Chapter 11

1 What beasts may, 4and what may not be eaten. 9 What fishes. 13 What fowls. 29 The creeping things which are unclean.

2. These are the beasts. The principles set forth in this chapter were designed of God to protect those who love and choose to serve Him against the use, as food, of those forms of animal life that would bring injury to their bodies. In a number of instances, as will be seen, it is not yet possible to identify the animals named. Where doubt exists, that fact is noted. This measure of uncertainty, however, will not prove to be an insurmountable problem to any Christian who purposes in his heart not to “defile the temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:17) but to “do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). For such a person the fundamental principles as outlined here will prove to be a sufficient guide.

4. These shall ye not eat. The camel appears to be cloven-footed, but there is a ball at the back of the foot, resembling a heel. Hence it is counted unclean.

Unclean. The Jews were to “have“ all “unclean” things “in abomination,” shaqas\ (vs. 11, 13, 43). This word is also translated “detest” (Deut. 7:26) and “abhorred” (Ps. 22:24). The creatures here listed as “unclean” are hygienically unfit for human use as food (DA 617; 2T 96; see on Gen. 9:3).

5. The coney. From shaphan, a “hider.” Cony is the old English name for rabbit, but the description of the “coney” given in the Bible does not fit the rabbit. Solomon calls the conies “a feeble folk,” and adds that they make “their houses in the rocks” (Prov. 30:26). Some commentators have called them “rock badgers.” The rock badger is a kind of animal not unlike a guinea pig in size, appearance, disposition, and habitat.

6. The hare. Scientifically speaking, the hare does not chew the cud, because it is not equipped to do so. But it does chew its food in a manner of suggestive of chewing the cud, and is here counted a ruminant, that is, a chewer of the cud. It is unclean because it does not divide the hoof.

He cheweth the cud. The problem of scientific accuracy is not involved here, for the Scriptures speak in the language of the people. To their way of thinking, the hare appeared to chew the cud. When we say that the sun “sets” no one considers us scientifically in error, though, strictly speaking, the sun does not “set” at all. A whale is sometimes called a “fish,” when technically it is not a fish but a mammal. The Bible should not be criticized and called unscientific when it uses common expressions.

7. The swine. Of all animals prohibited by law, the swine was considered the most unclean (see Isa. 65:3, 4; 66:17). This is not the place to discuss at length the harm of eating swine’s flesh. For the Christian it is sufficient to stress God’s attitude toward it. There must be something unwholesome about the use of swine’s flesh, or God would not speak as He does. He created the swine and knows what they are. He prohibits their use as food.

Christ did not think highly of swine or He would not have permitted the destruction of some 2,000 of them (Matt. 8:31, 32; Mark 5:13). We do not know the monetary value of those swine. Today they would bring a considerable sum of money, and no doubt represented a large investment then. Two men had been restored in mind and body, but at the cost of 2,000 swine. Christ considered the men worth it; the people thought otherwise.

Whatever men may think of swine’s flesh as an acceptable article of diet, God here disapproves of it. God does not change His mind (Mal. 3:6); and it is certain that swine have not changed their nature. We do well to heed His counsel.

9. Fins and scales. God would have His people make use only of those foods that are best for them. Here He differentiates between the clean and unclean creatures that inhabit the waters. Those that have both fins and scales He places on one side, and those lacking either or both, on the other. By indicating those that may be eaten, He thus eliminates all others.

13. The fowls. No general rule is given for distinguishing between clean and unclean birds. Those prohibited, 20 in number, are simply named, the inference possibly being that all others are permitted. Some commentators believe, however, that the list of 20 was not intended to be exhaustive, but that it refers only to those with which the Hebrews were acquainted.

The ossifrage. This and the osprey are both birds of prey, and are therefore unacceptable as food.

14. The kite. A bird of prey belonging to the falcon family, having pointed wings and a long forked tail.

After his kind. This expression indicates all members of basic types, of each of which but one is named (see vs. 15, 16, 22).

16. The owl. Probably the ostrich, as in the margin of Job 30:29; Isa. 34:13; 43:20. It should be noted that differences of opinion exist as to the identity of some of the birds listed.

The cuckow. Probably the sea gull.

17. The little owl. From a Hebrew word different from the word translated “owl” in v. 16, and probably translated correctly here.

The great owl. Perhaps the ibis or the Egyptian eagle owl.

18. The swan. Possibly the glossy ibis or the water hen. The ASV gives it as “horned owl.”

The gier eagle. Most likely the Egyptian vulture, a bird of unclean and disgusting habits.

19. The heron. This denotes a bird of greedy habits, probably the plover.

The lapwing. This may be another variety of plover, or perhaps the “hoopoe” (LXX and RSV), a bird with a slender, curved bill.

The bat. Here classed among the birds, though it is a quadruped, probably because of its flight habits.

20. Fowls that creep. That is, “winged insects” (RSV), or creeping things that have wings.

22. The beetle. Probably the cricket or a species of locust.

The four insects here listed were commonly used as food in ancient times, as they are today, in the Orient. They were prepared in different ways. Usually they were thrown alive into boiling water with salt in it, and the heads, wings, and legs were pulled off. Then they were roasted, baked, stewed, or fried for immediate use, or were dried, smoked, and stored. They were eaten with salt, or with spice and vinegar. In some Oriental markets today dried locusts are sold by weight or by number, strung on a thread.

23. All other flying creeping things. That is, winged insects other than those specifically named. The fact that many insects carry disease accounts for the scrupulous care to be taken after coming in contact with them (vs. 23–25).

29. Creeping things. This is a miscellaneous group including reptiles, rodents, and other creatures.

The weasel. The Hebrew word thus translated designates an animal that glides or slips away, and thus fits the weasel.

The mouse. Probably what we mean by “mouse,” though it doubtless includes other small rodents, such as rats.

The tortoise. Better, the great lizard, or possibly the “land crocodile” (LXX). It is a large lizard, often 2 ft. long. Even today the Arabs make a broth of its fresh flesh. In other countries the flesh is dried and used as a charm or medicine.

30. The ferret. The word thus translated occurs here only in the OT. It probably refers to the gecko or wall lizard. It emits a plaintive wail, and its toes are equipped with vacuum cups that enable it to adhere to vertical surfaces.

The chameleon. The word thus translated means “the strong one.” Some think this refers to the frog, from the great muscular power it exhibits in leaping. Others consider it as being the land crocodile (see on v. 29).

The lizard. Probably the same as found in most countries. There are many kinds, and all are here included in the general term “lizard.”

The snail. Probably a species of “lizard” (LXX).

The mole. From tinshemeth, “lizard” or “chameleon.”

39. If any beast. The prohibition against touching a dead body applied also to the carcass of a beast whose flesh might be eaten.

40. He that eateth. It is here implied that some might eat the flesh of an animal that dies of itself. The law strictly forbade the use by anyone of “any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field” (Ex. 22:31). The priests were to eat nothing that “dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts” (Lev. 22:8). Nevertheless, there might be cases where it was eaten, perhaps unknowingly or from economic necessity. As eating it was a matter of ceremonial defilement, provision was made for ceremonial cleansing.

The prohibition against eating that which was torn of beasts or died of itself was doubtless based on the fact that in such cases the blood would largely remain in the carcass and not be drained out.

44. Ye shall be holy. Apparently there is a close connection between holiness and dietary habits. Holiness therefore includes obedience to the laws of God that relate to the physical being.

additional note on chapter 11

By some it is thought beneath the dignity of God to stoop to give directions in regard to man’s diet. Why should God be concerned about what we eat?

We might enlarge that conception by inquiring why God should be interested in man at all. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” wondered the psalmist of old (Ps. 8:4). Christ answered that question, informing us that God is interested not in man alone but in many things of even less value (Luke 12:7).

Man is made in the image of God. Sparrows are not. Man is said to be precious in the sight of God, and of more value than “fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir” (Isa. 13:12; 43:4). The measure of God’s estimate of man is shown in the fact that He identifies Himself with man. “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye” (Zech. 2:8). The further fact that God paid such a tremendous price to redeem man, is, to the Christian, indicative of the value God places on him. We may therefore be confident that anything concerning man is of interest to God.

God’s dietary laws are not, as some suppose, merely negative and prohibitory. God intends that man shall have the best of everything, the “finest of the wheat” (Ps. 81:16; 147:14). He who created all things knows what is best for the creatures He has made, and according to His knowledge He gives counsel and recommendations. “No good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly” (Ps. 84:11). What God forbids is not withheld in arbitrariness, but for the good of man. Men may disdain God’s counsel, but experience and results ever demonstrate His wisdom.

God gave man a wonderful body with almost unlimited possibilities, and also with many delicate parts that must be carefully shielded from abuse if they are to function properly. In the body itself He has provided for the care and maintenance of the parts, and even for their renewal if His directions are followed. In many cases it is possible to begin a process of rehabilitation even after the body has been misused for years. The recuperative powers of nature are amazing. The moment an injury comes to any part, the life forces of the body immediately go to work to repair the damage. Physicians may assist and do much good, but they do not have healing power. All they can do in many cases is to stand aside and let God work.

Some insist that God is more interested in the soul of man than in his body, that spiritual values are superior to the physical. This is true, but it should be remembered that body and soul are closely interrelated, that the one powerfully affects the other, and that it is not always easy to tell where one begins and the other ends. Though we agree that the spiritual man is of supreme importance, we do not think that therefore the body is to be neglected. Such, indeed, was the philosophy of certain medieval “saints” who mortified the body for the benefit of the soul; but that was not God’s plan. He put body and soul together for the mutual benefit of each.

The statement that as a man “thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7) touches the fundamental issues of life. A man is what he thinks. Is thinking a physical process? Can there be thought apart from a mechanism of some kind to do the thinking? Whatever thinking may be, it determines conduct. If a man thinks along right lines, his conduct is likely to be right. If his mind dwells on evil things, his deeds will likely be evil.

Does the body have any influence on a man’s thinking? Most decidedly. All know that the use of intoxicating liquors affects a man’s thinking as well as his actions. It warps his judgment and tends to make him irresponsible. His mind does not function as when he is sober, his faculties are not working normally, all his reactions are retarded. If he drives an automobile he becomes a menace to others, and a potential killer (see on ch. 10:9).

Most men admit that drinking has bad effects. May wrong eating habits have similar effects? Yes, even if not in the same degree as alcohol. Food affects a man’s behavior as well as his thinking. Many a boy has received a whipping because father’s toast was burned and his coffee weak or cold. Many a divorce can be traced to the culinary department of the house. Salesmen do not expect big orders from dyspeptic prospects. The shrewd lawyer knows that there is a right time to approach a venal judge for favorable consideration; and diplomats and statesmen know the value of a sumptuous banquet. If wine and food are cunningly combined, agreements may be arrived at that would never have been signed had the contracting parties been in possession of their normal faculties. Such agreements have cursed the world for generations.

Does food affect the mind? Do eating and drinking affect the spirit? Most assuredly. A sour outlook on life often comes from a sour stomach. Right eating will not necessarily produce a sweet disposition; but wrong eating makes it hard to measure up to the standard set by God.

God’s dietary laws are not arbitrary enactments that deprive man of the joy of eating. Rather, they are sound, sensible laws that man will do well to heed if he wishes to retain health, or perhaps regain it. On the whole it will be found that the food God approves is the same food men have found best, and that disagreement does not come in the things approved, but in the things forbidden.

These dietary statutes were given to Israel of old, and were adapted to their conditions. Most Jews still adhere to them, and they have served well for more than 3,000 years. The physical condition of the Jews bears witness to the fact that these rules are not obsolete and outdated, if their purpose is to produce a people singularly free from many of the diseases that plague men today. Despite the persecutions and hardships suffered by the Jews, above those suffered by any other nation on the face of the earth, and over a longer time, they are, generally speaking, a virile race. This fact is at least partly explained by their obedience to God’s dietary laws set forth in Lev. 11.

The laws imparted to Israel at Sinai dealt with all aspects of their duty toward God and man. These laws may be classified as follows:

1. Moral. The principles expressed in the Decalogue reflect the divine character, and are as immutable as God Himself (see Matt. 5:17, 18; Rom. 3:31).

2. Ceremonial. These laws were concerned with a system of worship that prefigured the cross, and accordingly expired at that time (Col. 2:14–17; Heb. 7:12).

3. Civil. These laws applied the broad principles of the Ten Commandments to the economy of ancient Israel as a nation. Though this code became inoperative when ancient Israel ceased to be a nation and has not been reinstated as such in the modern, nontheocratic state of Israel, yet the fundamental principles of justice and equity involved are still valid.

4. Health. The dietary principles of Lev. 11, together with other sanitary and health regulations, were intended by a wise Creator to promote health and longevity (see Ex. 15:26; 23:25; Deut. 7:15; Ps. 105:37; PP 378). Based as they are upon the nature and requirements of the human body, these principles could in no way be affected either by the cross or by the disappearance of Israel as a nation. Principles that contributed to health 3,500 years ago will produce the same results today.

The sincere Christian considers his body to be the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19, 20). Appreciation of this fact will lead him, among other things, to eat and drink to the glory of God, that is, to regulate his diet according to God’s revealed will (1 Cor. 9:27; 10:31). Thus he must, to be consistent, accept and obey the principles set forth in Lev. 11.

Ellen G. White comments

1-8DA 617

7, 8 CD 30, 392; CH 116; IT 206; 2T 96