(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
1 Timothy 4:1-5-Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Under the New Testament, Christians are permitted to eat all foods. This was one of the major differences between the Old and New Testaments, since under the Law of Moses many animals were considered “unclean” to be eaten and/or used in worship. The two passages that especially discusses the differences and classifications between “clean” and “unclean” animals are Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3-8. The main criteria for which foods that were considered clear are stated specifically by the Lord:
Leviticus 11:1-3-Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: 3 Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat.
Chewing the cud has references to animals that regurgitate and redirect their food. It was necessary for both of these criteria to be met for an animal to be considered clean for food, but even among these there were some animals that were not to be eaten (cf. Leviticus 11:4-8). We know that the distinction between clean and unclean animals predates Moses, because Noah was told by God:
Genesis 7:2-3-You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; 3 also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth.
So even during the time of Noah, there were distinctions made between clean and unclean animals.
One of the questions that has long puzzled students of the Bible is why some of the animals were clean, and why some were unclean.
Let’s study.
One reason that people suggest some animals are “unclean” is because there is something morally offensive about said animal. Yet we know at once that this cannot be true, since the Word of God reminds us that everything that God created was good:
Genesis 1:31-Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Paul himself points out that every creature of God is intrinsically good (1 Timothy 4:1-5), and he makes the same point to the Christians at Rome:
Romans 14:14- I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Another theory deals with the possibility that some of the animals mentioned in Leviticus 11 were used for rituals and sacrifices among pagans of that time, and that this rendered those animals as unclean for food. This is a definite possibility. Notice how the parallel account of the food laws in Deuteronomy is worded:
Deuteronomy 14:3-You shall not eat any detestable thing.
That word “detestable” is the same word translated “abomination” throughout the Old Testament. This word’s primary significance was to something which was in some way religiously detestable to God and His people.
“a-bom-i-na’-shun (piggul, to’ebhah, sheqets (shiqquts)): Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by “abomination,” or “abominable thing,” referring (except in Ge 43:32; 46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness. The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is to’ebhah, meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, “The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians,” this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Ge 46:34). The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.” (George B. Eager, “Abomination,” in James Orr, Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), 1149-1157 (Kindle Edition); OSNOVA)
One of the greatest religious scholars of the Jewish people, Maimonides, points out that the pagan use of certain animals is what rendered those animals “unclean”” for food consumption in Israel. He specifically references Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:
“The signs of a licit animal—a split hoof and rumination for a beast; fins and scales for a fish (Leviticus 11: 3, 9–10; Deuteronomy 14: 6–9)—are, as you know, not the grounds on which it is permitted; nor is their lack the reason an animal is forbidden. These are just the markers that distinguish licit from impermissible species. The reason the sciatic nerve is barred is given in the text (Genesis 32: 33). The reason we do not consume a body part from a living animal (Genesis 9: 4; Deuteronomy 12: 23; B. Sanhedrin 57a; Ḥullin 101b; MT Laws regarding Forbidden Foods 5) is that this elicits cruelty. Gentile kings used to do this in those days, and it was also done in pagan worship: A limb was cut from a living beast and eaten. As for the ban on milk with meat—besides its being quite gross, of course, and highly surfeiting—I think it hardly unlikely that it was involved in pagan worship or festivals. There is evidence for this, I think, in the fact that the first two mentions of the ban come when the Torah lays out our thrice yearly festivals (Exodus 23: 17–19, 34: 26; cf. Deuteronomy 14: 21 and Onkelos ad loc.), telling us, in effect, ‘When you make the pilgrimage and enter the House of the LORD thy God, do not cook as they do.’ To me, this seems the likely basis for the ban.” (Moses Moses Maimonides, The Guide to the Perplexed: A New Translation, Translated and with commentary by Lenn E. Goodman and Philip I. Lieberman, 499 (Kindle Edition): Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press)
It is possible that this may account for the reason many of the animals in these passages are considered unclean, but certainly not for all of them. For example, why would the bull not be considered unclean, when it was worshipped by many of the peoples of the world (including Egypt, from which God had delivered the people of Israel) as being a god?
So, while the pagan religious theory may account for many of the animals in this passage being considered unclean to eat, it cannot be the only reason.
Another possibility regarding the classification of some animals as “unclean” is due to the way that most of the ones mentioned in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are primarily carnivorous (meat-eating) and predatory. This represents a corruption from the way that God had originally made the creation.
Genesis 1:29-30-And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.
Several textual clues in these lists (especially from Leviticus 11) tie the concept of clean and unclean animals in with the “you shall eat” and the “you shall not eat” commands to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (compare Genesis 2:16, 17; 3:1-3 with Leviticus 11:2, 3, 9, 11, 21, 22). Meat-eating animals were a reminder of the corruption that had come into the world as a result of sin. The unclean animals mentioned in the Old Testament are primarily meat-eating predators. Copan makes an excellent application of the unclean animals with the mindset and daily lives of the Hebrew people in their culture:
“Furthermore, the kinds of animals that were permitted and forbidden in the Israelites’ diet were linked to the kind of people God wanted them to be. They weren’t to be predators in their human relationships.…In regard to the predatory aspect, animals of the air (owls, gulls, hawks, and carrion-eaters such as vultures) are forbidden in Israel’s diet because they themselves have consumed blood; they’re predatory. Remember the prohibition against eating blood in Genesis 9:4, suggesting respect for life, which is in the blood: “the life of all flesh is its blood” (Lev. 17:14). As for land animals, quadruped plant-eaters—rather than carnivores—may be eaten (once their blood has been drained). The fact that they (1) chew the cud and (2) have split hoofs (whether domestic or wild) are clear indications that they never eat blood and thus are not predatory (Lev. 11:3).…If scholars who claim that certain unclean animals symbolize vulnerability and defenselessness are correct, then this representation of the oppressed—the alien, the widow, the orphan (Deut. 14: 29; 16: 11; cf. Isa. 1: 17)—would serve as a reminder that they ought to be respected. Israel’s entire way of life—down to the very food they ate (or didn’t eat)—mattered to God. Their diet served as a reminder of the holy and the unholy: Israelites were to avoid the unholy activity of preying upon the vulnerable in society.” (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, 81-84 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)
Considering that some of the animals listed as unclean in these passages represent a deviation from the way God originally created the Earth, I am reminded of how we are told in ancient uninspired Jewish history books about how the fallen angels, Nephilim, and wicked humanity were conducting experiments on Earth in Noah’s time which included altering animals from the way God had designed them.
1 Enoch 7:5-6-They also began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.
Jasher 4:18-And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men, in those days, took from the cattle of the earth, the beats of the field, and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of the animals of one species with another.
Ken Johnson further documents:
“The entire Book of Enoch is preserved by the Ethiopic Church and fragments of the same book exist among the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages. There also exist fragments of what is referred to as the Book of Giants. These Dead Sea Scroll fragments may prove to be a previously unknown chapter of the story of Enoch. Though very badly fragmented, they provide more details on the practices of the fallen ones. Dead Sea Scrolls are identified by a sequence of numbers and letters. The first number is the cave in which the scroll was found. The “Q” means it was found at the Qumran site, and the next number is the fragment or scroll number. Compiling the Dead Sea fragments 1Q23; 2Q26; 4Q530, 531, 532; and 6Q8, we come up with part of the original Book of Giants. It is still badly fragmented, so it is an educated guess as to some of the details. The Book of Giants is made up of two sections…. The first section of this work details how the fallen angels descended from heaven and studied all types of creatures from insects to mammals, birds, and even mankind. They took two hundred of each kind of animal or bird and cross bred them with another kind that had a similar chromosome count to create a creature with an unstable chromosome count. One example given in the text is sheep with 54 chromosomes and goats with 60 chromosomes. This produced a half-sheep, half-goat creature with 56 or 57 chromosomes. Only a few of the two hundred pair combinations would have the ability to reproduce. These unstable life-forms were then crossed with other unstable life-forms with a chromosome count not too different from their own. This process was continued until the desired creature was created. The Ancient Book of Jasher mentioned cross breeding cattle with birds. This might have been the origin of the legend of Pegasus, a winged horse.” (Ken Johnson, Ancient Book of Enoch, 186-187 (Kindle Edition): BibleFacts Ministries)
It is possible that the reason why some animals were considered unclean was because of their deviation from God’s natural order, whether directly or indirectly as a result of humankind’s (and perhaps angelkind’s) sin.
While this explanation provides a reason why most of the animals mentioned in the Old Testament were unclean, it is also not comprehensive. A few friends pointed out to me that some of the animals in the “unclean” list are also herbivores. So again, this may account for one of the reasons why most of these these animals were considered unclean, but not all of them.
Another possibility worthy considering here is the sanitary argument, which claims that the majority of the unclean animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 were carriers of extremely dangerous viruses and sicknesses, and so God said they should be avoided as food for medicinal reasons.
Kyle Butt has documented:
“Food regulations enumerated in the first five books of the Old Testament have been scrutinized by credentialed professionals in the fields of dietary and pathological research. The regulations have proven to coincide with modern science’s understanding of various aspects of health and disease prevention. In 1953, an extensive study, performed by David I. Macht and published in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine (a publication of the American Association of the History of Medicine and of The Johns Hopkins Institute of the History of Medicine), tested the toxicity of the meat of animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Macht’s technique was to place a certain seedling (Lupinus albus) in fresh muscle juices of the various animals noted as clean and unclean in the biblical text. This method was used at the time to study the blood of normal human patients as compared to the blood of cancerous patients (1953, p. 444). Macht noted that his results revealed “data which are of considerable interest not only to the medical investigator but also to the students of ancient Biblical literature” (p. 445). Some of his results were indeed of interest. For instance, he would take a control group of seedlings that grew in normal solutions and compare that group to seedlings placed in the various meat juices. He would then record the percent of seeds that grew in the meat juices as compared to those that grew under normal circumstances. For example, when placing the seedlings in meat juices from the Ox, the seeds grew 91% as often as they would if placed in a regular growing solution. Seeds in sheep juices grew 94% as often as those in the control group in regular solution. Seedlings in meat juice from a calf—82%; from a goat—90%; and from a deer 90%. Since these animals chew the cud and have a divided hoof, they were listed as clean in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14: Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat’” (Leviticus 11: 1-3). When several unclean animals were studied, however, they showed significantly higher levels of toxicity and much lower levels of seedling growth. Seedlings in meat juice from pigs grew only 54% as often as the control group under normal growing conditions; rabbit—49%; camel—41%; and horse—39%. These results for larger mammals suggested that the biblical division between clean and unclean could have been related to the toxicity of the juices of such animals. Macht did similar research on birds, in which he found that extracts from biblical clean birds such as the pigeon and quail grew his seedlings 93% and 89%, while those from unclean birds such as the Red-tail hawk (36%) and owl (62%) were much more toxic. As Moses said: “And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind” (Leviticus 11: 13-19). Other studies included several different kinds of fish. The biblical regulation for eating fish was that the Israelites could eat any fish that had fins and scales (Deuteronomy 14: 9). Those water-living creatures that did not possess fins and scales were not to be eaten (14: 10). In regard to his study on the toxicity of fish, Macht wrote: Of special interest were experiments made with muscle juices and also blood solutions obtained from many species of fishes. Fifty-four species of fishes were so far studied in regard to toxicity of meat extracts. It was found that the muscle extracts of those fishes which possess scales and fins were practically non-toxic [Herring—100%; Pike—98%; Shad—100%—KB], while muscle extracts from fishes without scales and fins were highly toxic for the growth of Lupinus albus seedlings (pp. 446-448). Macht’s study, even after more than five decades, continues to remain of great interest. His rigorous research led him to conclude: The observations described above corroborate the impression repeatedly made on the author in investigations as a physician (M.D. Johns Hopkins, 1906), as an experimental biologist (Member of Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine), and as Doctor of Hebrew Literature (Yeshiva University, 1928) that all allusions of the Book of Books, to nature, natural phenomena, and natural history, whether in the form of factual statements or in the form of metaphors, similes, parables, allegories, or other tropes are correct either literally or figuratively…. Such being the extraordinary concordance between the data of the Scriptures and many of the modern and even most recent discoveries in both the biological and physico-chemical sciences, every serious student of the Bible will, I believe, endorse the assertion of Sir Isaac Newton, that “The Scriptures of God are the most sublime philosophy. I find more such marks of authenticity in the Bible than in profane history anywhere” (p. 449).” (Kyle Butt, Behold! The Word of God, 1365-1405 (Kindle Edition): Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, Inc.)
It could be that there are many reasons for the classifications of some animals as clean and others as unclean. We have noted a few, and there may be other reasons that we are just not privy to. What is important for us to understand is that whatever reason God gave for these food laws in the Old Testament, they were for the good of His people.
In the same way, in our day and age, we must remember not to force these Old Testament laws on others.
As Paul wrote:
Romans 14:1-9-Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.