And these shall ye have in abomination of the fowls; they shall not be eaten; an abomination shall they be the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the sea-eagle,
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
and the falcon, and the kite, after its kind;
Leviticus 11:14 sits inside a list of birds Israel was forbidden to eat, and God gives no rule for telling a clean bird from an unclean one. So two questions follow: which birds are meant, and why God singled out creatures He made.
The Hebrew words behind this verse are hard to pin down. The same word turns up elsewhere under a different English name.
The Hebrew word is ayyah. There are several kinds of kite, and they feed on small birds, mice, reptiles and fish. God forbade the Israelites to eat it (Lev. 11:14; Deut. 14:13). The same Hebrew word is translated 'vulture' in Job 28:7 and 'falcon' in the Revised Version. Scripture marks it out for one thing only, its sharp eyesight, and many different birds share that.
That uncertainty costs us nothing.
Of course the translation is only approximate in many cases, since some of the names appear nowhere else. There is no attempt at scientific naming here. This is practical direction for the Lord's people, and it carries a moral application for faith today.
God names these birds without giving any test. Even so, one writer finds a trait that runs through the whole list.
The passage now turns to birds. It names only the birds that were forbidden, and gives no rule for telling clean from unclean. Yet all the unclean ones clearly feed on flesh or on other living creatures. These unclean birds of the air picture what is satanic (Matt. 13:4 and 19), for Satan is "the prince of the power of the air." How many people everywhere follow Satan's example and consume others instead of being a blessing to them!
The kite and the falcon strike the living. Other birds on the list strip the dead. God hates both habits.
Many birds of the sky are marked by qualities God hates in the people He brings into relationship with Himself. Others are not fit food for people. What could be more opposed to His character than savage greed toward the living and endless hunger for the dead? … The Israelite was forbidden to eat such birds. In the same way the Christian is to have no fellowship with ways that match them morally, but to avoid them and speak against them. … Some of these birds hunt their prey boldly by day; others find their pleasure in the dark of night. … But all of them stand for traits we should have nothing to do with. Christ is to be our food.
The scavenging bird pictures an appetite that goes past death to decay. One writer follows that appetite into a common human habit.
The birds of prey are shut out — "the kite, the falcon of any kind … every raven of any kind." These feed not only on death, as meat-eating animals do, but on decay. This is the nature that delights in dwelling on what is not only dead but foul and rotten, and in taking it in.
A built-in habit of fault-finding is one of the best known marks of this nature, and one of the quickest to grow. It does not hunt for faults in order to correct them. It has a natural knack for finding them, and it looks in every direction — except inward. It loves to pick up scraps of evil from every side. It shakes its head over them and seems to condemn them, while it quietly slips them into its mouth, chews them, and chews them over again.
A bird of prey survives because something weaker does not. One writer sets that habit beside the way Christ lived.
Many of these birds of prey remind us of the selfishness of man in the flesh. They keep themselves alive by making victims of others. Man's motto is, "Mind yourself." … Jesus was not like this, for "Christ did not please Himself." He went about doing good. He set His heart on blessing others. … And how many people build a pedestal for themselves out of the ruin of others!
The rule reached past the dinner table.
We are not to eat these birds, and we are not even to touch their dead bodies. … We should hate the quiet, unnoticed workings of the flesh as much as the ones that are openly filthy and corrupt. We should detest the hidden, polished forms of selfishness as much as the ones that are open and godless. To the Christian, Christ is the perfect model.
- Names — one Hebrew word comes out as kite, vulture or falcon in different places. The wording is only approximate. The aim is moral teaching, not zoology.
- Diet — God gives no test for birds. Still, the forbidden ones share one habit. They live on flesh, on death, on decay.
- Character — God hates savage greed toward the living and endless hunger for the dead. Both are the opposite of who He is.
- Mirror — the same appetite shows in people. Some live at the cost of the weak. Others collect the faults of others while pretending to condemn them.
- Table — the cure is not just refusing the carrion. It is a new meal. Christ is our food, and Christ is our model.
every raven after its kind;
Israel's food laws move from land animals and water creatures to the birds, and the raven lands on the forbidden list. Why would God rule on a menu at all, and what can a black scavenging bird teach anyone?
Commentators are agreed that the chapter is not a health manual. One writer sets the whole list against the background of who Israel was meant to be.
It was not the point to give information about what was wholesome or unwholesome; a moral end is everywhere uppermost. The LORD would have Israel trust Him and His choice for them as a people set apart and consecrated to Him.
The same writer notes that the bird names are hard to pin down, and that this hardly matters:
In many cases the translation is only approximate, since some of the names occur nowhere else. There is no aim at scientific terms here. This is practical direction for the LORD's people, with a moral application now for faith.
The verse does not name one species but a family. The Hebrew behind it is a colour word, and the phrase "of any kind" stretches it wide.
The word oreb comes from a root meaning 'to be black.' It seems to cover not only the common raven, but birds of the same family, such as the crow and the rook. That is why we read that "every raven of any kind" is unclean.
The rejected birds share a diet, and that diet is what condemns them.
The birds of prey are excluded, and the raven is among them. They feed not only on death, as flesh-eating animals do, but on corruption. This is the nature that delights in dwelling on what is dead, foul and rotten, and in making it its own.
Kelly puts the same instinct in terms of God's own character:
What can be more opposed to His character than fierce greed toward the living, and endless appetite toward the dead?
The raven first appears in Scripture at Noah's ark. One writer reads the two birds released there as a picture of two natures in one believer.
One was a raven, and one was a dove. One had an unclean nature with a very depraved taste, loving nothing better than carrion. The other, a bird of a very different order, found nothing attractive in the raven's food. The raven soon found something to satisfy its taste and did not come back. The dove found nothing till dry land began to appear. The flesh in us is like the raven, and feeds on carrion. What is born of God is like the dove, feeding only on what is pure.
This feeding habit has a human form: a taste for other people's failures.
Built-in fault-finding is one of the best known features of this nature, and one of the quickest to develop. But it finds faults less from a desire to correct them than from natural aptitude. It looks for them in every direction — except inward. It loves to pick up scraps of evil from all sides. It shakes its head over them and seems to condemn them, and all the while it puts them in its mouth, chews them and turns them over.
The law did not stop at what Israel ate.
Not only are we not to eat, but not even to touch their dead bodies. Their carcass is to be loathsome to us... We are to hate the unnoticed and silent activities of the flesh as much as those which are openly filthy and corrupt. We are to hold the secret and refined ways of selfishness in abomination as much as those which are open and profane.
Being on the forbidden list does not put a creature outside God's care. The same raven that Israel could not eat was commanded to carry bread and meat to the prophet Elijah, and is held up by the Lord as an argument against worry.
Even the ravens, unclean birds, wholly unfitted to work at storing up for the future, are yet fed by God. They have no worry about providing for the future, but find provision as the need arises.
God later reopened the list. Peter, one of Jesus' closest followers, saw a sheet let down from heaven full of such creatures. There he learned the lesson the chapter was heading toward:
Now God teaches him directly. He finds these beasts, birds and creeping things to be pictures of people completely unclean in themselves. Yet by divine grace the precious blood of Jesus can cleanse them.
- Diet. The raven is unclean because of what it eats — not death only, but corruption. Appetite, not appearance, decides.
- Kind. "Of any kind" widens the ban from one bird to a whole family — crow, rook and the rest — so no member of that nature slips through.
- Mirror. Noah's raven left the ark and never came back. That appetite is the flesh in us, and what is born of God, like the dove, has no taste for it.
- Reach. The ban covered touching as well as eating. So the quiet, refined forms of this appetite — fault-finding above all — are as forbidden as the gross ones.
- Grace. God still feeds the raven, and once used it to feed the prophet Elijah. In Peter's vision the unclean creature pictures the sinner whom the blood of Jesus can make clean.
and the female ostrich and the male ostrich, and the sea-gull, and the hawk, after its kind;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
and the owl, and the gannet, and the ibis,
Leviticus 11:17 names three birds Israel could not eat: two owls and a diving fish-eater. Why would God list birds at all, and what can they teach anyone today?
Of the three birds, commentators name the cormorant with the most confidence.
In Leviticus 11:17 and Deuteronomy 14:17 the Hebrew word is shalak. Translators rightly render it Cormorant, a large bird that lives on fish. It dives down on its prey, and can follow it into the water or dive deeper after it. Scripture mentions it only as an unclean bird.
The two owls are less certain. Translations differ over which species they mean. That uncertainty does not damage the passage, because precise zoology was never its aim.
Of course the rendering in many cases is only approximate, and some of the names occur nowhere else. Nor is there any aim at scientific terminology, but a practical direction for Jehovah's people, with a moral application now for faith.
These birds live off other creatures — hunting the living, or feeding on the dead.
Many birds of the sky have qualities that God hates in those He takes into relationship with Himself... What could be more opposed to His character than fierce, greedy attacks on the living, and endless appetite for the dead?... God forbade the Israelite to eat such birds. In the same way, the Christian is to have no fellowship with ways morally like them, but to avoid and reprove them. Some of these birds hunt their prey openly by day. Others do their natural work in the dark of night... But all symbolise traits with which we should avoid all fellowship. Christ is to be our food.
Two of the three birds here hunt at night.
The night birds bring out the ungodliness and deceit of the flesh. They are eager to devour others. In the stillness of the night, when no one suspects them, they quietly seize what their greedy appetite wants. The owls and other birds hide themselves for most of the day. Their night vision is remarkable. Their victims have no idea of their danger, and these birds seize them suddenly, almost without a sound, in a deadly grip. What a striking picture of practical ungodliness and deceit!
The owl also has a reputation it has not earned.
No bird among them looks as impressive as the owl — at least to those who do not know him. His all-knowing look covers only his own small patch. His air of grave, fair-minded rebuke is only the fear of committing himself. He prefers twilight, not because he loves quiet thought — he is only dozing when he looks so thoughtful — but because daylight always confuses him. His calm disapproval does not mean at all that he is holier than everyone else. It only means that he thinks he is.
The rule went past food. Israel could not even touch the dead bird.
Not only are we not to eat, but not even to touch their dead bodies... We must hate the unnoticed, silent works of the flesh as much as the ones that are openly filthy and corrupt. We must treat the secret, refined ways of selfishness as an abomination, just as much as the ways that are open and profane.
The chapter does not end in exclusion. God later taught Peter, one of Jesus' closest followers, what these creatures really stood for.
Up to that time he seems to have taken only a literal meaning from this eleventh chapter of Leviticus... But now God teaches him directly. He finds that these beasts, birds, and creeping things stand for people who are completely unclean in themselves. Yet by divine grace the precious blood of Jesus can cleanse them.
- Named — shalak is the cormorant; the two owls are harder to identify, and these renderings are only approximate.
- Nature — the forbidden birds attack the living and gorge on the dead. The list teaches morals, not biology.
- Night — the owls picture ungodliness that works in silence, and a grave look that only thinks itself holy.
- No touch — Israel could not eat these birds or handle their dead bodies. Hidden, refined selfishness is as hateful as open filth.
- New — God showed Peter that these creatures stand for people, whom the blood of Jesus can cleanse. Christ is now our food.
and the swan, and the pelican, and the carrion vulture,
Leviticus 11:18 names three birds that Israel was forbidden to eat. Which birds they were is not certain: older versions read swan and pelican where the ESV reads two kinds of owl.
One writer lists all the forbidden birds, then admits that some names are guesswork. He also says what the list is really for.
Of course the rendering in many cases is only approximate, since some of the names occur nowhere else. Nor is there any attempt at scientific terminology. It is a practical direction for Jehovah's people, with a moral application now for faith.
Take the bird that older versions call the swan. A dictionary entry on that Hebrew word shows why translators doubt it:
The Hebrew word is tanshemeth, and it is named among the unclean birds. People have seen the swan in Palestine, but it is rare, and it feeds on plants, so some think another bird is meant... The bird is probably some kind of water fowl. The purple waterhen would have to be counted unclean, because it feeds on reptiles as well as birds.
A common assumption is that these food rules were ancient public health advice. One writer answers that health is not what the law is about.
Spiritually, our food declares our character, and it also forms it. Whoever eats Christ will not only live by Him; his life will also be made like His in practice... It would be no surprise if these foods were healthy too, since everything around us carries such symbolism. That which is fullest in meaning is also truest in fact. Still, health is never the point. The law does not deal with what is healthy or unhealthy, but with what is clean or unclean.
Whatever the exact species, these birds live off other creatures. Some hunt the living; some feed on the dead.
What can be more opposed to His character than fierce rapacity toward the living, and insatiable greed toward the dead? ... The Israelite was forbidden to eat such birds. In the same way, the Christian is to have no fellowship with ways that are morally like them, and is to avoid them and speak against them... Christ is to be our food.
Night birds get their own treatment. One writer looks at how they hunt, and at what that pictures.
They are eager to devour others. In the stillness of the night, when no one suspects them, they quietly get what their greedy appetite wants. The owls and other birds hide during the day. Their night vision is remarkable. Their victims do not know their danger, and the birds seize them in a sudden, almost silent, fatal grip. What a striking illustration of practical ungodliness and deceit!
One bird on this list turns up again in the Psalms, where a suffering man uses it as a picture of himself. Older versions name the pelican there; newer ones read the bird differently, as they do here.
The Psalmist said, "I am like a pelican of the wilderness," which refers to the bird sitting alone for hours as it digests its stock of fish. It was an unclean bird. Lev. 11:18; Deut. 14:17; Ps. 102:6.
Read as a picture of Christ, the force of the image lies in the bird being out of place:
The pelican is a water bird, but here it is out of its proper home. The Lord Jesus was used to the refreshing joy of the Father's presence in heaven. So He found it a foreign experience to be in a wilderness world, so contrary to His rightful place of perfect circumstances. The mention of an owl of the desert in the same verse speaks of loneliness where there is no provision.
The rule went further than eating. It also forbade touching the dead bird, and one writer applies that.
Not only are we not to eat, we are not even to touch their carcasses... We are to hate the quiet, unnoticed workings of the flesh as much as those that are plainly filthy and corrupt. We are to hold the secret and polished ways of selfishness in abomination as much as those that are open and godless.
- Uncertain — No one can name these three birds for sure. Translations differ, and the writers say the wording is only approximate.
- Unclean, not unhealthy — The law never argues from health. It draws one line only, between clean and unclean, and food stands for character.
- Predatory — These birds live off other creatures, by hunting the living or feeding on the dead. That habit, not the species, is what stands against God's character.
- Hidden — The owls add a warning. Evil done quietly and out of sight is as hateful as evil done in the open.
- Alone — In Psalm 102 an unclean bird becomes the picture of Christ, a heavenly One out of His element in a wilderness world.
and the stork; the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat.
This verse closes a long list of birds Israel could not eat. God gave no test for birds as He did for animals and fish — only names. So why these four, and what does a list of banned birds teach us today?
Some of these Hebrew names appear nowhere else in the Bible. One writer says plainly how exact we should expect the translations to be:
Of course the rendering in many cases is only approximate, and some of the names occur nowhere else. The aim here is not scientific naming. It is practical direction for the Lord's people, with a moral application now for faith.
The bat ends the list. Where it lives explains why:
The word means 'night bird,' and refers to the animal well known as the bat. The law forbade it as food. Bats live in tombs and caves, and are at home in darkness. Where there are many of them the smell is very foul. Their home becomes a fitting emblem of darkness and offensiveness. It is a place where people will throw their idols of gold and silver when the Lord rises to deal with the earth.
The lesson is in the habit, not the animal:
Look at the bat. It dreads the light. It hides by day in filthy and deserted places. At dawn and dusk it flies on soft wings that make no sound, and it quickly devours the insects in its path with its sharp teeth. How unlike Jesus all this is.
The stork surprises us. Its Hebrew name comes from a word for mercy:
The word chasidah is close to the word translated 'merciful.' The bird is famous for its tender care, not only of its young but of the aged. Leviticus lists it among the unclean birds. That is what we might expect, since it feeds on mice, snakes and other reptiles.
So an admired natural trait does not settle the question. Kelly weighs such traits against the fear of God:
Some birds are as remarkable for lack of family affection as others are for loving care. But in a person, what is even that worth without the fear of God? Some are of towering pride. Others are full of a disgusting appetite for what is unclean. Some have plain looks, others attractive beauty. Some have quiet habits and natural kindness. Others are noisy, tricky, or offensive in other ways. But all of them stand for traits we should have no fellowship with. Christ is to be our food.
Two things count against the hoopoe, and one is what it eats:
This is generally thought to refer to the hoopoe. It feeds on all sorts of insects, and its nest has a very unpleasant smell. Either fact would be reason enough to class it among the unclean birds. It has a conspicuous crest on its head, which it seems proud to display.
Almost every bird named in this section lives on flesh or on other living creatures. One writer links that habit to Satan, and to a warning:
These unclean birds of the air are typical of what is satanic (Matthew 13:4 and 19), for Satan is "the prince of the power of the air." How many there are everywhere who follow Satan's example of consuming others rather than being a blessing to them. … Sometimes a person can be so deceptive as to appear to be a believer, so as to get in among God's people and destroy them. This is satanic deceit. So we must be on our guard not to have fellowship with what is unclean or questionable.
For animals and fish God gave a test. For birds He gave only names:
The birds speak to us of the heavenly character that belongs to us as Christians. Yet even in what claims to be heavenly, something unclean can come in — and then we have what is worst of all. Here no rule is given for telling which birds are clean. Certainly each one has meaning, and only the name is given — probably the name is enough. … The list consists almost entirely of birds that feed on flesh, in whole or in part. … "Such a person is called to refuse everything of a carnal nature. He cannot feed on 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 judgment, a heavenly taste. Finally, he must use his wings."
- Diet. The unclean birds stand for traits we should have no fellowship with. As one writer puts it, "Christ is to be our food."
- Darkness. The bat is unclean for how it lives. It is at home in caves and tombs, it dreads the light, and its home pictures darkness and offensiveness.
- Devotion. The stork's name is close to the word "merciful," and it cares tenderly for its young and its old. It is still unclean. Natural affection counts for little without the fear of God.
- Display. The hoopoe wears a crest it seems proud to show, but its nest smells foul. Fine looks did not make it clean.
- Discernment. God named the birds but gave no rule. So each believer must "try the things that differ," take heed what he hears, and use his wings.
Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you.
The rule in this verse is short and sweeping: anything that both flies and crawls is off Israel's menu. Israel must treat it as detestable. Two questions follow. What creatures did this cover? And why would God make a mixed way of moving the mark of uncleanness?
One writer places the rule inside the chapter's wider list and shows how narrow the exception was:
Everything that crawled was forbidden, even if it had wings. The only exception was creatures with legs above their feet for leaping on the ground. This seems to have covered four kinds of locust.
The prohibition is stated so broadly that the only thing left to spell out is what escapes it.
Here we have a brief prohibition of winged creatures that crawl. It is so comprehensive that the only need is to specify the few exceptions of which the Israelite might eat: all the rest were regarded as abominable for them.
Why should this way of moving make a creature detestable? One writer sees a creature caught between two realms:
The "flying creeping things" seem to be unclean because they belong to two spheres at once. The exceptions were those that moved by leaping, and the leap is perhaps a pushing away from the earth. Grouping them this way shows that a moral symbolism governs the list. Otherwise no order can be seen.
The same principle ran through the list of birds just before this verse. One writer turns it on the Christian:
Some creatures could soar into the heavens, yet they still grovelled on the earth. They were unclean… In the habits of these three classes of bird we can trace the right ground for calling them unclean. We can also see in them a striking display of what, in nature, every true Christian must firmly guard against. Such a person is called to refuse everything of a carnal nature. He cannot eat anything and everything that comes in front of him. He must test the things that differ. He must take care what he hears. He must use a discerning mind, a spiritual judgement, a heavenly taste. Finally, he must use his wings. He must rise on the wings of faith and find his place in the heavenly sphere where he belongs.
Read as a picture of people, it shows a claim that daily life contradicts. One writer also notes the exception:
Flying creeping things picture people who claim what is heavenly but mix it with a mind set on earth. Their lives therefore contradict themselves. Philippians 3:18-19 tells us of these — the many who "walk," that is, who claim a heavenly character, but who in fact set their minds on earthly things. The believer is not to have fellowship with these. Yet if the flying insect had jointed legs for jumping on the ground, it was allowed as food. Though it touched the earth, it could leap above the earth's level. This pictures the faith that rises above circumstances. So locusts, crickets and grasshoppers might be eaten.
The leaping insects were not a theoretical category. They were eaten, and one well-known figure in the Gospels lived on them.
But there is no doubt whatever that the locust is edible… They have been and are esteemed a delicacy in the East. So the plain meaning of the text is vindicated beyond legitimate doubt. The believer needs no confirming proof beyond Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6. Rapacious as they were, their food was vegetable. They were not unclean; whereas the other members of the insect realm that flew and crawled on their feet were unfit for food, and an abomination for Israel.
So why give such rules at all? One writer points past diet to trust:
The point was not to give information about what is healthy or unhealthy. A moral end is everywhere uppermost. The LORD wanted Israel to trust Him and His choice for them, as a people set apart and consecrated to Him. No doubt He chose what was good — indeed the best. His restrictions showed the discerning insight of the One who made each creature, who had called out His people to live under His righteous government, and who looked on to a heavenly family. They would gather His mind by the Spirit from these outward pictures.
- Sphere — the creature belongs to two realms at once: winged for the air, yet crawling on the ground.
- Contradiction — it pictures people who claim a heavenly life, but whose minds are set on earthly things.
- Wings — the danger is not weakness but unused capacity: power to soar, spent grovelling.
- Leap — the one exception touches earth yet springs above it. It pictures faith rising above circumstances.
- Purpose — the rule was never about healthy eating. A moral end runs through the chapter. God taught a set-apart people to trust His choices for them.