What food does the Bible say not to eat?

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.

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."

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.)

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).

Besides this, mankind was no longer limited to a vegetarian diet (v.2). Animals, birds and fish were allowed him as food, just as fully as herbs and fruits. There were no restrictions such as were later introduced for Israel under law (Lev.11), and again abrogated after the death of the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:11-16; 1 Tim.4:4-5). Of course it is evident that if one finds any food causing him physical difficulty, it is only wise to avoid that food, but God does not forbid the use of any.

However, when the meat of animals was eaten, God firmly prohibited the blood being eaten with it (v.4). From this time, the time that the eating of meat was first allowed, blood has been always forbidden. In every dispensation this has been true. The reason is that the blood is said to be "the life" of the creature, and life belongs exclusively to God. In refraining from eating blood then, we recognize the rights of the Creator. On the other hand, the rights of human beings were to be recognized. If a man or a beast shed human blood, then proper government demanded the death of that man or beast (v.6). This also remains true throughout history.

Under law it is true that certain meats were forbidden to Israelites (Lev. 11); but not because the eating of those meats was in itself sinful. Rather, it was a symbolical lesson to Jews as to their maintaining a distinct separation from the Gentile nations, and impressing upon them the rigidity of the legal covenant. This is plainly indicated in Acts 10, when Peter was given a vision by God in which every type of animal was depicted in a vessel let down from heaven, and Peter was told to "Rise, slay, and eat." When he objected, God told him, "What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common." This was done three times to emphasize its importance (Acts 10:9-16). The dispensation of law was over: its regulations must not be carried into Christianity. The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles had been broken down by means of the cross; and with it, of course, the regulations concerning the abstaining from meats were done away (Eph. 2:14, 15).

The rest of Leviticus 17 is occupied with regulations as to eating. The blood, neither of beast nor fowl, was to be eaten for it is the life of the creature, and life belongs to God. This enactment specially enforced for Israel what had been laid down in the time of Noah after the flood, as recorded in Genesis 9:4. So when the apostles and elders gave this injunction to Gentile believers, as recorded in Acts 15:20 and 29, they were not imposing upon them what was merely an item of the law of Moses, but rather a prohibition that applies to mankind generally. We do well to observe it, though we do not need to observe the extreme scruples of the Jews, as is shown by the instruction of 1 Corinthians 10:25.

It surprises not a few that non-complicity with idols, and personal purity should be set with abstaining from eating blood and things strangled. The apostles did not reason on the ground of man's conscience; for grave a monitor as it is, it was then and it might be at any time darkened by public opinion and habits, which among Gentiles made as little of idolatry and personal purity as of using blood and strangled things for food. The revealed will of God is absolute for the believer; and as a fact His face was set against all these indulgences, entirely apart from the peculiar institutions of Israel. They have the full weight of apostolic authority as "necessary things": what can abrogate this expressly for those of the Gentiles that believe? and in pointed distinction from Levitical ordinances? God's honour is inviolate, and His sanction of marriage, not of fornication. God insists on the recognition that life belongs to Himself; so that, as He gives to eat of flesh, He reserves the blood and forbids eating of things strangled similarly; and the Christian is in no way to be indifferent even to these last injunctions, but bound to honour Him in both.

In Israel, as we see in these verses, to eat blood was to provoke Jehovah's jealousy to the cutting off of the offender: Israelites or strangers sojourning among them made no difference. It denied man's obligation to own the forfeit of life to God: for God was to be owned solemnly, if not on the altar, at least by pouring out the blood on the earth as due to Him, instead of appropriating it to one's own gratification. Death was a serious thing; and Jehovah would not have it slighted, even when He allowed His people to partake of flesh that had been killed for their food. But He would have them, on penalty of their own death, honour His claim of the blood as the sign of life given up to God, and in no way for man to make his food.

We may well thank God for the liberty which is ordained in this passage. It would have been an intolerable burden to the early Christians if they had been responsible to track out the history of every bit of meat they bought in the markets, or consumed in the house of some acquaintance. For us today, living under conditions which are highly complicated and artificial, it would be ten times worse. It is evidently God's will for His people that they accept the conditions in which their lot is cast, and pursue a simple path through, without inquisitively looking for sources of trouble, whether meat be in question or any other matter.