These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters whatever hath fins and scales in waters, in seas and in rivers, these shall ye eat;
The rule for water creatures is short: two marks, fins and scales, decided whether a fish could be eaten in Israel. Commentators read it as more than a food list: the two marks picture what a person needs in an element that is not his home.
The test looked at one thing: how the fish was equipped for the water it lived in.
Two things were needed to make a fish clean under the law: "fins and scales." These marks clearly show a fitness for the place and the element in which the creature had to move.
Neither mark works on its own. One believer moves easily through the world but lets it soak in. Another shuts the world out but goes nowhere.
The fin and the scale show us two things we especially need: spiritual energy to move on through the element that surrounds us, and the power to keep that element from acting on us. It is no use having the ability to get on through the world if we are not proof against the world's influence. And though we may seem able to keep the world out, if we have no driving power we are defective. The "fins" would not do without the "scales," nor the "scales" without the "fins."
The two organs answer to two different problems: the pull of the current, and the dirt of the water itself.
The fins let it swim against the stream. On the Columbia River you can stand and watch great fish leap up rapids, or small falls, several feet high. In the same way God has given you and me a power to "swim against the stream." But sometimes a fish must swim through filthy water. To protect it, God has given it scales... And fitted with this armour, the fish can pass in safety through the filth. So God has made a way for His own to pass unharmed through all the filth around us. He also gives the power to go against the stream.
Water is a denser element, and it pushes back against everything that moves through it.
What was clean here had fins and scales — means of movement and defence. But water is a denser element than the ones before it, and its resistance turns movement itself into a fight. Here the "fin" is the weapon of attack, and the "scale" the weapon of defence. So we are reminded that the life of faith is a warfare too, and no one is excused from it. We cannot stay out of the fight and be clean. To go unarmed is to be overcome. Every step forward must be a victory.
The fin steers as much as it drives. Kelly asks what a believer still needs after forgiveness.
The fins were the organs that directed and balanced the fish's movements, and we can readily see what having them, or lacking them, means for us. It is not enough to be born of God, or even to be justified by faith. Beyond question, we must have a new nature from God, and we must be freed from the weight of a conscience burdened by sin. We also need a living and constant power of direction, so that we may know and do His will — moving where He wants us to move, or holding back when He tells us... Only by submitting to His word do we become obedient, as the Lord Jesus was, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies us for that obedience.
The same two marks apply to people who serve God in public, where activity can outrun the inner life.
The lack of balance shows when the worker's communion with God falls behind his public gospel service. Much sail with little ballast capsizes the boat... A creature with no "fins" (the driving power) and no "scales" (the protecting power) was to be an "abomination" (Lev. 11)... I know that this lack of balance between communion with God and public service is a danger. Every servant of Christ has to be on guard against it.
Commentators are clear that the diet law bound Israel, and that the Christian is not under it.
Scripture makes it clear that the ban on certain creatures as unclean applied to Israel only. The vision God gave to Peter shows that this restriction is done away in Christ. Scripture states plainly: "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."
- Element — Water resists every movement, so the life of faith is a fight; every step forward must be a victory.
- Fins — Power to drive and steer, the weapon of attack. Without God's word to direct it, energy alone is not enough.
- Scales — Armour that keeps the filth outside, the weapon of defence. To go unarmed is to be overcome.
- Both — Neither mark counts on its own. Drive without protection, or protection without drive, leaves a life defective.
- Freedom — The food rule belonged to Israel and is done away in Christ. The lesson of the two marks remains.
but all that have not fins and scales in seas and in rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of every living soul which is in the waters -- they shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11 sorts animals into what Israel could eat and what they could not. Verse 10 gives the rule for water creatures from the negative side. Two small features settle the case: fins and scales. Why would God rule on a nation's menu at all, and what do these marks teach?
Why would God care what Israel ate? One writer starts with what the food itself stands for.
Here we have to learn about food — what is clean and what is unclean… Spiritually, our food declares our character, as it also forms it. Whoever eats Christ will not only live by Him; his life will in practice grow like His too. So the food God allows His people here pictures the spiritual life of God's people… Health is never the point. The law does not deal with what is wholesome or unwholesome, but with what is clean or unclean.
The marks were easy to check, and such fish were in fact good to eat. But one writer asks who these rules were really written for.
But what believer doubts that a deeper bearing lay under what is written? As the apostle asked in 1 Corinthians 9, Is it for the oxen that God cares, or does He say it altogether for our sakes? Surely for our sakes was it written.
A fish needed both marks. One writer carries the pair over into the believer's life.
A fish needs a "fin" to move through the water and "scales" to resist it. In the same way the believer needs the spiritual power to move on through the world around him and, at the same time, to resist its influence — to keep it out… It is no use having the power to get on through the world, if we are not proof against the world's influence; and though we may seem to be able to keep the world out, yet if we have not the motive power, we are defective.
Fins do more than push; they steer and balance. One writer asks what steers a believer.
The fins were the organs that directed and balanced the fish's movements. So we can easily see what it means spiritually to have what matches them, or to lack it… it is not enough to be born of God, nor even to be justified by faith… We also need a living, constant power of direction so that we may know and do His will, to move where He desires or hold back when He says. Only in subjection to His word can we find ourselves obedient, as the Lord Jesus was… "How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word."
Verse 10 describes a lack. One writer explains what the two marks give, then what a fish without them is like.
"Fins" show that the creature has power to go down, or rise high, or to swim against the stream; and the scales that wrap it completely picture the covering or armour that the true servants of God have… The stream carries a dead fish along, and it only turns with the windings of the river. Not so the way of faith. It looks only to the Lord. It finds direction in His word… A fish with "no fins" enjoys burrowing in the mud and is at home in what is unclean, with the current of circumstances alone to direct it. A fish with "no scales" has no covering, so every influence around it gets at it. So it is with many who call themselves Christians. They are at home in the world — its trade, politics, pleasures, or religion — and they make no stand for Christ's name and honour.
Verse 10 calls these creatures detestable. One writer ties the two marks to daily conflict, and then to the company a believer keeps.
These creatures live where movement is hard, since water is much heavier than air. This speaks of the conflict of believers, who must spend energy to make any progress at all. For this conflict we need fins, the means of movement, which is in effect our weapon of attack, while the scales are for protection or defence. All true Christians are enlisted in God's army, so one who has no spiritual defence and no spiritual energy is not a fit companion for a believer. How can we have spiritual fellowship with one who has no spiritual qualities? These are in fact called an "abomination," so they are to be repulsive to a believer.
- Food forms you. This law is about clean and unclean, not healthy and unhealthy. Your food pictures and shapes who you are.
- Fins move you. They give power and direction to press on against a heavy element. That direction comes from God's word, not from feelings or circumstances.
- Scales guard you. They keep the surrounding element out. Without them, every influence around the creature gets in.
- Both, or neither. Energy without protection fails, and so does protection without energy. Only the two together made the creature clean.
- So the verdict. A life with no drive and no defence drifts with the current — and makes no fit companion for one who has both.
They shall be even an abomination unto you of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase ye shall have in abomination.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Whatever in the waters hath no fins and scales, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11 sets out which creatures Israel could eat. One test settles every water creature: fins and scales. Verse 12 closes the section by repeating the verdict on everything that lacks them. The ESV calls such creatures "detestable"; the older translation the writers below use says "abomination." Why such a strong word for a rule about fish?
A creature had to carry both marks. Commentators read the pair as a picture of two things a believer cannot do without.
As Israel was not to eat every sea or river fish, the believer is again taught what he ought to avoid. Two marks are specified, and without them he was forbidden to eat. If they had not fins and scales, he must not make them his own. Both divine direction and divine protection are required in all things and at every step.
Fins and scales do two different jobs, and one cannot stand in for the other.
They show us, in ceremonial dress, two things we especially need. One is spiritual energy to move onward through the element around us. The other is the power to keep us safe from its action. The one will not do without the other. It is no use being able to get on through the world if we are not proof against the world's influence. And though we may seem able to keep the world out, if we have not the motive power, we are defective. The "fins" would not do without the "scales," nor the "scales" without the "fins."
Fins let a fish choose its course. Scales cover it against what surrounds it. Take both away, and you have a life steered by circumstances alone.
What many really mean by the guidance of providence is often only the opening up of circumstances, apart from the mind of God. But the principle is "unclean." A dead fish is carried down the stream, and only turns according to the windings of the river. Not so the way of faith. It looks only to the Lord. It finds direction in His word... A fish that has "no fins" finds its pleasure in burrowing in the mud. Its element is what is unclean, and only the current of circumstances directs it. A fish that has "no scales" is naked, and so exposed to every influence around it.
The word is severe because the lesson is about what we take in and make our own.
To feed on anything that leaves Christ out, to do without His direction and preserving care, is and ought to be an abomination to our souls. So the Israelite was to shun the finless and scaleless creatures that moved in the waters. Alive or dead, he must hold them in abomination. If they lacked the normal guidance and protection that these two marks represent, he was not just to leave them uneaten. He was to hold them in horror. But all that had divine direction and protection he could freely use and take without fear.
Water is heavier than air, so a fish must spend energy just to move forward. That effort pictures a real conflict, and each of the two marks has its own part in it.
For this conflict we need fins, the means of movement, which is in effect our offensive weapon. The scales are for protection, or defence. All true Christians are enlisted in God's army (2 Tim. 2:3-4), therefore one who has no spiritual defence and no spiritual energy is not a fit companion for a believer. How can we have spiritual fellowship with one who has no spiritual qualities?
Does any of this still govern what a Christian eats? These rules had a starting point and a purpose.
These distinctions were not made in Noah's day — see Genesis 9:2-3. This fact, we believe, lies behind Paul's statement, "there is nothing unclean of itself" (Rom. 14:14); and again, "all things are lawful for me" (1 Cor. 10:23). In Noah's day all men were in view. In Moses' day reason
- Both marks. A fish needed fins and scales together. One without the other left it unclean. The pair pictures divine direction and divine protection.
- Fins. Direction is power to move against the current, not to turn with the windings of the river. Faith looks to the Lord and finds its course in His word.
- Scales. Protection keeps the surrounding element out. With no covering, a creature lies open to every influence around it.
- Abomination. The strong word marks what a believer should refuse to feed on: anything that leaves Christ out, and any company with no spiritual energy and no spiritual defence.
- Freedom. God gave no such rules to Noah, and Christianity does not carry them on. They kept Israel separate and taught them the holiness of God.
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.
Yet these shall ye eat of every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four those which have legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth.
Leviticus 11 sorts animals into clean and unclean for Israel, and verse 20 bans a whole class: winged insects that crawl. Verse 21 then makes one exception, marked by jointed legs built for jumping — so why does the ability to leap make a creature fit to eat?
The chapter is not a health code. One writer explains what the divide between clean and unclean is for:
First, then, what we have to learn here about food is what is clean and what is unclean… Spiritually, our food shows our character, and it also forms it. Whoever eats Christ will not only live by Him but will also be made like Him in practice. So in the food allowed here to the people of God, we see a picture of their spiritual life… Still, health is never brought forward. The law does not deal with what is wholesome or unwholesome, but with what is clean or unclean.
Verse 21 only makes sense against verse 20. The ban comes first and covers the whole class, so the text doubles back to name what escapes it:
Here we have a short ban on winged creatures that crawl. It covers so much that the only thing left is to name the few exceptions an Israelite could eat. Everything else counted as detestable for them.
Why would a flying creature that also creeps be unfit? One writer ties it to the creature's two habitats, and reads the jump as a push away from the ground:
The "flying creeping things" seem to be unclean because they belong to two spheres at once. The exceptions were the ones that moved by leaping, the leap being perhaps a push away from the earth… Sorting them this way shows clearly that a moral symbolism governs it. Otherwise there is no order to see.
Read as a picture of people, the winged crawler is a life at odds with itself — and the leaping legs are the one thing that changes the verdict:
Flying creeping things stand for people who claim what is heavenly but mix that claim with a mind set on earth. Their lives contradict themselves. Philippians 3:18-19 tells us of these, the many who "walk," that is, who claim a heavenly character, but who 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.
Another writer turns the same image on the obstacles that stop a life stuck to the ground:
In general, all creeping things — every crawling, low, grovelling nature — are rejected. But if, like the locusts, they had "jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground," they were accepted. These had a built-in power that could leap over the earthly obstacles that stop a nature which can only crawl.
Which insects qualify? The next verse names four. Translations vary, and one writer argues they are all kinds of locust — the third named for the very action verse 21 describes:
"Locust" and "bald locust" are not a satisfactory naming either, if there is good ground to believe that all four named here are kinds of locust, which we do not know enough to tell apart with confidence… The first, "arbeh," is the more ordinary name, taken from their great numbers. The second is named from its greed, for it means "devourer." The third is named from its leaping, for it means "hopper." The last seems to be named from the way it veils the sun's light.
One writer is careful not to press the meaning too far, while still holding that eating pictures communion:
It is not so easy to say what spiritual lesson lies under this permission to eat at least some kinds of locust… But eating is certainly a figure of communion, so here too it can mean nothing else. God used these creatures as a scourge… May we not read the eating of these locusts in this way? We are called to patient grace in our own walk across a world wholly and incurably opposed to God. Yet from time to time we may also have fellowship with the blows He sends, in rebuke of bold self-will and its hostility to the name of the Lord, to His word, and to His followers.
- Diet, not health. The law here is about clean and unclean, never about what is wholesome. Food stands for what a life feeds on, and feeding shapes character.
- Grounded. Wings that end in crawling picture a life that claims heaven but keeps its mind on earth — a life in two spheres at once.
- Legs. The one exception is the creature built to jump. It has a built-in power to push off the ground and clear what stops a crawler.
- Named. The insects allowed appear to be four kinds of locust, one of them called "hopper." The leap defines the exception.
- Eaten. Eating pictures fellowship. So the leaping life is the one God's people take in: faith that keeps rising above its circumstances.
These shall ye eat of them the arbeh after its kind, and the solam after its kind, and the hargol after its kind, and the hargab after its kind.
Leviticus 11 lists what Israel could not eat, and this verse is a rare permission: four kinds of winged, crawling creature were clean. Their names are hard to pin down, and so is the reason they passed the test.
The food rules in this chapter were not about health. One writer finds a deeper purpose in the whole list.
The point was not to give information about what was healthy or unhealthy. A moral purpose is uppermost everywhere. The Lord wanted Israel to trust Him and His choice for them as a people who were His own and set apart. No doubt He chose what was good, indeed the best. His restrictions carried the discerning insight of 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 that would gather His mind by the Spirit hidden under these outward shadows.
Older translations call the third creature a "beetle" (KJV) or a "cricket" (RV). One writer argues that all four are kinds of locust, named from how they behave, not from any modern species.
We may safely dismiss "the beetle" of the A.V. and "the cricket" of the R.V. from verse 22. Beetles must not be mixed up with the leaping locust family. Nor are "locust" and "bald locust" a satisfactory description, if there is good ground to believe that all four named here are kinds of locust that we do not know enough to tell apart with confidence. So, as in many places in the Old Testament, it seems safer to keep the Hebrew names. The first, "arbeh," is the more ordinary name, taken from their great numbers. The second is named from its greed, for it means "devourer." The third is named from its leaping, for it means "hopper." The last seems to be named from the way it veils the light of the sun.
Verse 21 gives the test these four passed: jointed legs for hopping on the ground. One writer takes that leg as a picture of faith.
Flying creeping things stand for people who claim to be heavenly, but mix this with a mind set on earthly things: their lives are therefore contradictory… Yet if the flying insect had jointed legs with which to jump on the earth, it could be eaten. Though it touched the earth, it could leap above the earth's level, picturing the faith that rises above circumstances.
Another writer puts the same point in terms of obstacles.
In general all creeping things — all crawling, grovelling natures — are rejected. But if they had "jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground" like the locusts, they were accepted. They had an inherent power to leap over the earthly obstacles that stop a creature which never leaves the ground.
The permission was literal.
There is no doubt whatever that the locust is edible, whatever people in Palestine imagined in their effort to put the fruit of the carob tree in its place. In the East people have counted them a delicacy, and still do… So the plain sense of the text stands beyond reasonable doubt. The believer needs no further proof than Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6. Greedy as they were, they fed on plants. They were not unclean, unlike the other insects that flew and crawled on their feet, which were unfit for food.
It also settles a question about John the Baptist's diet.
In general the creeping things were forbidden, though in verses 21 and 22 there are certain exceptions. So when John the Baptist made locusts his food he was strictly within the law.
One writer admits the lesson here is hard to state. He offers his reading as a question, not a settled fact.
The spiritual lesson hidden under the permission to eat at least some kinds of the locust named here is not so easy to state… But since eating certainly pictures communion, it can mean nothing else here either. God used these creatures as a scourge. He sent them not only against His enemies, as we see in Egypt, but to chasten His own people, ungrateful and rebellious as they too often were. So may we not read the eating of these locusts like this? We are called to patient grace in our own walk across a world wholly and incurably opposed to God. Yet at times we may share His mind in His judgments, in reproof of bold self-will and its hostility to the name of the Lord, to His word, and to His followers.
- Purpose. The list is not a health code. A moral purpose runs through it: Israel was to trust God's choice for them.
- Names. All four are most likely kinds of locust, named from their numbers, their appetite, their leaping, and the way they darken the sun.
- Test. One feature made them clean: the jointed leg above the foot, which let them leap over what stops a creature that only crawls.
- Picture. That leap stands for faith — a life that touches the earth but rises above its circumstances and obstacles.
- Meaning. Locusts were real food, and John the Baptist kept the law by eating them. Since eating pictures communion, the permission may point to sharing God's mind when He judges.
But every winged crawling thing that hath four feet shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:23 closes the short section on winged insects: apart from the leaping kinds just listed, every winged creature that walks on four feet is off limits to Israel. Why should wings count for nothing when the feet stay on the ground?
One writer notes how little room the verse leaves for exceptions:
Here we have a short ban on winged creatures that crawl. It covers so much ground that the only thing left to do is name the few exceptions the Israelite could eat. All the rest counted as detestable for them.
One writer finds that the list makes sense only as moral symbolism:
The "flying creeping things" seem to be unclean because they belong to two spheres at once. The ones that moved by leaping were the exception, the leap being perhaps a pushing off from the earth. This taint of earth explains why laws about death come in at this point, since even touching the dead bodies of unclean creatures made a person unclean... Classifying them this way shows clearly that a moral symbolism governs it. Otherwise no order appears.
Another writer applies the same test, then turns it on the reader:
All those which were given the power to soar into the heavens, yet would still crawl along the ground, were unclean... The Christian must use his wings. He must rise on the wings of faith and find his place in the heavenly sphere he belongs to. In short, there must be nothing grovelling, nothing indiscriminate, nothing unclean, for the Christian.
Another writer reads the ban, and the exception, as two kinds of professing life:
Flying creeping things stand for people who claim a heavenly character but water it down with a mind set on earthly things. Their lives are therefore contradictory... The believer is not to have fellowship with these. Yet if the flying insect had jointed legs with which to jump on the earth, this was permitted as food. For though it touched the earth, it could leap above the level of the earth. It pictures the faith that rises above circumstances.
Why should a food law carry moral weight at all? One writer answers from what eating pictures:
First, then, we have to learn here as to food, what is clean and what is unclean... Spiritually, our food declares our character, as it also forms it. Whoever eats Christ will not only live by Him; that person's life will be shaped to His as well. So in what God allows His people to eat here, we find a picture of their spiritual life... Still, the matter of health is never brought forward. The law does not deal with what is healthy or unhealthy, but with what is clean or unclean.
The symbolism does not cancel the plain sense. The creatures allowed in the previous verses were actually eaten, and one reader of this law lived on them:
But there is no doubt whatever that the locust is edible... The believer needs no further proof than Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6. Greedy as they were, their food was vegetable. They were not unclean, while the other members of the insect world that flew and crawled on their feet were unfit for food, and detestable for Israel... The spiritual lesson hidden under this permission to eat some kinds of locust is not so easy to state... But since eating certainly pictures communion, it can mean nothing else here either.
A verse about insect feet can look beneath God's notice. One writer takes that as the point:
How wonderful to think of the condescending grace of Jehovah! He could stoop to give directions about a crawling reptile. He would not leave His people at a loss about the most trivial matter... They were not their own, and so they were not to do as they pleased. They belonged to Jehovah; His name was called upon them; they were identified with Him. His word was to be their great regulating standard in every case... They were not to think their own thoughts, use their own reasoning, or follow their own imagination in such matters... Jehovah would have His people holy in all things. They were neither to eat nor touch anything that was unclean.
- Ownership. Israel did not pick its own menu, because Israel did not belong to itself. God's word set the standard, down to the smallest creature.
- Contradiction. A winged thing that walks on four feet claims two spheres at once. Its wings say heaven and its feet say earth, and that split makes it detestable.
- Exception. The leap saved the locust. It touched the earth, but it did not settle there.
- Diet. Food pictures character. What you take in shows and shapes your life, so the law speaks of clean and unclean, not healthy and unhealthy.
- Literal. The allowed insects were real food, really eaten. The picture rests on a plain command.
And by these ye shall make yourselves unclean; whoever toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
The chapter has just sorted the animals Israel could eat from those they could not. Now the law moves from the table to the hand. Touching the dead body of an unclean creature left an Israelite unclean until the evening. Why should a passive touch matter, and what was a person meant to do about it?
God's care for His people reached past their food to what they touched.
They were not their own, and so they were not to do as they pleased. They belonged to the Lord; His name was called on them; they were identified with Him… It was not only in the matter of eating anything unclean that the people of God were so carefully guarded. Bare contact was forbidden. It was impossible for a member of the Israel of God to touch what was unclean without contracting defilement… The Lord would have His people holy in all things.
What made a carcass dangerous was not the animal. It was death.
If a clean beast died of itself, contact with its carcass communicated defilement. The one who had touched it had to wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening — that is, until the close of that period of time. For death is an unclean thing, being for man the fruit of sin, and Israel were always to remember that.
Other nations dressed death up. Israel was taught to feel it.
Death came through sin, and the Lord would have it felt by His people. Heathen feeling sought to hide it under flowers; but Israel were taught its defiling effect.
A person might touch a carcass without wanting to, or only to clear it away. The law made no allowance for motive.
These verses told the Israelite plainly that a touch of those carcasses unfitted him for his usual communion of privilege under the law. No contact could be passed over without penalty. "Bearing a carcass" might be to remove it out of the way, without any wish to use it for gain or any other selfish end. Even so the bearer must take the place of defilement, wash his clothes, and be himself unclean till evening. The requirement was inflexible.
One writer puts the obvious objection into words.
How could they avoid this? you say. I reply — will God lower His standard of holiness because man would excuse himself under the plea that he could not avoid it? Never, my friend. He provides the way in which you shall be restored; but He will not declare you clean when it is not so.
Being unclean was not a technicality. It cost a man his place at the family's shared meal.
Suppose a festive occasion, when the family and household were about to share their portion of a peace offering. Anyone among them who had touched the carcass of a clean beast that had died of itself would be shut out from fellowship with the others. Some might have thought this hard on him, but that was not the real question. The Lord his God was holy, and He could not allow anyone in uncleanness to have fellowship with Him.
God did not leave the unclean man without a remedy.
God graciously provided a remedy for those who made themselves unclean by touching the carcasses of unclean things. In every instance the instruction is to "wash his clothes." To us this pictures bringing our immediate surroundings under the cleansing action of the word of God. In it there is both the acknowledgment of defilement and its removal according to God's mind.
The food and touch rules no longer bind believers. The holiness behind them still does.
"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" are legal rules. Colossians 2:21 quotes them so that the apostle can deny flatly that we are under such commands… So restrictions of touch, taste and the like have passed away for us. By faith we stand on the resurrection side of Christ's grave. Yet all the more we are urged to cleanse ourselves, as God's children here below, from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
The practical edge falls on the company we take up and endorse.
There was no moral uncleanness in the dead body itself. But it pictured the uncleanness believers today may pick up by associating with what is morally or spiritually unclean. There was very real reason behind the instruction to Timothy: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure" (1 Timothy 5:22). In disobeying this we might be virtually handling a dead carcass.
- Contact — God guarded not only what Israel ate but what they touched. Holiness covered the hand as well as the mouth.
- Cause — death defiles because death is the fruit of sin. God meant His people to feel that, not to cover it over.
- No excuse — accident, necessity, or clearing a carcass away changed nothing. God provides restoration, but He will not call a person clean while he is not.
- Cost — the defiled man missed the feast. A holy God will not share fellowship with anyone unclean.
- Cleansing — washing the clothes pictures bringing our surroundings under the word of God. It owns the defilement and removes it.
And whoever carrieth [ought] of their carcase shall wash his garments, and be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 11 has been sorting creatures into clean and unclean, and at verses 24–25 the law moves from the plate to the hands. Why should handling a dead body make a person unclean, and what do washed clothes and a wait till evening put right?
Kelly reads verses 24 and 25 together and traces the defilement back to death, and death back to sin:
There is no obscurity about what defiles (verses 24, 25). Touching the carcass made a person unclean till evening. Carrying any of it meant he had to wash his clothes and be unclean till then. Death came through sin, and the Lord would have His people feel it. Pagan culture tried to hide death under flowers, but Israel learned how defiling it is.
Elsewhere Kelly allows the man the most innocent of motives, and the rule still holds:
No one who only touched escaped the consequence. No contact went without penalty. "Carrying a carcass" might be to move it out of the way, with no wish to use it for gain or any other selfish end. Even so, the one who carried it had to take the place of defilement, wash his clothes, and be unclean himself till evening. The requirement did not bend.
Writers are careful to say the corpse was not morally wrong in itself. The rule was a picture, and the picture has a modern equivalent:
Everything unclean to Israel was not only forbidden as food. Anyone who had contact with the dead body of one of them became unclean himself. He had to wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. Again, we must stress that there was no moral uncleanness in the dead body itself. It stood for the uncleanness believers today may pick up by associating with what is morally or spiritually unclean. There is very real reason behind the instruction to Timothy: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure" (1 Tim. 5:22). If we disobey this, we might in effect be handling a dead carcass. The person may be guilty of serious sins we do not suspect, and by associating with him we would tie ourselves to his sins. In other words, we must take time to know a person before we identify ourselves with him.
The danger is not limited to a few rare contacts:
The touching of the things named in these verses pictures many kinds and degrees of uncleanness. In a world that has forfeited life, the defilement of death lies heavy over the whole area ruled by the one who holds the power of death. We cannot be close friends with those who belong to this world. If we make companions of them and walk with them, it makes us unclean.
Uncleanness was not the last word. Snell points to the way back that God gave:
Before we leave this chapter, notice the remedy God graciously provided for those who made themselves unclean by touching the carcasses of unclean things. Several times we read that he "shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening." In every case the instruction is to "wash his clothes." To us this is a picture of bringing our immediate surroundings under the cleansing action of the word of God. It is both an admission of defilement and the removal of it according to God's mind.
The uncleanness had a limit. Kelly notes what a touch cost the man: it "made him unfit for his usual communion of privilege under the law." Evening ended that. Grant draws the practical line for today:
If we have had such contact with uncleanness, whether willingly or not, there is to be real self-judgment about it, a washing of our clothes (our habits), and then restoration.
- Contact — the law is not only about diet. Touching a carcass defiled; carrying it defiled further. Contact with what is dead marks a person.
- Cause — death is the defiler. Death came through sin, and God wanted His people to feel it, not hide it under flowers.
- Character — the dead body held no evil of its own. It pictured what a believer picks up from close ties with what is unclean.
- Cleansing — washing the clothes stands for letting God's word clean what is nearest us. It admits the defilement and removes it on God's terms.
- Close of day — the uncleanness was real but limited. It cost the man his fellowship for a time. Self-judgment, washing, and evening brought him back.
Every beast that hath cloven hoofs, but not feet quite split open, nor cheweth the cud, shall be unclean unto you every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.
An animal had to pass two tests to count as clean: a fully split hoof and the chewing of the cud. This verse takes up the animal that passes only one — unclean at the table, and unclean to the touch.
One mark is about what the animal does with its food. The other is about the print it leaves on the ground.
What, then, are we to learn from those two features in a clean animal? The chewing of the cud pictures the natural process of "inwardly digesting" what one eats. The divided hoof sets out the character of one's outward walk. There is, as we know, a close connection between the two in the Christian life. The one who feeds on the green pastures of the Word of God and digests what he takes in — the one who can combine calm meditation with prayerful study — will without doubt show an outward walk that praises Him. He has graciously given us His word to form our habits and govern our ways.
The hoof is split into two halves that press against each other.
The cloven foot suits a light, firm tread and so gives speed. It also keeps the animal from sinking in soft ground. These opposed hoofs join to give stability. They may hint to us how the truths of the Word that seem most opposed to one another in fact only give balance and a firm tread to the one who rests on them. They certainly keep him from sinking in the very place where he feeds. The speed the foot is above all made for surely reminds us of this: where spiritual digestion is found in the believer, faith that looks at what is unseen turns the Christian's course into a race.
This verse describes an animal that half-qualifies: the hoof is divided, but not fully, and it does not chew the cud. Looking like a clean animal was not enough.
The two things were inseparable in every clean animal. The spiritual application matters greatly in practice. The inward life and the outward walk must go together. A man may claim to love the Word of God and feed on it — to study it and turn it over, the pasture of the soul. But if his footprints along the path of life are not what the Word calls for, he is not clean. On the other hand, a man may seem to walk with blameless correctness. But if his walk does not come out of the hidden life, it is worse than worthless.
The verse does not stop at diet. Why should a touch make a person unclean?
Death was the great defiler — death as the wages of sin, the greatest defiler of all. Yet it was not left to a general principle. In these verses the Israelite was told plainly that a touch of those carcasses made him unfit for his usual communion of privilege under the law. No one who only touched escaped the consequence. No contact passed without result. The requirement was inflexible.
A dead body was not evil in itself. So what was this rule teaching?
The unclean animals of Israel were not only forbidden as food. Anyone who touched the dead carcass of one of them became unclean himself. He had to wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. Again, we must insist that there was no moral uncleanness in the dead body itself. It stood for the uncleanness that believers today may pick up by associating with what is morally or spiritually unclean. With very real reason Timothy was told, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure" (1 Tim. 5:22). If we disobey this, we may in effect be handling a dead carcass. The person may be guilty of serious sins we do not suspect, and by associating with him we would identify ourselves with his sins. In other words, we must take time to know a person before we identify ourselves with him.
The Christian is not bound by these food and contact rules. But the holiness behind them still stands.
It is not for the Christian a matter of eating or drinking. "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" are legal rules. The apostle quotes them in Colossians 2:21 in order to deny flatly that we are subject to such commands… Restrictions of touch, taste and the like have passed away for us. By faith we stand on the resurrection side of Christ's grave. Yet that makes the call stronger, not weaker. As God's children here below, we are urged to cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1).
- Feed — chewing the cud pictures taking in the Word and digesting it, not merely reading it.
- Walk — the divided hoof pictures the walk. It is built for firm footing where soft ground would swallow it.
- Both — one mark without the other left the animal unclean. Inward life and outward walk go together.
- Touch — the rule reached past the table to the hand. Death, the wages of sin, defiled every contact.
- Holiness — the food rules are gone for the Christian. The call to cleanse ourselves from every defilement remains.
And whatever goeth on its paws, among all manner of beasts that go upon all four, those are unclean unto you whoever toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
The list of unclean land animals now moves past hoofs and cud to a third test: how the creature walks. Anything that goes on padded feet is off limits. Even touching its dead body left an Israelite unclean until evening. So why does God look at feet, and why does a touch matter when nothing is eaten?
Commentators pick up the older wording that these animals go on their "hands." They take it as a point about the foot itself, and read the chapter's order as moral rather than scientific.
The stain of the earth in view here explains why rules about death come in, since even a touch of the carcasses of unclean animals defiled a person. From this same point of view this chapter also names as unclean the beasts that go on their "hands" — that is, those whose feet have no hoofs to protect them. Classifying them this way shows how a moral symbolism governs the list; otherwise there is no order to see.
The list has another pattern in it: what these creatures live on.
We know from other scriptures that the animals described here as unclean are not really so, but are good as creatures of God. Yet Israel was to regard them as unclean and an abomination. The unclean are mostly those that eat flesh.
The clean animal had to carry two marks at once. Commentators suggest each one pictures something in a believer's life.
Dividing the hoof and chewing the cud may point to a steady, patient walk (like the camel or the ox), and to digesting or meditating on what is received.
Neither mark counts on its own. What God looks at is the footprint left on the road of life.
The inward life and the outward walk must go together. A man may claim to love and feed on the Word of God — to study it and turn it over as the pasture of the soul — but if his footprints along the pathway of life are not what the Word requires, he is not clean. On the other hand, a man may seem to walk with the blamelessness of a Pharisee; but if his walk is not the result of the hidden life, it is worse than worthless.
The verse does not stop at food. It reaches the person who only handles the dead animal.
Death was the great defiler — death as the wages of sin, the greatest defiler of all. Yet it was not left as a general principle. These verses tell the Israelite plainly that a touch of those carcasses made him unfit for the fellowship he normally enjoyed under the law. No one who so much as touched escaped the consequence. No contact could be passed over without penalty. "Bearing a carcass" might mean removing it out of the way, with no wish to use it for gain or any other selfish end. Even so, the bearer had to take the place of defilement, wash his clothes, and be unclean till evening. The requirement was inflexible.
The uncleanness had a time limit and a set remedy. Commentators see the washing as more than hygiene.
It is worth noticing the remedy God graciously provided for those who made themselves unclean by touching the carcasses of unclean things. Several times we are told that he "shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening." In every case the instruction is to wash his clothes. For us this pictures bringing our immediate surroundings under the cleansing action of the word of God. In it there is both the admission of defilement and its removal according to God's mind.
The rules about touching carcasses no longer bind the Christian. The holiness behind them still stands.
It is not for the Christian a matter of eating or drinking. "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" are legal rules quoted in Colossians 2:21, so that the apostle can deny outright that we are under such commands... We died with Christ from the elements of the world... So restrictions of touch, taste and the like have passed away for us. By faith we stand on the resurrection side of Christ's grave. Even so — and all the more — we are urged, as God's children here below, to cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Corinthians 7:1).
- Foot — God judges the animal by its foot: paws instead of hoofs, with nothing to protect it from the ground.
- Food — The unclean creatures are mostly the flesh-eaters, and Israel was to treat them as an abomination.
- Footprint — Clean needs two marks together: a steady walk and inward feeding. A fine walk with no hidden life is worse than worthless.
- Contact — Touching defiled a man, not only eating. Even carrying a carcass out of the way did. The rule allowed no exceptions.
- Cleansing — The remedy was washing and waiting till evening. It points to the cleansing action of God's word. The touch rules have passed for the Christian; the call to perfect holiness has not.
And he that carrieth their carcase shall wash his garments, and be unclean until the even they shall be unclean unto you.
This rule closes a section on animals that walk on their paws. Touching their dead bodies makes a person unclean. Carrying one costs more: washed clothes, and uncleanness until evening. Why would God care about a man handling a dead animal? And what does a one-evening stain teach readers who no longer keep these food laws?
The carcass defiles because it is dead. God wanted His people to feel what death means.
To touch the carcass makes a person unclean till evening; to carry part of the carcass meant he had to wash his clothes and be unclean till then. Death came through sin, and the LORD would have His people feel it. Pagan feeling tried to hide death under flowers. But Israel learned how defiling death is. So Scripture urges us too to touch no unclean thing, and to come out and be separate to the Lord, in keeping with our new and near relationship to Him.
The verse says nothing about why the man picked the carcass up. That silence matters. A good reason for handling it did not keep the man clean.
This was not left to a general principle. In these verses God told the Israelite plainly that a touch of those carcasses made him unfit for his usual share in the privileges of fellowship under the law. No one who merely touched it escaped the consequence; no contact went without penalty. "Carrying a carcass" might mean removing it out of the way, with no wish to profit by it or any other selfish end. Even so, the one who carried it had to take the place of defilement, wash his clothes, and be unclean till evening. The requirement did not bend.
Commentators read the dead body as a picture of what is morally unclean. Carrying it pictures taking a share in someone else's sin.
There was no moral uncleanness in the dead body itself, but it symbolised the uncleanness believers today may pick up by associating with what is morally or spiritually unclean. There is very real reason behind Timothy's instruction, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure" (1 Tim. 5:22). In disobeying this we would in effect be handling a dead carcass. The person may be guilty of serious sins we do not suspect. By associating with him we would identify ourselves with his sins. In other words, we must take time to know a person before identifying ourselves with him.
The picture covers more than one kind of contact. It reaches everyday friendships too:
These verses picture many kinds and degrees of uncleanness. In a world that has forfeited life, the defilement of death lies heavy over the whole realm ruled by the one who holds the power of death. We cannot be close friends with those who belong to this world, or make companions of them and walk with them, without being made unclean.
The cure here is not a sacrifice but a wash. Writers take the clothes as a picture of a person's habits.
Suppose we have had such contact with uncleanness, willingly or not. Then there is to be true self-judgment about it, a washing of our clothes (our habits), and then restoration.
Scripture itself says how that washing is done:
The clothes tell us of what touches us — our associations, what we have to do with, what the world around us sees connected with us. Perhaps people have been used to seeing us in the gambling halls, or in other evil places. All these associations and ways must be "washed." How do we wash our ways and associations? Psalm 119:9 answers that for us. It asks, "How can a young man keep his way pure?" Here is God's own answer: "By guarding it according to your word."
The uncleanness has an end. Commentators compare it to the way dealing with evil leaves its mark on us for a while.
Being occupied with evil, however necessary, is defiling. It has effects on the mind until we return to what is our normal state — occupation with Christ and His Word. How seriously all this speaks to us! Having to do with evil defiles for a time. So we need to apply what God has written to ourselves — to examine our ways and circumstances in the light of God's truth.
Christians are not under rules about touching and tasting. That makes the moral lesson stronger, not weaker.
"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" are legal ordinances quoted in Colossians 2:21 so that the apostle can deny outright that we are under such commands... By faith we stand on the resurrection side of Christ's grave. Yet we are urged all the more, as God's children here below, to cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1).
- Contact. Death came through sin, so a dead body defiled. God taught His people to feel that, not hide it under flowers.
- No excuse. The carrier might have been clearing the carcass away for good reasons. The law still counted him unclean.
- Company. The picture reaches our friendships. Taking part in another's sins is handling a dead carcass.
- Cleansing. Clothes stand for habits, and God's Word washes our habits clean.
- Closure. The stain ran only until evening. Judge yourself, find restoration, and return to Christ and His Word.
And these shall be unclean unto you among the crawling things which crawl on the earth the mole, and the field-mouse, and the lizard, after its kind;
Leviticus 11 sorts the animal world into clean and unclean. At verse 29 the list narrows to small creatures that live around a person's house and yard. Their names are hard to pin down in English. The bigger question is why God would make a law at all about a mouse or a lizard.
The first creature named appears nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. That is why translations differ. Older English versions read "weasel"; the ESV has "mole rat."
This occurs only in Leviticus 11:29 as one of the unclean animals. The word is choled, and it occurs nowhere else. Gesenius translates it "weasel," a name taken from its swift gliding motion, or from the way it glides into holes. Others judge it to be the mole, whose Arabic name is chuld and Syriac chuldo. This second view is probably the right one.
The third creature is uncertain too. It is probably a lizard, though no one can say which kind.
tsab. One of the unclean animals. The Hebrew word is thought to refer to a lizard, but no one knows which species: perhaps the dhab of the Arabs, a large lizard. The Revised Version has "great lizard." The tortoise, however, is common in Palestine.
Verse 41 bans every creeping thing, so a short list here looks odd. One answer: these are the ones a household would meet.
At first there seems to be no reason to name certain species here, since the whole class of creeping things is declared unclean soon after (v. 41). Commentators can only say this: these are named because they carried a special danger of defilement in the way described just afterwards — dropping into vessels and so on. They are usually found in houses or where people live.
The list here gathers the burrowers and the ground-dwellers. The rule banned eating them, and touching their dead bodies too.
This rule forbids creeping things without wings. The creatures that burrow were unclean for the people of old whom God had set apart. So were those that devoured and destroyed in the field. So were those that flitted in the sun, that hid in the sand, or that dived into rubbish they liked. They might not all grovel on the earth. But they were all alike to be unclean. Whoever touched them when dead would be unclean until evening.
That closeness to the ground carries a moral picture. It goes back to what sin did to the earth itself.
Everything that creeps on the earth was unclean: the earth is under the curse because of sin, and there must be a moral rising above it.
This daily inconvenience taught Israel something about the whole created order that no one else had worked out.
So Israel had to learn how completely man's sin had defiled the creature. God taught Israel this. No other nation knew it, and not even the most thoughtful philosophers ever guessed it. Yet until we know it, everything before us is darkness, and man walks in a living lie among the defilements of death.
Rules this small tell us something about God's care for His people.
How wonderful to think of the grace of Jehovah, who bends so low! He could stoop to give directions about a crawling reptile. He would not leave His people at a loss about the most trivial matter. He wanted to keep His people free from the defilement that comes from touching, tasting, or handling anything unclean. They were not their own, so they could not do as they pleased. They belonged to Jehovah. They carried His name and were tied to Him. His word was to be the standard that ruled them in every case.
These rules about food and touch do not bind Christians today. The holiness they trained for still stands.
"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" are legal rules quoted in Colossians 2:21. The apostle quotes them in order to deny outright that we are under such commands... So restrictions about touch, taste and the like have passed away for us. By faith we stand on the resurrection side of Christ's grave. Yet we are still urged — and urged all the more — to cleanse ourselves, as God's children here below, from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Corinthians 7:1).
- Names. The Hebrew words are uncertain. The first appears only here, so translations give weasel or mole rat, tortoise or great lizard. The names are debated; the lesson is not.
- Nearness. One suggestion is that these creatures are named because they live in houses. That is where they would most easily defile someone.
- Ground. They burrow, hide and grovel on an earth that lies under the curse of sin — and the call is to rise morally above it.
- Reach. Touching one dead creature taught Israel what no other nation knew: man's sin has defiled the whole creation.
- Release. God gave rules about a crawling reptile because His people bore His name. Those rules about handling are gone for the Christian. The holiness they trained is pressed on us more, not less.
and the groaning lizard, and the great red lizard, and the climbing lizard, and the chomet, and the chameleon.
Leviticus 11 sorts the creatures Israel may and may not eat, and by verse 30 the list has come down to five small animals that live in people's houses. Their names are hard to translate, and the verse raises a simple question: why would God make a law about a lizard?
Translators have never agreed on what these five creatures were. One writer sets out the guesses made about a single name in the list:
anaqah. One of the creeping things forbidden to be eaten. It is not at all certain what animal is meant, but it is judged not to have been what we now call the ferret. The Jewish translation by Leeser has "hedgehog"; others think the "shrew-mouse"; and others the "gecko," a wall-lizard. Lev. 11:30. The Revised Version has "gecko," and its margin says this name and the three that follow probably stand for four kinds of lizards.
The last name in the verse carries the same difficulty, and the same Hebrew word is translated a completely different way elsewhere in the chapter:
tinshemeth. An animal classed among the unclean, but it is not known definitely what animal is meant by the Hebrew word. It is probably the chameleon, which is adopted in the R.V. It is placed with the lizard and the snail. Lev. 11:30. In two places the same word is translated "swan." Lev. 11:18; Deut. 14:16.
Verse 41 later calls every creeping thing unclean, so why name these five? One writer points to where such creatures are found, and to how differently the things they fall on are treated:
Commentators can only say that these creatures are named because they brought a special danger of defilement in the way described just after — dropping into vessels and the like — since they are usually found in houses, in people's homes. But we also see how differently they affect the things they touch — some things take in defilement more readily than others. Any wooden vessel, garment, skin or sack they fell on when dead had to be put in water, and it was clean by evening. An earthen vessel could only be broken.
One writer walks through the different habits of the creatures in this class:
In this regulation creeping things without wings are forbidden. The creatures that burrow were unclean for the people of old separated to God, as were those that devoured and destroyed in the field. So were the ones that darted about in the sun, silent or noisy, that hid in the sand, or that dived into rubbish that suited them. Some might enjoy the grass or the shrub or the tree, chasing their insect prey with quick movement and beautiful colour too. They did not all crawl in the dust. But they were all alike unclean. Whoever touched them when dead was unclean until evening.
Why should a dead lizard defile at all? One writer traces the rule back to death itself:
Death was the great defiler, death as the wages of sin, the greatest defiler of all. Yet it was not left to a general principle. These verses told the Israelite plainly that touching those dead bodies made him unfit for the fellowship and privilege he normally enjoyed under the law. No one who only touched escaped the consequence; no contact could be passed over without penalty.
God gave rules even about a crawling creature. One writer sees grace in that:
How wonderful to think of the grace of the Lord, who stoops so low! He could give directions about a crawling reptile. He would not leave His people in the dark about the smallest matter… In such matters they were not to think their own thoughts, use their own reasoning, or follow their own imaginations. God's Word was to be their sole guide.
Do these creatures picture anything? One writer says they do, while admitting the details are beyond us:
Only some of the forbidden creeping things are named here, but verses 41-43 widen this to every kind of creeping thing. They stand for people of a repulsive, earthbound character. No doubt each one pictures some particular bad trait in such unbelievers, though we may not be able to interpret the details.
So does any of this bind the Christian? One writer answers plainly:
For the Christian it is not a matter of eating or drinking. "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" are legal rules quoted in Col. 2:21, and the apostle denies outright that we are under such commands… By faith we stand on the resurrection side of Christ's grave. Yet the call is stronger, not weaker: as God's children here below, we are urged to cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1).
- Uncertain names. No one can identify the five creatures with confidence. The Revised Version's margin calls four of them kinds of lizards.
- Household reach. These creatures live in homes, where the danger of contact was greatest. What they fell on decided the remedy: a garment washed, an earthen vessel broken.
- One verdict. Burrowers, hunters and bright, sun-loving creatures were all unclean. Their variety made no difference to the ruling.
- Death defiles. Behind the rule stands death as the wages of sin, and no contact with it could be passed over without consequence.
- Cleansing now. The Christian stands on the resurrection side of Christ's grave, free from the touch rules. That makes the call to cleanse himself from every defilement of flesh and spirit stronger, not weaker.
These shall be unclean unto you among all that crawl whoever toucheth them when they are dead, shall be unclean until the even.
This verse closes the list of small creatures that swarm along the ground. It turns from what Israel could eat to what Israel could touch. A dead mouse or lizard was a small thing. Yet whoever handled one lost his usual place before God until evening. Why did God give a law about something so small?
The named animals have little in common as natural species, yet the ruling covers them all without exception.
In this regulation creeping things without wings are forbidden. The creatures that burrow were unclean for the people of old who were separated to God, as were those that devoured and destroyed in the field. So were those that darted about in the sun, silent or crying, that hid in the sand, or that dived into rubbish they liked. Some too might enjoy the grass or the shrub or the tree, and not without lively activity after their insect prey, and with beautiful colouring as well. They did not all grovel on the earth. But they were all alike unclean. Whoever touched them when dead was to be unclean till evening.
The creatures here are only a sample of a wider rule. One writer asks what such a class pictures.
Only some of the forbidden creeping things are named here. Verses 41-43 widen this to cover every kind of creeping thing. These picture people of a repulsive, earthbound character. No doubt each creature stands for some particular bad trait in such unbelievers, though we may not be able to interpret the details.
What defiled was not the animal itself but its death. The rule held even when a man wanted nothing from the carcass.
Death was the great defiler, death as the wages of sin, the greatest defiler of all. Yet God did not leave this to a general principle. In these verses He told the Israelite plainly that a touch of those dead bodies made him unfit for the fellowship he normally enjoyed under the law. No one who only touched escaped the consequence. No contact went without penalty. "Bearing a carcass" might mean removing it out of the way, without any wish to use it for profit or any other selfish end. Even so, the bearer had to take the place of defilement, wash his clothes, and be unclean himself till evening. The requirement was inflexible.
Much of the chapter is about food. This verse is about the hand. The prophets press the same point: holiness does not spread by touch, but uncleanness does.
God did not guard His people so carefully only about eating something unclean. Bare contact was forbidden too. (See verses 8, 24, 26-28, 31-41.) No member of the Israel of God could touch what was unclean without becoming defiled. Both the law and the prophets unfold this principle at length. "Thus says the Lord of hosts: Ask the priests about the law: 'If someone carries holy meat in the fold of his garment and touches with his fold bread or stew or wine or oil or any kind of food, does it become holy?'" The priests answered and said, "No." Then Haggai said, "If someone who is unclean by contact with a dead body touches any of these, does it become unclean?" The priests answered and said, "It does become unclean." (Haggai 2:11-13)
Such a rule could look like superiority. The reason runs the other way: it rests on who God is, and on whose the people are.
The principle is not "stand by yourself, I am holier than you." It is simply this: God is holy, so everyone He brings into association with Himself must be holy too... Suppose someone had asked an Israelite of old, "Why do you shrink back from that reptile crawling along the path?" He would have answered, "The Lord is holy, and I belong to Him. He has said, 'Do not touch.'" It is the same now. If someone asks a Christian why he walks apart from the ten thousand things the men of this world share in, his answer is simply to be, "My Father is holy."
Later in the chapter a spring stays clean even when a carcass falls into it. One writer reads that undefiled water as a picture of the Spirit, then turns to the man who touched the carcass.
There was something, then, that the carcass of the creeping thing could not make unclean. There is One who cannot be defiled: the Holy Spirit, whom the Word pictures as water. Though He is on earth, He is completely pure, while the whole world lies in the evil one, and sin dwells in those in whom He also dwells... the water in the spring or pit was not defiled, yet whoever touched the carcass that had fallen into it became unclean. What is man? A touch of the carcass defiled him. For there was only one Man who could touch what defiles without becoming unclean, for in Him there is no sin (1 John 3:5).
The uncleanness ended at evening, and it ended by a set path. One writer traces that path for the believer today.
If we have had such contact with uncleanness, willingly or not, we are to judge the matter truly in ourselves. Then comes a washing of our clothes (our habits), and then restoration.
- Touch. Food was only half of it. Bare contact with a dead creeping thing defiled, and no creature on the list was an exception.
- Death. What defiled was death, the wages of sin. Even carrying a carcass out of the way put a man in the place of uncleanness.
- Inflexible. Accident and good intent changed nothing. The requirement did not bend.
- Holiness. The reason was never "I am holier than you." It was belonging: God is holy, and His people are His.
- Evening. The defilement was real, but it had an end: self-judgment, washing, restoration. And only One has ever touched what defiles and stayed clean.
And on whatever any of them when they are dead doth fall, it shall be unclean; all vessels of wood, or garment, or skin, or sack, every vessel wherewith work is done -- it shall be put into water, and be unclean until the even; then shall it be clean.
Leviticus 11:32 moves the law of clean and unclean beyond what Israel ate to what Israel owned. A dead creature falling on a bowl, a coat, a leather bag or a working tool made that object unclean. The only way back was water and the passing of a day.
The verse does not describe a sin. It describes an accident — something dead dropping where a person works and lives. One writer notes how far the ruling reaches:
Every form of service, and the means of living, contract pollution in a scene where death reigns.
The list in the verse is deliberately domestic. A second writer walks through what an Israelite would picture:
A dead mouse, or lizard, or other creeping thing could fall on a man, his food, his drink, his clothing, or vessels for household work. All would become unclean, and the stands for pots, or fire hearths, had to be broken down. Uncleanness spread easily.
The point of the law is not hygiene. It is that death carries the mark of sin, and God wanted His people to feel that every time it touched their lives:
Death came through sin, and the Lord would have it felt by His people. Heathen feeling sought to hide it under flowers, but Israel were taught its defiling effect. So we too are urged to touch no unclean thing, and to come out and be separate to the Lord according to our new and near relation to Him.
Verse 32 is not the whole rule. The material of the object decided its fate:
The item is not destroyed and not ignored. It goes into water. One writer takes that washing as a picture of what Scripture does for a believer's surroundings:
Before leaving this chapter, notice the remedy God graciously provided. It was for those who made themselves unclean by touching the carcasses of unclean things. Several times we are told he "shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening." In every case the instruction is to "wash his clothes." To us this pictures bringing our near surroundings under the cleansing action of the word of God. In it there is both the acknowledgment of defilement, and its removal according to God's mind.
That pattern runs through the whole book, and it is not left in the past:
Now look through this Book of Leviticus, and you will find every possible defilement must be washed by water. In the same way every possible defilement to the believer must be met by the washing of water by the Word of God.
The uncleanness has a fixed end. The day closes it:
If such a dead body fell on any article of wood or clothing or skin or sack, or whatever was used to work with, the article was to be put in water and be unclean until evening, when it would again be clean.
- Contact. No sin was committed here — something dead simply fell. Even accidental contact defiled, and it passed on to clothing, bags, tools and cookware.
- Cause. Death defiles because death came in through sin. God wanted His people to feel that, not cover it over.
- Cost. Ordinary work and ordinary living picked up pollution in a world where death reigns. The writers call this law a yoke too heavy to carry.
- Cure. Wood, cloth, skin and sack went into water. Writers read this as bringing what is near us under the cleansing action of God's word, which both admits the defilement and removes it.
- Close. The uncleanness lasted only until evening. Clay had to be broken, but what could be washed was washed, and by nightfall it was clean again.
And every earthen vessel into which [any] of them falleth -- whatever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it.
Leviticus 11 lists the creatures Israel must not eat. Now one of them falls dead into a clay pot, and the command is not to wash it but to smash it.
Wood, cloth and leather come first; clay comes next. One writer notes that the creatures named just before are the ones found indoors, and that the law handles the two kinds of container in different ways:
Commentators can say little more than this: these creatures are named because of the special danger of defilement from them in the way described here — dropping into vessels and so on. They are usually found in houses, or in the places where people live. But we also see how they affect different things in different ways. Some things take in defilement more readily than others. Every vessel of wood, every garment, skin or sack that they fell on when dead had to go into water, and it would be clean at evening. But the earthen vessel could only be broken.
Nobody plans for a lizard to fall into the water jar. The law counted it as defilement all the same.
Even accidental contact with these dead things defiled. So the vessels in verse 32 had to go into water for cleansing, and those in verse 33 had to be broken outright. The Rabbis do not tell us the truth about this law; the apostle Peter does. He called it a yoke that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. Every form of service, and the means of living, contract pollution in a scene where death reigns.
The broken pot was not the whole loss.
If the body fell into an earthen vessel, anything inside the vessel was unclean, and the vessel had to be broken. Any food in such a vessel that water had touched was unclean, and so was any liquid in it (v. 34). Even an oven or a cooking stove, likely made of clay, became unclean if a carcass or part of one fell on it. It too had to be broken.
The rule reached the person too, and what he wore.
Suppose a dead mouse, or lizard, or other creeping thing had fallen on a man, his food, his drink, his clothing, or the vessels he used for housework. All of them became unclean. The stands for pots, or fire hearths, had to be broken down. Uncleanness spread with ease.
Three verses later the law names two things that death did not make unclean.
Verses 36 and 37 name two exceptions. First, a spring or well — a body of water — resisted this pollution. Still, whatever touched the carcass was unclean. Next, seed kept for sowing stayed clean if something dead fell on it. The cleansing of the word, and the life that gives life, were stronger than death. They picture what belongs to Christ and His own.
A rule about a broken cooking pot can look petty until you ask what it was teaching. One writer traces it back to who God is, and to who His people are because of Him.
Suppose someone had asked an Israelite of old, "Why do you shrink back so from that reptile crawling along the path?" He would have replied, "Jehovah is holy, and I belong to Him. He has said, Touch not." The same holds now. If someone asks a Christian why he walks apart from the ten thousand things the men of this world share in, his answer is to be just this: "My Father is holy." That is the true foundation of personal holiness.
- Clay — Wood, cloth and leather went into water and were clean by evening. The clay pot could only be broken. Different materials, different capacity to take in defilement.
- Contact — No one chose to have a dead creature fall into a jar, yet the defilement counted anyway. Where death reigns, even ordinary work and daily living pick up pollution.
- Contents — The loss spread from the pot to what was in it, to the food and drink, and on to the oven and hearth. One small death reached a whole household.
- Counterweight — The spring and the sowing seed stayed clean. Water and living seed picture the cleansing of the word and the life that is stronger than death.
- Cause — The reason behind every detail was relationship. God is holy, and His people belong to Him — that is why even a small creature meant a broken pot.
All food that is eaten on which [such] water hath come shall be unclean; and all drink that is drunk shall be unclean, in every [such] vessel.
This rule sits inside a set of household instructions. A dead creeping thing falls into a clay pot. The water in that pot then carries the trouble further, into the food and the drink. Why would God give laws about a kitchen at all? And what should a reader take from it today?
The defilement here is second-hand. The carcass never touched the food. The water that had touched it did.
But if the body fell into a clay pot, they had to break the pot, and everything inside it was unclean. In such a pot, any food that had been made wet with water, or any liquid in it, would be unclean (v. 34). Even an oven or a cooking stove (likely made of clay) would become unclean if a dead body, or part of one, fell on it, and it too had to be broken.
One small dead animal was enough to reach into every corner of a family's ordinary day.
A man, his food, his drink, his clothing, or the vessels he used for housework — all of them became unclean. The stands for pots, or the fire hearths, had to be broken down, if a dead mouse, or lizard, or other creeping thing had fallen on any of them. Uncleanness spread easily.
What made the water unclean was contact with something dead. Nobody plans for a mouse to fall into the water jar, so the law caught people in what they never chose.
Even accidental contact with these dead things brought defilement. So the vessels described in verse 32 had to be put in water to be cleansed, and those in verse 33 had to be broken in pieces. Not the Rabbis, but the apostle Peter tells us the truth: it was a yoke that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. Every kind of work, and the means of making a living, pick up pollution in a scene where death reigns.
The chapter does not treat every object the same way. One writer finds the real lesson in that difference.
But we also see how differently these creatures affect what they touch. Things are not equally open to defilement. Every vessel of wood, every garment, skin or sack they fell on when dead, had to be put into water, and it would be clean by evening. A clay pot could only be broken. A spring or a well could not be defiled at all, and neither could seed meant for sowing — but if that seed had been made wet with water, to be used for food, then it would be defiled.
The law lands on what a person takes in. One writer draws a line from feeding the body to feeding the soul.
Perhaps nothing has so much effect on people, for good or bad, as what they take in to feed the body, and what they take in to feed the soul. A people who eat foul things will be foul in body in most ways, and a man who thinks foul thoughts will be unclean in spirit in most ways. So everything the Jews took into the body by eating had to be clean, and everything a Christian takes into the soul should be pure.
Such detail over pots and hearths was not fussiness. It came from who the people were.
He wanted to keep His people free from the defilement that came from touching, tasting, or handling anything unclean. They were not their own, so they were not to do as they pleased. They belonged to Jehovah; they were called by His name; they were identified with Him.
The same writer sets this chapter beside the moment Peter was told to eat what he had always called unclean.
A Jew might hide behind the narrow fences of the Jewish ritual and cry, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." But the tide of God's grace was rising in majesty above all such fences, to take in every kind of object and carry it up to heaven, on the strength and authority of those precious words, "What God has made clean, do not call common." What was in the vessel did not matter, if God had cleansed it.
- Death spreads. A dead creeping thing in a jar passed its uncleanness to the water, and the water passed it to the food and drink.
- Spreads far. Food, drink, clothing, work tools, even the fire hearth — one dead animal reached a whole household.
- Spreads unequally. Wood was washed, clay was smashed, a spring stayed clean — not everything took in defilement the same way.
- Spreads inward. The law fell on what a person takes in — and what the soul takes in should be pure too.
- Stops at grace. The rules guarded a people who belonged to God. They ended when Peter heard that what God has made clean must not be called common.
And everything where upon [any part] of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; oven and hearth shall be broken down they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.
Leviticus 11 has been listing small creatures — the mouse, the lizard, the things that creep around a house. Now it follows one of them after it dies, into the family cooking fire, and asks why God orders a clay oven smashed instead of washed.
The oven and the stove belonged to the kitchen. One writer notes what they were made of.
If the body fell into an earthen vessel, the vessel was to be broken and anything inside the vessel was unclean. In such a vessel any food that had been made wet with water or any liquid in the vessel would be unclean (v. 34). Even an oven or a cooking stove (likely made of earth) would be unclean through a dead carcass or part of it falling on it, and it was to be broken.
One dead mouse could touch a whole household.
A man, his food, his drink, his clothing, or vessels used for housework would all be made unclean. The stands for pots, or fire hearths, had to be broken down if a dead mouse, or lizard, or other creeping thing had fallen on any of them. Uncleanness spread easily, and the dead body of an unclean creeping thing defiled everything that touched it — except a spring or a pit holding plenty of water, or seed meant for sowing that no water had yet touched.
Nobody chose for a dead lizard to drop into the oven. That is part of the point. The rule attaches to contact, not to intention, and it exposes the world the Israelite was living in.
Even accidental contact with these dead things defiled. The vessels described in verse 32 had to be put in water to be cleansed, and those in verse 33 had to be completely broken. Not the Rabbis, but the apostle Peter tells us the truth: it was a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. Every form of service, and the means of living, contract pollution in a scene where death reigns.
One writer traces the defilement back to death itself.
Something that died on its own, though otherwise clean, became unclean — death in this way being a picture of what had come in through sin.
Verse 32 lets a household rinse wood, cloth and leather clean by evening. Verse 35 gives the oven no such second chance.
But we also see how differently they affect what they touch — some things take defilement more readily than others. Every vessel of wood, or garment, skin or sack on which they fell when dead had to go into water, and it would be clean by evening. But the earthen vessel could only be broken… Whether we can read these things or not, they plainly imply a different susceptibility to evil, and a difference in how the defiled thing was treated. That should be suggestive and important to us.
The verse ends flatly: unclean, and staying unclean. The prophets later put the same question to the priests.
It was impossible for a member of the Israel of God to touch what was unclean without becoming defiled. Both the law and the prophets unfold this principle at length. "This is what the Lord of hosts says: Ask the priests about the law. If someone carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and touches bread, stew, wine, oil or any food with that fold, does it become holy? The priests answered, No. Then Haggai said, If someone who is unclean from a dead body touches any of these, does it become unclean? The priests answered, It shall be unclean." (Hag. 2:11-13) The Lord would have His people holy in all things. They were neither to eat nor touch anything unclean.
Holiness spreads to nothing; uncleanness spreads to everything it touches.
One writer reads the chapter's closing rules as a picture of what the New Testament states openly.
The latter part of the chapter gives rules as to how unclean creatures might communicate defilement to other things or persons. Here we have foreshadowed what is plain in the New Testament. There is an infection or a contagion about what is evil, so that the Christian has to be on his guard as to his associations. Such scriptures as 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 2:19 are quite clear as to this.
- Contact. A dead creature falling on an oven made it unclean — no intent needed, since "even accidental contact with these dead things defiled."
- Contagion. Uncleanness spread to food, drink, clothing and tools. Haggai's question shows that it only ever runs one way.
- Comparison. Wood and cloth washed clean by evening. Clay could only be broken — the same defilement, a different "susceptibility to evil."
- Cost. The rule hit the family's own cooking fire: "every form of service, and the means of living, contract pollution in a scene where death reigns."
- Caution. Evil is infectious, so a Christian stays on guard about his associations.