THE LORD SAID to Moses and Aaron, 2“Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.
4“‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
9“‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.
13“‘These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15any kind of raven, 16the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
20“‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.
24“‘You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 25Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.
26“‘Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches [the carcass of] any of them will be unclean. 27Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 28Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.
29“‘Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, 30the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. 31Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. 32When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean. 33If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. 34Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. 35Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean. 36A spring, however, or a cistern for collecting water remains clean, but anyone who touches one of these carcasses is unclean. 37If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. 38But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.
39“‘If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. 40Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.
41“‘Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten. 42You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable. 43Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. 44I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. 45I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.
46“‘These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. 47You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.’”
Original Meaning
PURE AND IMPURE ANIMALS By learning and observing differences between the sacred and the profane/common, and the pure and impure categories, the Israelites could properly relate to the holy, immortal, and omnipotent deity residing in their midst. Chapters 11–15 of Leviticus provide instructions for avoiding, controlling, and remedying the following kinds of physical ritual impurities:
Purity/impurity of animal sources |
Lev. 11—dietary distinctions |
Impurity from human sources |
Lev 12—genital flow from childbirth |
Lev 13—scale disease diagnosis |
Lev 14—scale disease ritual purification |
Lev 15—genital flows other than childbirth |
The order of human issues following animal issues is that of creation, in which God made animals before creating man (Gen. 1:24–27). It is also logical to begin human impurities with birth. The various impurities of persons in chapters 12–15 may have been ordered according to the decreasing length of their purification: birth (forty to eighty days), scale disease (eight days), genital discharges of male (eight days, one day), of female (seven days, eight days).1
Leviticus 11 continues two themes from chapter 10: eating meat and making distinctions. Not surprisingly, the reason for observing the Lord’s dietary distinctions is to emulate the Lord’s holiness, which is opposed to impurity (11:44–45).
The last verse of chapter 11 summarizes distinctions that apply to the animal kingdom: “You must distinguish between the unclean [ṭameʾ ] and the clean [ṭahor], between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten” (11:47). These distinctions have to do with two issues. (1) The first is whether an animal defiles a person who eats/ingests it. A ṭahor, that is, a “clean/pure” animal, does not transmit impurity and is permitted for eating. Two categories of creatures that do defile by ingestion—ṭameʾ (“unclean/ impure”) and šeqeṣ (“abomination”)—are not permitted for eating.
(2) The other is whether the carcass of an animal can also defile a person who merely touches it. The carcass of a ṭameʾ (“unclean”) animal or of a permitted/pure animal that dies by itself contaminates by touch. The defiled individual incurs a light ritual impurity remaining until evening (11:24–40), which has the consequence that contact with holy things is forbidden during this time (cf. 7:20–21). This state of impurity implies that the person must ritually bathe (cf. 17:15).2 Carrying any part of an “impure” carcass or eating from the carcass of a permitted animal that has died of itself requires laundering of clothes as well (11:25, 28, 40). Within the “unclean” category, eight exceptional species of swarmers additionally contaminate nonhuman objects (11:29–38).
Surprisingly, šeqeṣ (“abomination”) animals carry lighter restrictions than those in the ṭameʾ (“unclean”) class because the former defile only by ingestion. Although an Israelite must “abominate/detest” (Piel of šqṣ) their carcasses, touching them does not incur the need for ritual purification.
Thus, the three categories of creatures and their defilement are as follows:3
Category | Defile by Ingestion | Defile by Contact |
ṭahor—“pure” | no | no |
ṭameʾ—“impure” | yes | yes |
šeqeṣ—“abomination” | yes | no |
When the Lord created the animals, he pronounced them all “good” (Gen. 1:21, 25), but Leviticus 11 has to do with the unnatural matter of eating animals that were not created to be eaten. A camel, donkey, or horse may be excellent for something else, such as a means of transportation, but God says that they are not good for eating.
Once the three categories are in place, the next question is how to tell which creature belongs to which category. Some are specified by criteria, others by lists of specific species, and still others by both. Leviticus 11 uses criteria if possible, both for the sake of convenience and economy. However, where adequate criteria are not available, as in the case of birds, a list appears instead.4 Notice that only prohibited birds are listed, which implies that all other species are permitted. Leviticus is not always as negative as it appears. Deuteronomy 14:3–21, dealing with the same topic of animals permitted and prohibited for food, less economically adds a list of permitted land animals to the criteria that govern them (14:4–6).
Criteria are of several kinds, including especially a creature’s physiology of locomotion (divided hoofs, cleft-footed, paws, jointed legs, fins), as well as outer covering (scales) and manner of digestion (chewing cud). All of the criteria in Leviticus 11, including behavioral characteristics of locomotion and digestion, are apparent to someone who observes a live creature itself, without the need to study external factors such as diet, society, mating behavior, and so on.
Leviticus 11 places species belonging to the domains of land, sea, and air in the three categories (“pure,” “impure,” and “abomination”) by criteria and/or list as follows:
land animals (vv. 2–8)
permitted animals specified by criteria (hoofs, clefts through hoofs, cud; vv. 2–3)
list of impure (ṭameʾ ) animals lacking at least one criterion (vv. 4–8)
sea creatures (vv. 9–12)
permitted fish specified by criteria (fins and scales; v. 9)
abominable (šeqeṣ) creatures specified by lack of criteria (vv. 10–12)
birds (vv. 13–19)
list of abominable (šeqeṣ) birds (vv. 13–19)
winged insects (vv. 20–23)
abominable (šeqeṣ) insects specified by criterion (walk on all fours; vv. 20, 23)
exceptional permitted insects specified by criterion (jointed legs) and list (vv. 21–22)
impure (ṭameʾ ) carcasses that convey uncleanness by touch (vv. 24–40)
land animals specified by criteria (hoofs, but no clefts or cud; paws; vv. 26–28)
list of exceptional land swarmers (šeqeṣ) that also defile objects (vv. 29–38)5 otherwise permitted animals that die by themselves (vv. 39–40)
land swarmers (šeqeṣ)
abominable (šeqeṣ) swarmers specified by criterion (swarm; vv. 41–45)
All land swarmers—with locomotion close to the ground: mainly reptiles, but also some rodents (mouse) and low-slung mammals (weasel)—are prohibited for eating, and carcasses of some of them not only affect human beings directly by touch but also defile a variety of objects, including vessels and their contents (11:29–38). This is problematic because they are small and have a penchant for getting into all kinds of places. However, a spring or cistern of water, which is a source of purity, is immune to defilement (v. 36). So is dry seed for sowing, but wet seed can be contaminated (vv. 37–38), presumably because water outside its source carries impurity (cf. v. 34). Many defiled objects can be purified by water (v. 32), but earthen vessels and ovens/stoves must be broken (vv. 33, 35) because they are porous, absorbing impurity that cannot be removed.
Apparently because all land swarmers are prohibited without exception, this class in general is reserved for the end of Leviticus 11 as a potent contrast to holiness (vv. 41–45). The conclusion in verses 43–45 emphasizes the most important point of the chapter: Observing the Lord’s dietary regulations has the purpose of emulating the Lord’s holiness, which is antithetical to impurity. If God’s people make themselves odious by what they eat, they misrepresent him. So living according to the dietary distinctions outlined in chapter 11 is vital for maintaining the health of the divine-human relationship.
Bridging Contexts
HOLINESS VERSUS IMPURITY in diet. It is disturbing to interpreters that Leviticus 11 does not provide an explicit rationale for the division of animals into clean and unclean categories. For the Israelites, this was not an issue because the main point was to do what the Lord said, whether or not he offered an explanation. Modern readers, however, are not satisfied to leave it at that. Thus, a multitude of theories have swarmed forth.
Some have emphasized physical health, insisting that prohibited animals transmit disease or poison.6 For example, pigs carry trichinosis, scavenger birds pick up diseases from the carrion they eat, and many fish without fins and scales are poisonous.7 However, the tendency for forbidden animals to be carriers of disease more than permitted animals does not seem to explain everything in Leviticus 11, such as why the camel (a delicacy for Arabs) is prohibited.8
M. Douglas, a social anthropologist, has proposed that categories of “pure” and “impure” reflect societal values. “Impurity” signifies disorder—something out of place. Each of the three spheres of water, air, and earth has its particular mode of locomotion. Creatures that cross boundaries between these modes have something out of place, so they are impure. For example, insects that fly like birds but have four legs like land animals are an abomination (11:20).9 This approach is instructive, but it does not explain everything—for example, why the hoofs of a land animal must be split in order for it to be pure (11:3).10
E. Firmage has linked the dietary code to the ritual regulations, arguing that pure/permitted animals are pure because they are sacrificeable or analogous to sacrificeable animals. Thus, God’s holy people emulate his sacrificial “diet.”11 This idea places the dietary laws within the holiness framework of Leviticus, but are pure animals pure because they are sacrificeable, or are sacrificeable animals fit to serve as token “food” for God (e.g., Num. 28:2) because they are pure? In other words, which comes first, the “chicken” or the “egg”?
Because Leviticus 11 explicitly identifies the concept of holiness as the reason for its legislation (11:44–45; cf. Deut. 14:21), Milgrom reconstructs a plausible rationale for the biblical dietary system within the context of opposition between holiness-life and impurity-death that is found throughout the Israelite ritual system:
Its purpose is to teach the Israelite reverence for life by (1) reducing his choice of flesh to a few animals; (2) limiting the slaughter of even these few permitted animals to the most humane way . . . and (3) prohibiting the ingestion of blood and mandating its disposal upon the altar or by burial . . . as acknowledgment that bringing death to living things is a concession of God’s grace and not a privilege of man’s whim.12
Related to Milgrom’s thesis, Jiri Moskala argues that impure creatures depart from the creation ideal of life in that they are linked to death for various reasons, including their carnivorous diets, use in war, and negative effects on human health.13
Radical obedience. Aside from showing that the Lord is concerned with details of everyday human life, such as diet, Leviticus 11 reminds us that he does not always provide detailed explanations for his commands. The motivation to observe the Lord’s dietary distinctions is to be a holy people that eschews (not chews!) impurity because impurity is incompatible with holiness (11:44–45). Beyond this, they are simply expected to obey.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger finds that even for scientific, intellectual, independent people, “although we do gain wisdom from the exercise of analysis and discourse on God’s commandments, we gain character from our decision to obey in spite of our limited human capability to understand.”14 “Limited . . . capability to understand”? This sounds like an honestly humble approach.
The first biblical example of a divine command without detailed explanation is early and also happens to concern eating: “. . . but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17). There was a rationale, all right: to avoid death. Yet the prohibition did not say why death would result from this particular tree, just as Leviticus 11 does not tell why impurity results from a particular animal. Even if the Lord gave Adam and Eve additional information, how could they have understood the concept of evil consequences when they had never experienced sin or suffering?
Adam and Eve flunked their test of obedience. By contrast, when the Lord tested Abraham by inexplicably commanding him to offer his only beloved son on a mountain, he obeyed because he recognized the voice of God, even though it did not make sense (Gen. 22). This was the highest form of obedience: radical submission of human judgment to divine will, humbly accepting God’s superior wisdom and strength just as a child implicitly trusts a parent (cf. Luke 18:17).
One morning, May Nelson was walking with her three small children along a dusty road in Australia. Suddenly she commanded, “Children, stand still!” They froze like statues, without knowing why. Then they saw the sixfoot-long, deadly brown snake only inches from the shoes of the eldest child. With no motion to startle it, the lethal reptile glided past, slithered under a fence, and disappeared. If the children had asked for an explanation rather than instantly obeying, or if they had run when they saw the snake, the result would have been tragic and perhaps we never would have enjoyed the artistry of Allison Nelson, the concert pianist.15
Radical obedience, like that of Abraham and of May Nelson’s children, is based on radical trust. However, a walk of faith rather than sight, even when outward signs seem contrary, is not a blind, agnostic leap in the dark. Abraham heard the Lord’s voice, not just any voice. It is because Job had experience with God’s character that he could leave outcomes to him, affirming: “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him” (Job 13:15). If he died, it would be of no eternal consequence as long as his Redeemer lives (19:25; cf. Heb. 11:17–19).
When Daniel began his course of study at the University of Babylon, he made a radical resolution “not to defile himself with the royal food and wine” (Dan. 1:8). Just as the Lord answered Abraham’s willingness to give up his only covenant son by promising him many descendants (Gen. 22:16–17), he gave loyal Daniel and his companions a rich reward that corresponded to their radical obedience. Aside from the fact that their health flourished as a result of their alternate diet (Dan. 1:15), they enjoyed divinely enhanced clarity of mind, and Daniel received special access to the holy sphere of divine knowledge (1:17; 4:8; cf. 4:9, 18). That he was rewarded in terms of holiness makes perfect sense in light of Leviticus 11:44–45, where emulation of God’s holiness is the reason for maintaining purity of diet. Radical obedience to holiness resulted in radical holiness!
Wholistic health. If there is a category of “health laws” in the Pentateuch, it is a modern category based on our understanding of implications for health rather than on motivations for observance of specific laws explicitly supplied by the biblical text. Here is a summary of specific divine commands that can be understood to have health implications and the stated reasons for observing them.
Law | Reason | |
Lev. 3:16–17; 7:23–25 | no eating suet/fat | belongs to God |
Lev. 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10–14 | no eating meat with blood | respect for life |
Lev. 7:15–18 | no eating sacrificial meat that is too old | prevent desecration |
Lev. 11; Deut. 14:3–21 | no eating meat that defiles | ritual purity, holiness |
Lev. 12; 15 | remedy impure genital fluxes | ritual purity |
Lev. 13–14 | remedy scaly-skin disease | ritual purity |
Lev. 18:19; 20:18 | no sex during menstruation | prevent exposing source of blood |
Num. 5:2–3 | impure persons excluded from camp | ritual purity |
Num. 19 | remedy corpse contamination | ritual purity |
Deut. 23:12–14 | dispose of human excrement | prevent indecency |
If God commanded the Israelites to do something for the sake of their health, it would make sense for us to observe that law for the same reason because our bodies function the same as theirs. However, the reasons given to the ancient Israelites are not health reasons. Nevertheless, in Deuteronomy 7:11–15 the Lord expresses concern for the health of the Israelites. Here total well-being results from his blessing within the context of the divine-human covenant when his people obey all his laws (cf. Lev. 18:5; Deut. 30:15–20; contrast 28:27, 35, 60–61). So physical health is part of a larger covenant package. Everything God’s people do impacts their health one way or another. In this extended sense, all of God’s commands are health laws.
Contemporary Significance
THINK AND DO. The Bible encourages people to use their minds by searching it for truth (e.g., Acts 17:11) and to think in order to interpret it properly (e.g., 2 Tim. 2:15). If we want to obey the Lord radically as Abraham and Daniel did (cf. above), it is not enough to read and do. We must read, think, and do.
A pious theology student once simply read and did. He always wore white clothes because Ecclesiastes 9:8 says: “Let your garments always be white” (NRSV). He took it literally as a command. There is certainly nothing wrong with wearing white clothes, but in this biblical context white clothes represent an expression of happiness (cf. 9:7). The same is true of the following words—“do not let oil be lacking on your head” (9:8b)—which the student inconsistently neglected to observe. It is joy that is the point here, not the literal color or oil that the wise author of Ecclesiastes used as examples.
“Knee-jerk” obedience, which short-circuits the intervening step of interpretation, is often harmless, as in the instance just described. However, in other situations this kind of “instant reflex” approach can have disastrous effects. To cite an extreme case for the sake of making the point, what if a married church member were literally to accept the duty of an ancient Israelite brother-in-law, without recognizing that a change of cultures can require different application of a timeless, authoritative principle? The duty is:
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. (Deut. 25:5–6)
In ancient Israel this situation of “levirate marriage,” which was designed to preserve the name of the dead man by giving him a line of descendants to inherit his ancestral property, was an exception to what would otherwise be incest (Lev. 18:16). Since the law does not exempt a surviving brother who is already married, a faithful brother-in-law could wind up with a second wife. This consequence was no problem in ancient Israel, but today such polygamy would be classed with adultery in the church even if a second marriage could somehow be legalized by the state.
So far we have been talking about the need for thinking before obeying. But if all we do is read and think without ever getting to the stage of obedience, we also have a problem. Thomas à Kempis recognized this:
Blessed is that simplicity which rejects obscure inquiry and advances along the sure and open road of God’s Commandments. Many have lost their devotion by attempting to pry into matters too high for them. It is faith and a holy life that are required of you, not a lofty intellect or knowledge of the profound mysteries of God. For if you cannot understand or grasp things that are beneath you, how will you comprehend those that are above you? Therefore submit yourself to God, and humble your reason to faith, and the light of knowledge shall be granted you in so far as it be profitable and necessary.16
Note that what we are to reject is not inquiry per se, but “obscure inquiry . . . by attempting to pry into matters too high for them.” There is nothing wrong with “a lofty intellect or knowledge of the profound mysteries of God.” In fact, a number of biblical writers, such as Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, and Paul, possessed these in lavish measure and used them to tremendous advantage for the cause of God. However, as the writer of Ecclesiastes discovered, intellect and knowledge avail nothing if they are not accompanied by simple faith that is lived out in obedience to God’s law of love (cf. 1 Cor. 13:2).
So how do we know when to stop thinking? Moses said: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). Investigating the things that are revealed is profitable. Attempting to go beyond them is idle speculation that causes needless controversy and distracts from what is crucial (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3–8; Titus 3:9–11).
Wholistic health versus “cafeteria style” self-help. Why does the Pentateuch insist on treating health wholistically within the context of the divine covenant rather than pointing out health benefits of specific laws (see Bridging Contexts section)? If the emphasis had been on specific health benefits resulting from physical cause and effect, the Israelites would have been encouraged to do what people do today: pick and choose what benefits they want, foregoing those that interfere too much with their pet desires.
The modern “cafeteria-style” approach to health is unhealthy in several respects. (1) Human beings are “living systems” in which all components of body, mind, and spirit are interactive. So the “part for all” principle applies: Whatever happens to part affects all. This means that forfeiting one benefit has a negative effect on the whole person. The fact that persons are integral units consisting of mental, emotional, and spiritual as well as physical faculties means that it is impossible to dissociate physical health from mental and spiritual health. Mental stress or spiritual anxiety can contribute to or arise from physical disease. Harm that results from rejecting or neglecting a benefit, whether it is physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual, can neutralize the other benefits that an individual has acquired. For example, a person who eats organic vegetables, sleeps eight hours per night, jogs ten miles per week, stays cheery, fosters positive relationships, and maintains an active devotional life can easily lose the quality of existence fostered by these practices if he or she ignores the surgeon general’s warning by smoking five packs of cigarettes a day for several decades.
(2) Factors involved in overall health, including heredity, are too complex for human beings to safely predict the consequences of the negative factors that they tolerate or cherish. Some people can abuse their health and live to a ripe old age without suffering apparent ill effects. Others end up in a lung cancer ward without taking a single puff of tobacco.
(3) The “cafeteria style” approach tends to be legalistic “self-help,” which is self-focused rather than putting oneself in perspective within the framework of a larger picture that includes God and fellow human beings. To ignore God, who holds our very breath in his hands (Dan. 5:23), is not conducive to long-term health. Since the human race is already receiving the wages of sin, namely, death (Rom. 6:23), which is not good for the health, any program for health that overlooks the necessity of divine intervention for life to continue is a strictly temporary solution.
Now the biblical wholistic approach looks more attractive. If we really want to help ourselves, the best way to do it is to follow the comprehensive “manufacturer’s handbook,” that is, the Bible. It is true that the Bible cannot deal with every detail of our lives, some of which were not known when it was written (e.g., smoking). Yet it covers all the major bases to the extent that we can apply those principles to particulars that crop up. The Bible rightly places our well-being within the context of our covenant connection with God, whose grace alone can give us ultimate health as a gift, not because we earn it.
It does not make sense to reject the scriptural wholistic approach in favor of “self-help” because the former is too prescriptive and therefore legalistic. Any “wholistic” owner’s manual in which a manufacturer instructs the consumer how to maintain a product in good operating condition is bound to be prescriptive. That is not legalism. It’s just the way things work. “Self-help” is just as concerned with do’s and don’ts. The difference is who does the prescribing: the human “owner” who tries to figure out his or her own rules, or the divine “manufacturer,” who really understands the product inside and out.
Should modern Gentile Christians refrain from eating meat prohibited for Israelites in Leviticus 11? Like many other difficult questions, this one has pros and cons, which I will point out without attempting to reach a firm conclusion. We will begin by considering factors that seem to go against the idea that permitted/prohibited distinctions between animals for meat are binding on Gentile Christians.
Leviticus 11 addresses only Israelites (v. 2). Similarly, in Deuteronomy 14 the Israelites are bound to observe the dietary regulations of clean and unclean meats because they are God’s chosen, holy people (Deut. 14:3–21; cf. vv. 1–2). However, there is a lower standard for other people: “Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God” (14:21).
In apparent harmony with Noah’s standard, the “bottom line” lifestyle restrictions established at the Jerusalem council for Gentile Christians in Acts 15 include abstaining from strangled animals and blood, that is, improperly slaughtered meat from which the blood has not been drained (Acts 15:20, 29). However, clean and unclean meats are not mentioned. Admittedly this is an argument from silence. Perhaps these distinctions were simply not an issue that had to be addressed at the Jerusalem council.
Some New Testament passages could appear at first glance to indicate that distinctions between clean and unclean meats have been abolished for Christians. In Mark 7, Jesus says, “Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile [koinoo, make common] him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” (Mark 7:18–19 NKJV).17 However, Jesus’ concern here is moral purity (cf. vv. 21–22), in contrast to the bodily process of digestion and elimination, not with purity/impurity of meats.
In Acts 10, Peter has a vision of various animals and is told to slaughter and eat. “But Peter said, ‘Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.’ And a voice spoke to him again the second time, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common’” (Acts 10:14–15 NKJV). This does not say that God made impure (akathartos) animals clean (against the NIV), but rather that he did not acknowledge the postbiblical category of common/profane (koinos) animals, which were clean according to Leviticus 11 but were thought to be downgraded by association with unclean animals (see also Rom. 14:14, 20).18 Similarly, in Mark 7:18–19 (see above) Jesus rejects downgrading from pure to common (verb koinoo, “make common”); he does not eliminate the “impure” category.19
Peter’s vision is symbolic, teaching that association of Jewish Christians with Gentiles is permissible (cf. Acts 10:34–35). The metaphor of meat is particularly appropriate because table fellowship is basic to social interaction.20
Paul writes in Colossians 2:16–17: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” These verses have to do with ritual observances that foreshadowed later realities. There is no biblical evidence that simple dietary distinctions between clean and unclean meats served as “a shadow of the things that were to come.”
There are several factors that can be taken to favor observance by Gentile Christians. (1) According to Genesis, some kind of distinction between clean and unclean animals existed even before the Flood (Gen. 7:2, 8), which agrees with the close connection between the taxonomy of Leviticus 11 and the creation order. This distinction was relevant to Noah’s sacrifice after the Flood: He offered the Lord only pure animals and birds (8:20). Even though God did not prohibit Noah from eating certain animals (9:3), the ideal of inherent animal purity versus impurity preexisted and therefore did not depend on the Israelite ritual system.21
(2) Peter calls Christians to a holy life by quoting Leviticus 11:44: “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’” (1 Peter 1:15–16). Thus, the objective of holiness for God’s people is the same as it has always been (cf. Ex. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2, 21). Of course, aspects of ritual purity/impurity relevant for interaction with the holiness of an earthly sanctuary/temple, which no longer functions, can no longer apply.
(3) To the extent that unclean animals tend to carry disease, a Christian would want to avoid them in order to safeguard his or her body, which is holy since it belongs to God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19–20 with regard to sexual immorality). In fact, because “clean” animals are increasingly fraught with danger to health that results from agricultural and environmental factors such as pollution, overcrowded pens, and use of hormones and excessive antibiotics, in addition to maladies such as “mad cow” disease and cancer in chickens, a Christian may choose to be vegetarian.22
A source of purity. Leviticus 11:29–38 lists eight crawlies and creepies, including several kinds of lizards, and then proceeds to describe how their carcasses defile all kinds of nonhuman objects. Of all the beasties in this chapter, their impurity packs the most potent punch. Many of us aren’t thrilled about these kinds of critters even when they’re alive, let alone dead. How can we get a blessing out of this passage?
Don’t underestimate the Word of God! Jacob said to the One with whom he was wrestling: “I will not let you go unless you bless me” (Gen. 32:26). Can we not say the same thing to a passage of Scripture—“I will not let you go unless you bless me”? Paul said: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). He said “all Scripture,” not “some New Testament Scripture,” or “some Scripture that immediately jumps out and grabs you.”
So where is the blessing in Leviticus 11:29–38? We will get to it, but first we should emphasize that the contamination carried by unclean animals is not simply a problem of physical dirt. There was once a farmer who didn’t understand this. He joined a Christian church that observed distinctions between “clean” and “unclean” animals contained in Leviticus 11. Right after his baptism, he treated the members of his new church to a meal. On the menu was pork. Aghast, the pastor asked the farmer: “Didn’t we talk about clean and unclean meats?”
“Yessir,” he replied, “so I scrubbed my hogs real good before I slaughtered ’em!” The farmer didn’t grasp that the “uncleanness” of impure animals means that they permanently belong to a controlled category. It is impossible to scrub a critter from one category to another.
Some of the problematic animals in Leviticus 11:29–38, such as mice, are good at getting into things and places where people don’t want them to be. They destroy things by chewing, stealing and contaminating food, leaving droppings, dying in walls and ceilings where their inaccessible carcasses reek for weeks, and sometimes frightening us when they show up where we don’t expect them. What if such an intrusive creature contaminates a source of drinking water so that it is unusable? In places where water sources are few and far between, such as some parts of Palestine, this could be a serious or even life-threatening calamity. No fear, for as Leviticus 11:36 says: “A spring . . . or a cistern for collecting water remains clean.” Thus, as a striking exception, a water source is immune, even though water away from its source conveys impurity (11:34, 38).
Why is a spring or cistern not affected by the carcass of an impure creature? From such a source embedded in the ground comes water for cleansing things that are contaminated (11:32). Since a spring or cistern is a source of purity, it cannot be defiled.
In other words, we are enlightened regarding an obscure rule from an ancient culture. But we have also identified a valuable principle: A source of purity cannot be defiled. Did you ever wonder how Jesus could touch lepers in order to heal them without becoming impure himself (e.g., Matt. 8:2–3)? And why did a woman with a hemorrhage only touch the hem of his garment (Luke 8:43–48; cf. Mark 5:25–34)? The Greek terminology for her “bleeding” in Luke 8:43 is the same as that which appears in the LXX of Leviticus 15:25: “When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period.” Since the rules of menstruation applied, “anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening” (Lev. 15:19).
The woman with the hemorrhage was caught in a dilemma. She wanted to touch Jesus so she could be healed, but by touching him she would make him ritually impure. This would create a problem for him if he came in contact with anything holy. Her solution was to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment. When Jesus asked, “Who touched me?” she came trembling to confess because she undoubtedly expected a rebuke for making Jesus impure (Luke 8:44–47).
Instead of a rebuke, he gave her a blessing: “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace” (Luke 8:48). She hadn’t made him impure at all. There was a one-way flow of healing power from him to her (v. 46), but no defilement came back to him in return. Why not? Because Jesus, like the spring or cistern in Leviticus 11:36, is a source of purity!
The message is that we can come to Jesus, contaminated as we are by all kinds of faults that creep and crawl into every corner of our lives like rodents and reptiles. When he has touched us with his healing power and cleansed us with his “living water” of life (cf. John 4:10, 13–14; Rev. 7:17; 21:6, 17), he has just as much purity and power to give as he had before.
Human sources of purity. We have found that Christ is a source of purity that cannot be defiled (Matt. 8:2–3; Luke 8:43–48; cf. Lev. 11:36). Not only does he heal, he actually said to a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well: “. . . but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14). In John 7:38 he went a step further: “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” Although God is the ultimate Source, Christ makes his followers into secondary sources of life so that they emulate him. This is why his disciples performed miracles of healing, deliverance, and resurrection as he did (Matt. 10:1, 8, Luke 10:9, 17; Acts 3:1–10; 9:36–42; 16:16–18; 19:11–12).
As a harbinger of Christ’s ministry, God had made Elisha into a source so that he healed a leper (2 Kings 5) and even raised a dead boy to life (chap. 4). But the most astounding miracle happened after Elisha’s death:
Elisha died and was buried.
Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet. (2 Kings 13:20–21)
In spite of the fact that dead bodies carried a high degree of ritual impurity (Num. 19; cf. 2 Kings 23:13–14), Elisha’s bones were a source of life and therefore purity.
Jesus’ promise that “streams of living water will flow from within him” is for “whoever” believes in him. We might not do anything that is paradigm-shattering to the extent of the miracles wrought by Elisha and Jesus’ disciples. Yet by God’s grace we too can be one-way channels of blessing to the world without becoming defiled ourselves. The Lord invites us to serve by inviting others to him, the Source of all.
Charles Spurgeon drew out the message of Matthew 9:10–12:
Where should a physician be but among the sick? Who should come to a doctor’s house but those who are diseased? Thus our Lord was more than justified in being the center to which the morally sick gather for their spiritual healing. Lord, grant that if ever I am found in the company of sinners, it may be with the design of healing them, and may I never become myself infected with their disease!23
Philip Yancey describes a visit with Sadan, a former leprosy patient of Dr. Paul Brand, a missionary surgeon and leprosy specialist who worked in India. Because of his disease, his school classmates had made fun of him, a driver had literally kicked him off a public bus, employers would not hire him, and hospitals would not treat him.
“When I got to Vellore, I spent the night on the Brands’ verandah, because I had nowhere else to go,” said Sadan. “That was unheard of for a person with leprosy back then. I can still remember when Dr. Brand took my infected, ulcerated feet in his hands. I had been to many doctors. A few had examined my hands and feet from a distance, but Dr. Brand and his wife were the first medical workers who dared to touch me. I had nearly forgotten what human touch felt like.”24
Perhaps this explains, at least in part, why Jesus touched a leper when he healed him (Matt. 8:3; Mark 1:41; Luke 5:13). Aside from the ministry of physical healing, it is hard for us who have never suffered from a dreaded disease like leprosy or AIDS to imagine the psychological effect of such a touch.
Sadan recovered from leprosy, but he gained even more from the healing touch of Dr. Brand. Yancey continues:
. . . Sadan made this astonishing statement: “Still, I must say that I am now happy that I had this disease.”
“Happy?” I asked, incredulous.
“Yes,” replied Sadan. “Apart from leprosy, I would have been a normal man with a normal family, chasing wealth and a higher position in society. I would never have known such wonderful people as Dr. Paul and Dr. Margaret, and I would never have known the God who lives in them.”25
A God-given source of light and love in a world of darkness and hate remains pure because it is tough. It may seem soft, but it overcomes hate just as surely as a mountain stream overcomes the sharp edges of the rocks that fall into it.
In Lincoln, Nebraska, a Jewish cantor and his wife received racist, obscene phone calls from a wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Investigating, they learned that he was crippled and had difficulty getting out of the house to buy food. To his utter amazement, they showed up at his door with a fine meal. They kept coming back, and the wizard warmly accepted their friendship. Rather than allowing his toxic attitude to poison them, their outgoing love softened and purified him. They were sources.