What are the kosher dietary laws?

The first time we read of clean and unclean animals is when Noah went into the ark: he was instructed to take seven pairs of each of the clean beasts and clean fowls and only two of the unclean; we have no instructions as to how Noah distinguished them, but it shows that in early days there was a distinction between the clean and unclean. Those called 'clean' were doubtless clean for sacrifice, and not for food, as nothing is said of man eating animal food till after the flood, and then "every moving thing" was given for food. When Noah came out of the ark he offered of every clean beast and every clean fowl for burnt offerings. Gen. 7:2; Gen. 8:20.

With Israel it was different. What animals were to be offered are distinctly specified, and what animals might be eaten as clean and what might not be eaten as unclean are given in detail. Of beasts the clean were those that divided the hoof and chewed the cud: those that had only one of these distinguishing marks were unclean. Of the fishes those only were to be eaten which had fins and scales. Of the fowls a list is given of those that must not be eaten, and of the winged crawling things, that go on all fours, only those 'which have legs above their feet to leap with' might be eaten. The locust, the bald locust, the beetle, and the grasshopper, each after his kind, might be eaten (probably four species of locust); but all other flying, creeping, or swarming things, which have four feet were unclean. 'Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth' was unclean whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all fours, or hath a multitude of feet, among all creeping things, was unclean. These directions are respecting what might or might not be eaten. Those that were not to be eaten were to be regarded as an abomination, and if the dead bodies of any such fell upon any vessel or garment it rendered it unclean, and any one who touched their carcass must wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. Lev. 11; Deut. 14:3-20. These animals in their habits and instincts were used of God to teach His people as to habits and ways of the flesh that were unclean in His sight.

We know from other scriptures that the animals described here as unclean are not really so, but good as creatures of God; yet they were by Israel to be regarded as unclean and an abomination. The unclean are mostly those that are flesh-eating.

Leviticus 11 has before laid down laws concerning this subject, and these verses reinforce them. A number of animals are listed as being clean and therefore fit for meat for Israel (vs.4-5). These included animals that had cloven hooves and also chewed the cud. Any animal that lacked one of these were not fit for Israel's consumption (v.6). A list of some of these is found in verses 7 and 8.

As to water creatures, all having fins and scales were permitted for food: if not, they were not to be eaten (vs.9-19) No particular feature is mentioned as to birds, however, that were to be refused. Yet those that are mentioned are those that feed on carrion (vs.12-19). In all of these things there is vital spiritual significance. For though under grace there is no longer any restriction as to eating these creatures (1 Tim.4:4-5), yet if we feed on what is spiritually unclean, we shall be badly affected by it. The believer has so much excellent spiritual food that he should fully avoid what is harmful. How well it is that we take to heart the Lord's words, "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feed on Me will live because of Me" (Jn.6:57). Can we dare to make room for a diet that is contrary to this pure and living food?

ANIMALS ALLOWED OR DISALLOWED FOR FOOD (vv. 1-8)

Never since the flood has man been commanded to be a vegetarian. After the flood Noah was told, “every moving thing that lives shall be food for you” (Gen. 9:3). Nothing at that time was forbidden, except the eating of blood, a matter that has not changed through the ages. However, under law, and under law only, God put strict limits on what animals, birds or water creatures were permitted to Israel to eat. These laws were never put upon Gentiles, but only on Israel. The reason for some being forbidden was simply because of a spiritual significance, not that there was evil in the creature itself. This is clearly seen in Acts 10:9-15 and Acts 10:28. In a vision the Lord told Peter to eat all kinds of animals. Peter objected, but the Lord insisted. Then he realized that the unclean animals were symbolical of people, that is, Gentiles, as Peter says in Acts 10:28, that God had shown him he should not call any man unclean. Before the cross, Israel was strictly separate from Gentiles because Gentiles were considered unclean to them, but the sacrifice of Christ cleanses all who trust Him as Savior, whether Jews or Gentiles, therefore God has removed the barrier between clean and unclean animals, so that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim. 4:4).

ANIMALS ALLOWED OR DISALLOWED FOR FOOD (vv. 1-8)

Never since the flood has man been commanded to be a vegetarian. After the flood Noah was told, "every moving thing that lives shall be food for you" (Gen. 9:3). Nothing at that time was forbidden, except the eating of blood, a matter that has not changed through the ages. However, under law, and under law only, God put strict limits on what animals, birds or water creatures were permitted to Israel to eat. These laws were never put upon Gentiles, but only on Israel. The reason for some being forbidden was simply because of a spiritual significance, not that there was evil in the creature itself. This is clearly seen in Acts 10:9-15 and Acts 10:28. In a vision the Lord told Peter to eat all kinds of animals. Peter objected, but the Lord insisted. Then he realized that the unclean animals were symbolical of people, that is, Gentiles, as Peter says in Acts 10:28, that God had shown him he should not call any man unclean. Before the cross, Israel was strictly separate from Gentiles because Gentiles were considered unclean to them, but the sacrifice of Christ cleanses all who trust Him as Saviour, whether Jews or Gentiles, therefore God has removed the barrier between clean and unclean animals, so that "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:4).

The eleventh chapter consists in commandments concerning clean and unclean animals. In chapter 20:24-26, the reason for this distinction is given. "But I have said unto you: Ye shall inherit the land and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey; I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put a difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean; and you shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine."

All those beasts were unclean which do not both chew the cud and divide the hoof (see also Deut. 14)--those fishes were unclean which have not both fins and scales--and those birds were unclean which are known as birds of prey, as well as insects (with the exception of certain locusts) and flying mammalia. The subject before us deserves a far deeper and more extended study than we can give it here. We are obliged to confine ourselves to but a few hints. We need not to devote much space to the wisdom revealed in these laws. As God is the author of them they must necessarily reveal His wisdom. It is interesting that all civilized races abstain from the use of the greater part of the animals, which this code prohibits. With the exception of a number of forbidden animals, civilized nations partake of only such which these laws permit. And those which are commonly eaten, such as the oysters, the hog and others, prohibited in this code, science has shown to be more or less responsible for certain diseases and therefore dangerous as a food. The discoveries made by science fully demonstrate the wisdom of these distinctions between the different animals. These laws in their literal meaning are, of course, no longer binding; the religious observance of them was not a permanent thing, and is done away with in the New Testament. The church has no such laws distinguishing between the clean and unclean animals. The clean typify the Jew and the unclean the Gentile. Peter's vision on the housetop of Joppa warrants this interpretation (Acts 10). The clean, the Jews, and the unclean, Gentiles, are, in believing, gathered into the one body. Read Colossians 2:16-17, where the fact is stated that Leviticus 11 is no longer in force. (While these laws have no longer a religious significance, it is wise to follow them as much as possible. Orthodox Jews who hold strictly to these dietary laws and keep them are far more free from certain diseases than Gentile races, which ignore these laws. It has also been shown by statistics that the mean duration of Jewish life averages much higher than that of others.)

In these days, when men's minds are so active in raising questions about almost everything, not a few have said a great deal about what should be eaten, and what should not be eaten. But concerning this we have the clearest instruction in the New Testament. The Christian, on the one hand, is told that "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Tim. 4:4-5.) On the other hand, "things strangled" and "blood" are as much prohibited now as ever. Before the deluge God gave men "the herb of the field" for food (Gen. 3:18); but after the deluge, and when the Lord smelled a sweet savour, or a savour of rest, in the clean beasts that had been sacrificed, and blessed Noah and his sons, He said, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen. 8:20 to 9:4.) Thus blood was prohibited by God in the days of Noah; and man, whether Jew or Gentile, infidel or Christian, has never from that time had liberty from God to eat blood. To believers in Christ who are brought into the liberty of children of God, it has been written by the apostles: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:28-29.) From this scripture it is clear, that, however literally this chapter in Leviticus called for an observance on the part of the children of Israel in daily food, to us it can have no such meaning; for the only prohibitions we have are "from things strangled," and "from blood."

The foregoing train of thought is awakened by the perusal of the eleventh chapter of the Book of Leviticus. Therein we find Jehovah entering, in most marvellous detail, into a description of beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles, and furnishing His people with various marks by which they were to know what was clean and what was unclean. We have the summing up of the entire contents of this remarkable chapter in the two closing verses. "This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps upon the earth; to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten."

With regard to beasts, two things were essential to render them clean, they should chew the cud and divide the hoof. "Whatsoever parts the hoof, and is cloven footed, and chews the cud among the beasts, that shall ye eat." Either of these marks would, of itself, have been wholly insufficient to constitute ceremonial cleanness. The two should go together. Now, while these two marks were quite sufficient for the guidance of an Israelite, as to the cleanness or uncleanness of an animal, without any reference as to why or wherefore such marks were given, or what they meant, yet is the Christian permitted to enquire into the spiritual truth wrapped up in these ceremonial enactments.

After the flood, God gave to man a grant of every moving living creature for food. (Gen. 9:3). Here, under the law, He introduces restrictions. Were men, then, contaminated in their souls by the indiscriminate use of animal food? Was that a source of moral defilement? Demons would instil into man's mind that it was. But the Lord has taught us (Matt. 15:18) from whence the moral defilement comes — even from out of the heart of man. Hence abstinence from meats will not promote true piety (1 Tim. 3:16 — 4:5). But why these restrictions? Because the law not only places man at a distance from God, and makes him conscious of it; but it also is meant to teach him the great difference between standing on the ground of its observance, and on the ground of grace. How simple and free was the intercourse between the patriarchs and the Lord Jehovah whenever He made Himself known to them; whereas, though He dwelt in the midst of Israel, it was in thick darkness, and they never could get personally into His presence. How free was the grant to Noah and to his sons? How stringent the restrictions placed on Israel! For, since it was Jehovah who brought them up out of the land of Egypt to be their God, they were to be holy, for He was holy (Lev. 11:45). The privilege of being God's people, which was great, entailed on them responsibilities which were not to be neglected. So it always must be. By Israel, as we are told in this chapter, ceremonial defilement was to be carefully avoided. With Christians the danger arises from that which is within (2 Cor. 7:1).

The distinction between clean and unclean animals was known before the flood (Gen. 7:2). Here, however, the Lord for the first time gives marks by which to distinguish them, whilst in Deut. 14:4-5, Moses, by God's command, mentions the beasts that were clean. The distinguishing marks were two; the one relating to their habit, the other to something which characterised them in their walk. The habit was that of ruminating, or chewing the cud. The characteristic about their walk was that they parted the hoof, and were cloven footed. Thus the habit, and the character of the walk were common to all the beasts of which the Israelites might eat. Such comprised those of the herd, or of the flock, from which alone sacrificial victims could be selected, and the hart, the roebuck or gazelle, and fallow deer, the wild goat, the pygarg or antelope, the wild ox or onyx, the chamois, or perhaps mountain sheep. Of these the hart, roebuck, and fallow deer, were served up daily at Solomon's table (1 Kings 4:23). The rest are not mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament.

To be a beast fit for an Israelite's table, it must have had both the above-mentioned distinguishing marks. The presence of the one without the other, whether real or apparent, would not suffice. We say real or apparent, because though neither the coney nor the hare chew the cud, yet they move their jaws in such a way that a common observer might class them as ruminants with the cow and the camel. So to instruct such as would never be naturalised, the law-giver uses language which is not scientifically correct. He spake in a manner that all could understand. This is often the way in Scripture. By the rules laid down, then, the camel, the coney, the hare, and the pig, were all excluded from the list of beasts fit for the people's food. Of their flesh they were not to eat, nor their carcases were they to touch. They were unclean to them. These directions, however, about clean and unclean, rested not here. All animated nature was thus classified, and in a very simple way. Beasts, fishes, birds, insects, and reptiles, were arranged by the Creator in one or other of these classes.

As to fishes, the possession of both fins and scales were requisite for any of them to be reckoned clean. Of birds, all were clean, except certain kinds which are enumerated. Carnivorous, omnivorous, foul-feeding birds, and night birds were unclean. By this standard, eagles, vultures, ravens, hawks, and owls, were shut out, as well as the ostrich, translated "owl" in verse 16, the gull, translated "cuckoo," the ibis, perhaps translated "swan," and the lapwing or hoopoe. Everything, too, which crept, though it had wings, was forbidden, except such as had legs above their feet to leap withal upon the earth, which comprised, it would seem, four species of locusts, among which the beetle could never be classed, for the word chargol, translated beetle (verse 22), must be taken as the name of some kind of locust. Of creeping things that creep upon the earth, the weasel (or perhaps mole), the mouse, and different kinds of lizards, translated in the authorised version tortoise, ferret, chameleon, snail, and the mole (or perhaps the chameleon) are enumerated as unclean. Besides, however, being merely unclean everyone was to be an abomination to them, it was not to be eaten. "Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth on all four, or whatsoever has more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them shall ye not eat, for they are an abomination" (verses 41, 42).

No one, then, of the common people, even when made acquainted with the marks which distinguished the clean from the unclean animal, need make any mistake. Scientific distinctions, however correct, or the classification of genera, however full, would have been here out of place. God could have given such by Moses, had it pleased Him! From whence has man derived his knowledge of the things of nature, but from the Creator? (Isaiah 28:26). But for the unlearned, the common people, scientific distinctions would have been of little use without a special education, and natural ability to receive it. Now, in no country are all the inhabitants capable of such an attainment. Yet it was necessary that every one in Israel, from the highest to the lowest, should learn about clean and unclean animals. Hence God directed Moses thus to classify them. For it is probable that a ready and a simple way of distinguishing what they might eat and what not, was all that they were intended to understand; coupled, however, with the reminder that enjoying the privilege of being Jehovah's people, they were to keep themselves from being defiled by eating of animals of which Gentiles were free to partake. But we, who are taught in the New Testament deeper lessons than Israel ever were, may draw from these directions about clean and unclean, important teaching for ourselves, learning from the characteristic marks enumerated by Moses, what those moral features are, which in God's sight are regarded as clean.

First, then, we have to learn here as to food, what is clean and what is unclean. The German materialist's bald sophism we are taught to realize in another sense as a most important truth, "man ist was er iszt," — "what we eat we are." Spiritually, our food declares our character, as it also forms it. He that eateth Christ shall not only live by Him, but His life will be practically assimilated to His also. Thus, in what is here permitted to be the food of the people of God, we find depicted the spiritual life of the people of God. And this is the real and ultimate meaning of these divisions. That wholesomeness as diet should go with this would not be wonderful in view of this very symbolism which is in all things round us. That which is fullest in meaning is also truest in fact, as there need be no doubt. Nevertheless, the matter of health is never brought forward: it is not of what is wholesome or unwholesome, but of what is clean or unclean that the law treats.

(1) Of clean beasts — mammals, as they are best distinguished — there is but one class, those that ruminate, or chew the cud; but among these also those are excluded who have not a hoof entirely divided. There must be the union of these two characters, the power of rumination and the divided hoof, to constitute the animal clean for the Israelite.

First, as to food, that which is allowed to be eaten. In general the principle seems to be, that anything is allowed that is clean, in this sense, first, that it is thoroughly according to its element, that is, in principle, divine order (of course here presented in a figure), as fishes having scales; secondly, that was allowed which united mature digestion to the absence of that wilful energy which goes boldly through everything. These two qualities must be united. The grossness which swallows down things as they are, or the lack of quiet firmness, rendered unclean. To be clean, it must be that which at the same time chews the cud and divides the hoof. Of birds, the carnivorous night birds and those which cannot be tamed are forbidden; creeping things also, whatever grovelled and trailed itself on the earth. In general, there was to be in their eating the discernment of what was clean.