Bible Commentary

Leviticus 11:1-47

The Pulpit Commentary on Leviticus 11:1-47

The Pulpit Commentary · Joseph S. Exell and contributors · Public domain

PART III UNCLEANNESS, CEREMONIAL AND MORAL: ITS REMOVAL OR ITS PUNISHMENT

SECTION I

EXPOSITION

THE two preceding parts having made manifest the way of approach to God by means of sacrifice and the appointed priesthood of mediation, there follows a part having for its subject that which keeps man apart from God, namely, uncleanness, whether ceremonial uncleanness, which may be removed by ceremonial observances, or moral uncleanness, that is, unrighteousness, which, so far as it is a ceremonial offense, may be also dealt with ceremonially, but in respect to its moral character demands punishment. This part consists of four sections. The first section, comprising chapters 11-15, treats of ceremonial uncleanness, caused

The second section deals with the uncleanness contracted every year by the whole congregation, to be annually atoned for on the great Day of Atonement (), followed by a parenthetical chapter as to the place in which sacrifice is to be offered—sacrifice being the means by which purification from uncleanness is to be effected (). The third section is on moral uncleanness, or sin (, ), and its punishment (). The fourth relates to the ceremonial and moral uncleanness of priests (, ).

The idea underlying ceremonial uncleanness is not peculiar to the Jews. With the Greeks the idea of moral beauty was borrowed from physical beauty, and the standard of moral excellence was the beautiful. With the Hebrews physical ugliness is taken as the symbol of moral ugliness or deformity: whatever is foul is the type of what is evil. That which we have a natural admiration for is good, said the Greek; that which we have a natural repugnance for represents to us what is evil, said the Hebrew. In either case, taste appears to take the place of moral judgment; but in Greek philosophy, moral taste and moral judgment had come to be identical, while the Hebrew knew that what taste condemned was not therefore of itself evil, but only symbolical and representative of evil.

Another principle underlies the Hebrew theory of uncleanness. It is that whatever is itself foul, and therefore symbolical of sin, conveys the quality of foulness, and therefore of ceremonial uncleanness to any one it comes in contact with, and often to anything which it touches. Thus a dead body, quickly assuming a loathsome appearance in the East, where the setting in of corruption is very rapid, is unclean itself, and conveys uncleanness to those who touch it. The leper is unclean, and transmits uncleanness by his touch; and certain foul diseases and fluxes from the human body have the same effect. These and such like things, being always repulsive, always cause uncleanness; but there are others which, while in some associations they are utterly repellent, in others are not so. For example, there are some vermin and insects which are pretty to the eye, but the thought of eating them creates a natural feeling of disgust. These, in so far as they are not repulsive, that is, as creeping or flying creatures, are not unclean, nor does their touch produce uncleanness, but as objects of food they are "an abomination."

Hence we are able to explain the distinction of clean and unclean animals. It does not rest upon a sanitary basis, though the prohibition to eat carnivorous and other animals repulsive to the taste is probably in accordance with the rules of health. Nor is it based on political reasons, though it is probable that the distinction kept the Jews apart kern other nations, and so served an important political purpose. Nor is the injunction in the main theological, though we know that in later times the favourite interpretation was that the clean animals represented the Jews, and the unclean animals the Gentiles (). Rather it was that certain creatures were forbidden because they were offensive to the taste, and, being so offensive, they were symbolical of vicious things, which must be avoided, lest they make those that partake of them or touch them to become vicious like themselves.

contain the regulations relating to the eating of quadrupeds; , those relating to fish; , those relating to birds; , those relating to flying insects; , , those relating to unwinged creeping things; verses 41-44, those relating to vermin. and -40 extend the defiling effect to the simple touch of the dead carouses of animals, whether edible or not.

Recommended reading

More for Leviticus 11:1-47

Continue with other commentaries and DiscipleDeck content connected to this verse, chapter, or topic.

commentaryMatthew Henry on Leviticus 11:1-47These laws seem to have been intended, 1. As a test of the people's obedience, as Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge; and to teach them self-denial, and the government of their appetites. 2. To keep the…Matthew HenrycommentaryDistinction of Meats. (b. c. 1490.)DISTINCTION OF MEATS. (B. C. 1490.) Now that Aaron was consecrated a high priest over the house of God, God spoke to him with Moses, and appointed them both as joint-commissioners to deliver his will to the people. He s…Matthew HenrycommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Leviticus 11:1The Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron. Aaron, having now been consecrated high priest, is joined with Moses as the recipient of the laws on cleanness and uncleanness in Le Leviticus 11:1; Leviticus 13:1; Leviticus 14:3…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Leviticus 11:2These are the beasts that ye shall eat. In order that the Israelites might know how to avoid the uncleanness arising from the consumption of unclean flesh, plain rules are given them by which they may distinguish what f…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Leviticus 11:5The coney, Hebrew, shaphan; the Hyrax Syriacus, or wabr, still called in Southern Arabia tsofun, a little animal similar to but not identical with the rabbit. "They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Leviticus 11:6The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, There is little doubt that the same animal as our hare is meant. Neither the hare, however, nor the hyrax chews the cud in the strict sense of the words.…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Leviticus 11:7The swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted. Here, again, the description is not according to anatomical analysis, but to ordinary appearance. The pig appears to be cloven-footed, and it would be misleadin…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Leviticus 11:8Of their carcass shall ye not touch. This prohibition is founded upon the same feeling of disgust as the prohibition of eating their flesh. Whatever is foal must be avoided.Joseph S. Exell and contributors