -as yet on the ground of a legal covenant, which was only condemnation, and by which they could not really draw nigh; and if God were the Father of the nation, the individuals composing it were not, as such, His children. To be Israelites, they needed no new birth, were partakers of no new life, were not justified by faith, or accepted in the Beloved: in a word, they were only natural men, -as to whom adoption, redemption, sanctification, were but the figures of these to us so precious realities.
Among them God had, of course, ever a true people, and these were surely born again as we, children of God by faith, though but a little flock scattered among and hidden in the mass of the nation. It is the nation with which we have in the Old Testament to do; and to confound the believing remnant with this, or to substitute it for it, would introduce the most entire confusion into a large part of Scripture.
But we have to remember, therefore, in such a type as that before us, that the Christian’s place in Christ is his in absolute grace, not on any legal or conditional footing. He cannot, therefore, lose it, or need to be restored to it, although to the enjoyment of it he may. The repeated offerings have found their antitype in that one perfect offering which needs and can admit no repetition, and by which "He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." (Heb 10:14.) Let us now look at the restoration of the leper.
Beautiful is the picture of divine grace here! "This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing, he shall be brought unto the priest; and the priest shall go forth out of the camp." The person to be restored is thus sought out, not bidden to seek out himself the means of restoration. Hands are ready to minister: "And the priest shall command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds, alive and clean." The kind of bird, otherwise than that it must be clean, is not stated, and its being a bird, i.e., its belonging to the heavens, is so much the more emphasized. Two birds are needed, as the double symbol of Christ, dying and risen, come from above, and returning thither again. This thought of a heavenly being is further emphasized in what might seem a contradiction to it, for the one bird that dies is killed in an earthen vessel over running water, and this earthen vessel, if there could be doubt about its meaning, the apostle has explained to us (2Co 4:7.) It is that humanity filled with the Spirit of God, (the running, or "living water,") in which the Son of God acquired capacity to die. This heavenliness of the Son of Man is insisted on because the heart is to be lifted for true cleansing out of the world which had enslaved it, and lifted up to heaven with Him in resurrection. "The life which I live in the flesh," says the apostle again, "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." (Gal 2:20.)
It is contended by Kurtz and others, that the bird slain does not speak of atonement, because there is no presentation of the blood to God; but there is more, for this living bird, identified with the slain one by the blood in which it is dipped, speaks of that which is already the proof of acceptance of the work on God’s part, and of the justification of him to whom it is applied: "He was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification." (Rom 4:25.) Resurrection was the answer of God to Him, the open sentence of God in behalf of all who believe in Him. Thus the blood-sprinkling upon the person implies "the heart sprinkled from an evil conscience." And in this way is the freed heart bound with eternal links to the person of the Deliverer.
These thoughts are supplemented and reinforced upon the other side by the cedar-wood and scarlet and hyssop, -from the highest to the lowest thing in nature, and all the glory of the world -being dipped along with the living bird in the blood of the slain one. In the type of the red heifer which has its strong points of resemblance to the present, they are put into the fire of the offering and consumed. Here the thought is surely analogous: all that is of the world is stained in its glory with the blood of Him who died at the hands of the world; "whereby," says the apostle again, "the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." (Gal 6:14.)*
{*Is it not perhaps on this account also, that the bird is not killed by the priest? In the burnt-offering of birds the priest does slay the victim: and for this and other reasons it cannot, I believe, be sustained that it was an unpriestly thing to do. But the bird of the heavens thus slain by an unpriestly hand seems to give the idea of rejection and violence, which harmonizes perfectly with the glory of the world being stained with the blood that it has shed. It will be noticed that in the case of the red heifer, so akin to this in many ways, we have the same thing expressed in a way very suitable to such a meaning: "one shall slay her before his face."}
There is, then, an entire and wonderful harmony in all the details in this beauteous type, which shows us the so to speak dead man restored to life, and the life a heavenly life outside of the world, in Him who having come from heaven to surrender himself to death, returns to heaven again, the justification of His own being assured to them by His resurrection. Therefore now the restored leper having washed his person and his clothes (his "habits") and shaved off all his hair, returns to his place in the camp of Israel.
But he is not yet fully restored, and for seven days he remains outside his tent: spiritual relationship is in the new creation, which he reaches typically on the eighth day. On the seventh another purification takes place; and on the eighth day he is brought up with his sacrifice, and offerings to be presented before Jehovah.
In what follows the special feature is the trespass-offering, which we have seen is the restitution-offering. With the blood of the trespass-offering the leper is anointed on three parts which together give us the man in his whole responsibility. The ear is restored to God to listen to His word; the hand to serve Him; the foot to walk in His blessed ways. It is to this that the blood shed for him sanctifies, the oil being then put on the blood to signify that by the power of the Holy Ghost this sanctification is practically accomplished. After this the oil is poured upon the head, the whole man being thus invigorated and refreshed, and united together by that which unites us to Christ Himself, for "he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." (1Co 6:17.) The conclusion of the sentence, "and the priest shall make atonement for him before Jehovah," refers of course, not to the anointing with oil, but to the trespass-offering of which the anointing is the accomplishment. Atonement for the Israelite could be and needed to be constantly repeated, for the blood of bulls and of goats could never really take away sins. (Heb 10:1-4.) For the Christian, once cleansed by the blood of Jesus, it cannot be, but there can be a deepening realization of what it means. And the more we go on to know what self-surrender to God really is, the more profoundly shall we be conscious of the value of that by which alone it is possible. The most active worker, the most patient sufferer for Christ, the most devoted in life, will be just the one to sing most realizingly -
"Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling."
The accumulation of these types of atonement in the Jewish ritual beautifully reminds us of how God would put Christ before us in every aspect of His work, in every way in which He Himself sees Him. Here, after the trespass-offering the sin-offering follows: what sin is before God is to be learned nowhere so fully as in the cross of Christ; and we need to learn it thus: not merely that our sins are put away by it, but the divine abhorrence of sin which it expresses. Next the burnt-offering comes to show the completeness of acceptance in that obedience of Christ which has nowhere else any thing that comes near to it; and finally the meal-offering engages us with the Person of Christ, three-tenths of fine flour mingled with oil, "humanity having in it all the strength, the taste, the savor of the Holy Spirit in its nature." In the fullness of all this is cleansing according to God found: now at last the man is what God would have him, and fitted for the enjoyment of relationship among the people of God, -he comes into his tent.
In the provision for poverty which follows we find the full character of the trespass-offering still maintained, for consecration to the Lord must not be lessened, the ear, the hand and the foot must be as unreservedly His, whether we have little or much with which to serve Him. But two turtle-doves or two young pigeons take the place of the lambs for the other offerings -the thought of the heavenly One again as in that of the first day, yet here not fully the divine thought. Yet it is Christ, and Christ is God’s, and the warmth of the heart is more than accuracy as to Him.
(b) And now we come to leprosy in a house, a supplementary section, as it seems to be, applying no longer to the individual but to the house, that is the place of association, which in the New Testament would be the assembly; and here it may be the church of God at large, or the assembly in any place, -the local gathering.
The so-called "fathers" (says Gardner, in Lange’s Commentary,) "consider the leprous house-symbolical of Israel (See e.g. Theodoret, Qu. 18): Israel was examined and purified, and the evil stones of its building removed by the many judgments upon the nation, and especially by the carrying away ’without the camp’ to Babylon. But at last, when its incurable sin broke out afresh in the crucifixion of the Lord of Life, the whole house was pulled down and its stones cast out into an unclean place." It is not to be denied that there seems truth in such an application; and as history repeats itself, man being the same through all his generations, and the unchangeable God the same in His necessary holiness, that there may be easily seen a more unwelcome application to the Christian church, as God’s house in the world. It too has had, as Luther wrote, but in a way beyond his judgment of it, its Babylonish captivity, and after its partial deliverance in these present times, the incurable evil will break out again in an open apostasy which seems even now coming in, and which will be completed when the true saints are caught up to heaven. Then the solemn words to Laodicea, "I will spew thee out of my mouth," will be fulfilled, and the present gospel light go out in that "gross darkness" which the sure word of prophecy foretells is to "cover the people" when the glory of the Lord arises once more for Israel. (Isa 40:1-31.) Men do not like to think this, and a harder saying can scarcely be for man today. Yet this will not in the least hinder its fulfillment. The word of God is as plain as it is certain to be fulfilled.
But the principles of God which are thus seen in their application to the dispensations are not thereby deprived of necessary application to the ecclesiastical associations of every Christian. We have seen how they apply to the individual; they apply therefore to every collection of individuals, and above all to those religiously "yoked together." The holiness of God is not relaxed when in relation to these; man’s will is no more acceptable to him in one way than in another: as obedient to God ourselves we must refuse all disobedience, yea, all sanction to disobedience; a fellowship for which we give up the most simple, single-eyed subjection to the Word of God is then but disfellowship with God, -it is iniquity.
According to Scripture the church of God is but one: it is the body of Christ, and there cannot be different bodies. Membership is in the body of Christ, not in a local church, nor something that we can at our own will assume, nor into which we can be introduced by the will or act of other men. "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body," says the apostle; and Christ is He who alone "baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." (1Co 12:13; Joh 1:33.)
But this "assembly which is Christ’s body" (Eph 1:22-23,) cannot as yet assemble. It is scattered over the world, and the practical assemblies are therefore the assemblies of those who belong to this body in each place. Thus the local assembly represents the body at large, and as that which can alone actually assemble has duties and responsibilities for the whole. Here is the sphere of our fellowship, and here is the divine organization for all spiritual purposes in which every one has his place given of God, so that in the maintenance fully of his individuality is found the blessing of the whole. How precious an expression of the divine love which has bound and fitted us together, each ministering to all, and all to each, Pentecost realized in spiritual things, where no one calls that which he has his own, yet finds it multiplied by the whole number of those who share it with him. Too fair a conception to be long realized in a world like this. Where is this church of God in every place? Yet our duty to it and in it remains the same, while the difficulties and needs in a day of ruin only call out the more the grace which ministers to us and the power of the arm that carries us through.
In the type of leprosy in the house we find the full acknowledgment of the power of evil which may come in, and of our responsibility with regard to it, -the case submitted, as before with regard to the individual, to the judgment of the priest, who is first of all surely Christ, and then he or they with whom is the mind of Christ. Here the owner of the house (and there is but one Owner of what is God’s house,) starts as it were the question, exercising thus the soul by it, as to a plague in the house. The signs of it are much as in the case of the individual, above all the progress of the evil, a fretting canker which spreads continually. Patience must be exercised, without indifference; if it proceed, the stones wherein the plague is must be taken out, -i.e., the persons put away in whom the evil is manifested, -and the house scraped, new stones and plaster taking the place of the old, (the judgment of ways and conduct as well as of persons.) If the plague is then stopped, it is well, and the house is clean; but if after all this, it break out again, then on the other hand it is to be broken down, and cast out into an unclean place. Coming into the house renders him temporarily unclean who does so; and he who lies or eats in it must also wash his clothes.
All this can be read by one that will. It has but little interest, alas! for the mass of real Christians even in our day. The carefulness as to association with evil implied in it is looked upon as the sign of a legal and illiberal spirit. How many of the countless associations of the day, religious or philanthropic, could abide the test of such principles? Yet the day of the Lord is at hand, when His judgment will at last be the whole matter for us, and man’s day will have had its end forever. Oh, that Christians would now accept beforehand what God has written, and what the light of that day will force upon all!
The cleansing of the house is according to that prescribed for the cleansing of the individual leper in its first part: the last is omitted. Separation from the world in the power of the grace of Him who has come into it for our salvation, and whom the world has rejected and crucified, is the evident lesson of the two birds. While there is thus a corporate purity which must be preserved, the living activities which are connected with the second part of the cleansing are necessarily individual, and therefore omitted in what refers to the assembly. Conscience and heart are individual things, and true fellowship with others must be maintained, and can only be, in the maintenance of our individuality intact.
4. It is the frailty of nature that is depicted and provided for in the fifteenth chapter, as it is confirmed and determinate evil in the regulations concerning leprosy. Throughout we have impressed upon us how searching and all-inclusive is the holiness of God, and how readily defilement is communicated and received. These are unwelcome thoughts; but if they are true, what gain shall we find in refusing them? what gain shall we not find in admitting them into our hearts? If our desire be really a walk with God, two cannot walk together except they are agreed; and for agreement, we must come to His terms, not He to ours. A solemn question results: How much real communion with God is in fact enjoyed by His people? Grace is not less holy than law; it is far more holy, -nay, the perfection of holiness: and the difference otherwise consists in the ability which grace gives for that which the law, because of the hardness of men’s hearts, could not even insist upon. "Sin shall not have dominion over you; because ye are not under the law, but under grace."
The sexes are the natural institution of God for the recognition of mutual dependence, for the establishment of special relationships among men, and for the enjoyment of spiritual intercourse -the communion of spirit with spirit -in the most intimate way. It is just here that sin, having entered, has wrought such destructive work as to pollute and poison the race at its fountain-head, and corrupt all the sweetest natural affections into impurity. Of this a large part of the Levitical code is the necessary reminder. God’s Word must reach to the secret holds of sin -there where the "shame" that came in with the fall most of all manifests itself and is witness of corruption. If we cannot say much to one another as to such things, may His Word yet have its place and show its power!
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain (Leviticus 11-16) The Law of Clean and Unclean
(Leviticus 11-16) The Law of Clean and Unclean
This section deals with the subject of ceremonial uncleanness and the method of its purification. Four main types of uncleanness are referred to, viz. that of meats (Lev_11:1-23), of carcases (Lev_11:24), of leprosy (Leviticus 13, 14), and of certain bodily functions and conditions (Leviticus 12, 15). The effect of ceremonial uncleanness is that it disqualifies a person for the worship of God. Its duration varies according to the cause, from a few hours, as in the case of touching the carcase of a clean beast (Lev_11:39), to eighty days, as in the case of a woman who has given birth to a girl (Lev_12:5). The ritual of purification consists of washing the body, sometimes also the clothes, and in the case of greater defilement, the offering of sacrifice.
Read full note →
The distinction of clean and unclean did not originate at the time of Moses, nor is it confined to the Hebrews. It is to be found in all religions, particularly in their earlier stages. It is not easy to account for it. The restrictions may be due to a natural instinct of aversion from disgusting objects and conditions. Or they may rest upon reasons of health; for undoubtedly many of them possess sanitary advantages. Or, as many believe, a religious idea may lie at the root of them, certain objects being regarded as the seat of evil spirits. Whatever be the origin of these regulations, they were adopted by Moses and made to subserve a sacred purpose. Things ceremonially unclean were used as types of moral defilement. The outward purifications served to impress upon the hearts of the people the need of absolute purity in the service of Jehovah. They were a constant reminder of the precept, 'Ye shall be holy; for I am holy' (see e.g. Lev_11:44-45). And if it be the fact that at least some of the 'unclean' animals were worshipped by the Canaanitish tribes, then these regulations served still further to guard the people of Jehovah from the contaminating influences of their surroundings: see Lev_20:25, Lev_20:26.
Law of Clean and Unclean Meats
The animals whose flesh may or may not be eaten are treated in four classes, viz. large land animals (Lev_11:3-8), water animals (Lev_11:9-12), birds (Lev_11:13-19), winged creeping things (Lev_11:20-23).
3. Of the large land animals, those are clean which both chew the cud and divide the hoof. Unless they satisfy both these conditions they are unclean and cannot be eaten. The practical effect of this is to exclude all of prey. The flesh of animals that chew the cud is undoubtedly more wholesome than that of those which live on prey. With this list of animals should be compared that in Deuteronomy 14, where a list of clean animals is given.
4. The camel's foot, though divided above, is united beneath into a broad sole.
5. Coney] The word means a rabbit. But the animal meant here is the rock-badger, which somewhat resembles a guinea-pig, and is common in Palestine.
6. The hare does not really chew the cud, but the action of its jaws resembles that of ruminants.
7. Swine are uncleanly in their habits and food, and the use of their flesh is believed to be the cause of certain diseases in man. The Jews still abstain from eating it.
8. All dead bodies defile. But it should be observed that contact with a living unclean animal did not defile. The ass e.g. was unclean for food, but was the common beast of burden among the Israelites.
9-12. Water animals. The condition of cleanness here is the possession of fins and scales. It follows that shellfish and eels are forbidden as food.
13-19. Birds. No signs are given to distinguish clean from unclean birds. The latter are specified, being mostly birds of prey and feeders on carrion.
13. Ossifrage] RV 'the gier eagle,' the largest of the vulture tribe. The name 'Ossifrage,' which means the 'bone-breaker,' is derived from the practice of the bird in dropping the bones of its prey from a height on to a rock so as to break them and get at the marrow. The ospray is the 'shorttoed eagle,' the commonest of the eagle tribe in Palestine.
14-19. Vulture] RV 'kite.' Kite] RV 'falcon.' After his kind] i.e. including others of the same species. Owl] RV 'ostrich.' Cuckow] RV 'seamew.' Swan] doubtful; RV has 'horned owl.' Lapwing] RY 'hoopoe,' a bird of foul habit.
20-23. Fowls that creep] Read with RV, 'All winged creeping things.' What are meant are insects and small reptiles that move horizontally, go upon all four. Four kinds of locusts are exempted and may be eaten. The locust resembles a large grasshopper, and is still eaten in the East. It is usually prepared by being thrown into boiling water, after which the head and wings are removed and the body dried in the sun.
24-40. Uncleanness contracted by contact with dead bodies.
28. Until the even] till the close of the day. The Hebrews reckon the day from sunset to sunset.
29. Tortoise] Jewish authorities regarded the tortoise as a clean animal. What is meant here is probably a kind of lizard. So RV.
30. The names here are uncertain. RV renders, 'the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon.'
33. An earthen vessel, being porous, is supposed to absorb the uncleanness so that it cannot be removed with washing.
35. Oven] an earthenware jar or pot: see on Exo_8:3.
36. Pit] RM 'cistern.' The water in wells and reservoirs, being frequently changed, is not polluted. That which toucheth] or, 'he that toucheth.'
37, 38. The seed in growing undergoes many changes, which are supposed to throw off the uncleanness. But if the seed is wet it may be penetrated by the defiling fluid.
42. Whatsoever hath more feet] rather, 'hath many feet.' Insects like caterpillars and centipedes are intended.
44. Sanctify] the root meaning of the Heb. words for 'sanctify,' 'hallow,' 'holy,' is that of separation: cp. Lev_11:47. The holiness spoken of here is rather physical than moral; but in keeping themselves free from ceremonial defilement, the people learned to avoid what is morally impure, in accordance with the principle implied in the words, 'first that which is natural, afterward that which is spiritual.' The composite nature of this chapter appears from the position of Lev_11:29-30, Lev_11:41-45, which belong to Lev_11:20-23. Lev_11:46-47 form the conclusion to the whole.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 1. The Clean and the Unclean
III. HOLINESS DEMANDED
1. The Clean and the Unclean
Read full note →
CHAPTER 11
1. Concerning the beasts on the earth (Lev 11:1-8)
2. Concerning things in the water (Lev 11:9-12)
3. Concerning flying and creeping things (Lev 11:13-23)
4. Concerning defilement with dead bodies (Lev 11:24-40)
The chapters which form the third section of Leviticus are by some taken to give evidence that not Moses, but another person arranged the material of the book. Even men who do not deny the inspiration of the book claim that the hand of a redactor is here discovered. In their opinion chapter 16 should follow immediately after the tenth chapter, because the first verse of the sixteenth chapter connects with the death of Nadab and Abihu. We do not agree with this view, but believe that the arrangement as we have it, is as Moses made it. Immediately after the solemn judgment Jehovah spoke again unto Moses and Aaron. Each chapter begins with the statement “And Jehovah spake.” The holy One now demands that His people whom He has redeemed and made nigh, must be a holy people. The fact of man’s sin and defilement is fully demonstrated in this section.
The eleventh chapter consists in commandments concerning clean and unclean animals. In chapter 20:24-26, the reason for this distinction is given. “But I have said unto you: Ye shall inherit the land and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey; I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put a difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean; and you shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.”
All those beasts were unclean which do not both chew the cud and divide the hoof (see also Deut. 14)--those fishes were unclean which have not both fins and scales--and those birds were unclean which are known as birds of prey, as well as insects (with the exception of certain locusts) and flying mammalia. The subject before us deserves a far deeper and more extended study than we can give it here. We are obliged to confine ourselves to but a few hints. We need not to devote much space to the wisdom revealed in these laws. As God is the author of them they must necessarily reveal His wisdom. It is interesting that all civilized races abstain from the use of the greater part of the animals, which this code prohibits. With the exception of a number of forbidden animals, civilized nations partake of only such which these laws permit. And those which are commonly eaten, such as the oysters, the hog and others, prohibited in this code, science has shown to be more or less responsible for certain diseases and therefore dangerous as a food. The discoveries made by science fully demonstrate the wisdom of these distinctions between the different animals. These laws in their literal meaning are, of course, no longer binding; the religious observance of them was not a permanent thing, and is done away with in the New Testament. The church has no such laws distinguishing between the clean and unclean animals. The clean typify the Jew and the unclean the Gentile. Peter’s vision on the housetop of Joppa warrants this interpretation (Acts 10). The clean, the Jews, and the unclean, Gentiles, are, in believing, gathered into the one body. Read Col 2:16-17, where the fact is stated that Leviticus 11 is no longer in force. (While these laws have no longer a religious significance, it is wise to follow them as much as possible. Orthodox Jews who hold strictly to these dietary laws and keep them are far more free from certain diseases than Gentile races, which ignore these laws. It has also been shown by statistics that the mean duration of Jewish life averages much higher than that of others.)
But there is also a deeper meaning to all this. Yet in looking for deeper and spiritual lessons, one must be guarded against a fanciful and far-fetched application. This has often been done. It is obvious that these laws concerning the clean and unclean, teach the path of separation, which Jehovah has marked out for His redeemed people. Only that which is clean according to the divine estimate was to be their food. And we, as His redeemed people, must feed spiritually upon the food God has provided for us, that is Christ. The clean and the unclean, all show certain characteristics, which may well be studied. In the New Testament unclean animals are used to represent unbelievers and unsaved persons. The dog and the swine are thus used (2Pe 2:22). The sheep, as everybody knows, typifies a believer. The characteristics of the clean animals may therefore give some typical lessons on the characteristics of those who believe, and the unclean, characteristics of those who believe not. However, we repeat, these things must not be pressed too far. It is interesting to see the prominence given to the chewing of the cud and the dividing of the hoof. These two things found together in an animal constituted them clean. Those which only chewed the cud, but did not divide the hoof, and others dividing the hoof and not chewing the cud, were unclean. The feeding and the walking are thus made prominent. A Christian, born again, and therefore clean, must feed upon the Word, meditate upon it constantly, like “chewing the cud.” The feet stand for the walk, and that must correspond with the feeding upon the Word. The clean fish had to have fins and scales. The fins are for swift movement through the waters and the scales for defense. This too is not without meaning.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Of Mammals
Of Mammals
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Aaron bring included as the high priest consecrated for the purpose of making an atonement for the sins of the people,
Read full note →
v. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. From the animals in general the Lord distinguishes the domestic animals and those commonly used for food by the inhabitants of the countries round about.
v. 3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed, so that the hoof is not only partially, but completely divided into two parts, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, as a member of the true ruminants, that shall ye eat.
v. 4. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof; as, the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, there being only a partial division of the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
v. 5. And the coney, a marmot-like animal of the size of a hare living in caves and clefts of the rocks, because he cheweth the cud, making the characteristic mouth-movements of the ruminants, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
v. 6. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Though the two last-named animals have not the three or four stomachs of the real ruminants, the motion which they make with their mouths as they sit before their burrows is that of chewing the cud.
v. 7. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Since pigs were nothing but scavengers in Oriental lands, and since the eating of pork in those circumstances often resulted in diseases of the skin, many of the ancient peoples considered them unclean.
v. 8. of their flesh shall ye not eat, to slaughter these animals for food was strictly forbidden, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 among all the animals
among all the animals
"out of all the animals"
Read full note →
translationWords
Yahweh
Moses
Aaron
people group
Israel
life
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 11:1–15:33 These chapters detail the regulations pertaining to purity.…
11:1–15:33 These chapters detail the regulations pertaining to purity. The mixing of types of animals was forbidden (see Deut 22:9-11) because it represented a violation of the normal created order. “Abnormal” creatures—such as fish without fins and scales, carnivores, crawling insects, and animals without split hooves—cross boundaries between “normal” types and were unfit for food or offerings (see also Deut 14:1-21). The dietary laws were meant to distinguish Israel as a holy people from the surrounding nations (Lev 11:44-45).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.