CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
ANIMALS, AND DEFILEMENT BY DEAD BODIES
Lev 11:1-47
WITH chapter 11 begins a new section of this book, extending to
the end of chapter 15, of which the subject is the law concerning
various bodily defilements, and the rites appointed for their
removal.
The law is given under four heads, as follows:
I. Clean and Unclean Animals, and Defilement by Dead Bodies: chapter
11.
II. The Uncleanness of Childbirth: chapter 12.
III. The Uncleanness of Leprosy: chapters 13, 14.
IV. The Uncleanness of Issues: chapter 15.
From the modern point of view this whole subject appears to many,
with no little reason, to be encompassed with peculiar difficulties.
We have become accustomed to think of religion as a thing so
exclusively of the spirit, and so completely independent of bodily
conditions, provided that these be not in their essential nature
sinful, that it is a great stumbling block to many that God should
be represented as having given to Israel an elaborate code of laws
concerning such subjects as are treated in these five chapters of
Leviticus: a legislation which, to not a few, seems puerile and
unspiritual, if not worse. And yet, for the reverent believer in
Christ, who remembers that our blessed Lord did repeatedly refer to
this book of Leviticus as, without any exception or qualification,
the Word of His Father, it should not be hard, in view of this fact,
to infer that the difficulties which most of us have felt are
presumably due to our very imperfect knowledge of the subject.
Remembering this, we shall be able to approach this part of the law
of Moses, and, in particular, this chapter, with the spirit, not of
critics, but of learners, who know as yet but little of the
mysteries of God’s dealings with Israel or with the human race.
Chapter 11 may be divided into two sections, together with a
concluding appeal and summary (Lev 11:41-47). The first section
treats of the law of the clean and the unclean in relation to eating
(Lev 11:1-23). Under this head, the animals which are permitted or
forbidden are classified, after a fashion not scientific, but purely
empirical and practical, into
(1) the beasts which are upon the earth (Lev 11:2-8);
(2) things that are in the waters (Lev 11:9-12);
(3) flying things, -comprising, first, birds and flying animals like
the bat (Lev 11:13-19); and, secondly, insects, "winged creeping
things that go upon all four" (Lev 11:20-23).
The second section treats of defilement by contact with the dead
bodies of these, whether unclean (Lev 11:24-38), or clean (Lev
11:39-40).
Of the living things among the beasts that are upon the earth (Lev
11:2-8), those are permitted for food which both chew the cud and
divide the hoof; every animal in which either of these marks is
wanting is forbidden. Of the things which live in the waters, those
only are allowed for food which have both fins and scales; those
which lack either of these marks, such as, for example, eels,
oysters, and all the mollusca and crustacea, are forbidden (Lev
11:9-12). Of flying things (Lev 11:13-19) which may be eaten, no
special mark is given; though it is to be noted that nearly all of
those which are by name forbidden are birds of prey, or birds
reputed to be unclean in their habits. All insects, "winged creeping
things that go upon all four" (Lev 11:20), or "whatsoever hath many
feet," or "goeth upon the belly," as worms, snakes, etc., are
prohibited (Lev 11:42). Of insects, a single class, described as
those "which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the
earth," is excepted (Lev 11:21-22): these are known to us as the
order Saltatoria, including, as typical examples, the cricket, the
grasshopper, and the migratory locust; all of which, it may be
noted, are clean feeders, living upon vegetable products only. It is
worthy of notice that the law of the clean and the unclean in food
is not extended, as it was in Egypt, to the vegetable kingdom.
The second section of the chapter (Lev 11:24-40) comprises a number
of laws relating chiefly to defilement by contact with the dead
bodies of animals. In these regulations, it is to be observed that
the dead body, even of a clean animal, except when killed in
accordance with the law, so that its blood is all drained out (Lev
17:10-16), is regarded as defiling him who touches it; while, on the
other hand, even an unclean animal is not held capable of imparting
defilement by mere contact, so long as it is living. Very minute
charges are given (Lev 11:29-38) concerning eight species of unclean
animals, of which six (Lev 11:20, Lev 11:30, R.V) appear to be
different varieties of the lizard family. Regarding these, it is
ordered that not only shall the person be held unclean who touches
the dead body of one of them (Lev 11:31), but also anything becomes
unclean on which such a dead body may fall, whether household
utensil, or food, or drink (Lev 11:32-35). The exception only is
made (Lev 11:36-38), that fountains, or wells of water, or dry seed
for sowing, shall not be held to be by such defiled.
That which has been made unclean must be put into water and be
unclean until the even (Lev 11:32); with the exception that nothing
which is made of earthenware, whether a vessel, or an oven, or a
range, could be thus cleansed; for the obvious reason that the water
could not adequately reach the interior of its porous material. It
must therefore be broken in pieces (Lev 11:33-34). If a person be
defiled by any of these, he remained unclean until the even (Lev
11:31). No washing is prescribed, but, from analogy, is probably to
be taken for granted.
Such is a brief summary of the law of the clean and the unclean as
contained in this chapter. To preclude adding needless difficulty to
a difficult subject, the remark made above should be specially
noted, -that so far as general marks are given by which the clean is
to be distinguished from the unclean, these marks are evidently
selected simply from a practical point of view, as of easy
recognition by the common people, for whom a more exact and
scientific mode of distinction would have been useless. We are not
therefore for a moment to think of cleanness or uncleanness as
causally determined, for instance, by the presence or absence of
fins or scales, or by the habit of chewing the cud, and the dividing
of the hoof, or the absence of these marks, as if they were
themselves the ground of the cleanness or uncleanness, in any
instance. For such a fancy as this, which has diverted some
interpreters from the right line of investigation of the subject,
there is no warrant whatever in the words of the law, either here or
elsewhere.
Than this law concerning things clean and unclean nothing will seem
to many, at first, more alien to modern thought, or more
inconsistent with any intelligent view of the world and of man’s
relation to the things by which he is surrounded. And, especially,
that the strict observance of this law should be connected with
religion, and that, upon what professes to be the authority of God,
it should be urged on Israel on the ground of their call to be a
holy people to a holy God, -this, to the great majority of Bible
readers, certainly appears, to say the least, most extraordinary and
unaccountable. And yet the law is here, and its observance is
enforced by this very consideration: for we read (Lev 11:43-44): "Ye
shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that
creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that
ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Lord your God: sanctify
yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy." And, in any
case, explain the matter as we may, many will ask, How, since the
New Testament formally declares this law concerning clean and
unclean beasts to be no longer binding, {Col 2:16; Col 2:20-23} is
it possible to imagine that there should now remain anything in this
most perplexing law which should be of spiritual profit still to a
New Testament believer? To the consideration of these questions,
which so naturally arise, we now address ourselves.
First of all, in approaching this subject it is well to recall to
mind the undeniable fact, that a distinction in foods as clean and
unclean, that is, fit and unfit for man’s use, has a very deep and
apparently irremovable foundation in man’s nature. Even we
ourselves, who stumble at this law, recognise a distinction of this
kind, and regulate our diet accordingly; and also, in like manner,
feel, more or less, an instinctive repugnance to dead bodies. As
regards diet, it is true that when the secondary question arises as
to what particular animals shall be reckoned clean or unclean, fit
or unfit for food, nations and tribes differ among themselves, as
also from the law of Moses, in a greater or less degree;
nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that such a distinction
is recognised among all nations of culture; and that, on the other
hand, in those who recognise it not, and who eat, as some do,
without discrimination, whatever chances to come to hand, -insects,
reptiles, carrion, and so on, - this revolting indifference in the
matter of food is always associated with gross intellectual and
moral degradation. Certainly these indisputable facts should suffice
to dispose of the charge of puerility, as sometimes made against the
laws of this chapter.
And not only this, but more is true. For while even among nations of
the highest culture and Christian enlightenment many animals are
eaten, as, e.g., the oyster, the turtle, the flesh of the horse and
the hog, which the law of Moses prohibits; on the other hand, it
remains true that, with the sole exception of creatures of the
locust tribe, the animals which are allowed for food by the Mosaic
code are reckoned suitable for food by almost the entire human
family. A notable exception to the fact is indeed furnished in the
case of the Hindoos, and also the Buddhists (who follow an Indian
religion), who, as a rule, reject all animal food, and especially,
in the case of the former, the flesh of the cow, as not to be eaten.
But this exception is quite explicable by considerations into which
we cannot here enter at length, but which do not affect the
significance of the general fact.
And, again, on the other hand, it may also be said that, as a
general rule, the appetite of the great majority of enlightened and
cultivated nations revolts against using as food the greater part of
the animals which this code prohibits. Birds of prey, for instance,
and the carnivora generally, animals having paws, and reptiles, for
the most part, by a kind of universal instinct among cultivated
peoples, are judged unfit for human food.
The bearing of these facts upon our exposition is plain. They
certainly suggest, at least, that this law of Leviticus 11 may,
after all, very possibly have a deep foundation both in the nature
of man and that of the things permitted or forbidden; and they also
raise the question as to how far exceptions and divergencies from
this law, among peoples of culture, may possibly be due to a
diversity in external physical and climatic conditions, because of
which that which may be wholesome and suitable food in one place-the
wilderness of Sinai, or Palestine, for instance-may not be wholesome
and suitable in other lands, under different physical conditions. We
do not yet enter into this question, but barely call attention to
it, as adapted to check the hasty judgment of many, that such a law
as this is necessarily puerile and unworthy of God.
But while it is of no small consequence to note this agreement in
the fundamental ideas of this law with widely extended instincts and
habits of mankind, on the other hand, it is also of importance to
emphasise the contrast which it exhibits with similar codes of law
among other peoples. For while, as has just been remarked, there are
many most suggestive points of agreement between the Mosaic
distinctions of clean and unclean and those of other nations, on the
other hand, remarkable contrasts appear, even in the ease of those
people with whom, like the Egyptians, the Hebrews had been most
intimately associated. In the Egyptian system of dietary law, for
instance, the distinction of clean and unclean in food was made to
apply, not only in the animal, but also in the vegetable world; and,
again, while all fishes having fins and scales are permitted as food
in the Mosaic law, no fishes whatever are permitted by the Egyptian
code. But more significant than such difference in details is the
difference in the religious conception upon which such distinctions
are based. In Egypt, for example, animals were reckoned clean or
unclean according as they were supposed to have more predominant the
character of the good Osiris or of the evil Typhon. Among the
ancient Persians, those were reckoned clean which were supposed to
be the creation of Ormazd, the good Spirit, and those unclean whose
origin was attributed to Ahriman, the evil Spirit. In India, the
prohibition of flesh as food rests on pantheistic assumptions. Not
to multiply examples, it is easy to see that, without anticipating
anything here with regard to the principle which determined the
Hebrew distinctions, it is certain that of such dualistic or
pantheistic principles as are manifested in these and other
instances which might be named, there is not a trace in the Mosaic
law. How significant and profoundly instructive is the contrast
here, will only fully appear when we see what in fact appears to
have been the determining principle in the Mosaic legislation.
But when we now seek to ascertain upon what principle certain
animals were permitted and others forbidden as food, it must be
confessed that we have before us a very difficult question, and one
to which, accordingly, very diverse answers have been given. In
general, indeed, we are expressly told that the object of this
legislation, as of all else in this book of laws, was moral and
spiritual. Thus, we are told in so many words (Lev 11:43-45) that
Israel was to abstain from eating or touching the unclean, on the
ground that they were to be holy, because the Lord their God was
holy. But to most this only increases the difficulty. What possible
connection could there be between eating, or abstinence from eating,
animals which do not chew the cud, or fishes which have not scales,
and holiness of life?
In answer to this question, some have supposed a mystical connection
between the soul and the body, such that the former is defiled by
the food which is received and assimilated by the latter. In support
of this theory, appeal has been made to verse 44 of this chapter
(Lev 11:44), which, in the Septuagint translation, is rendered
literally: "Ye shall not defile your souls." But, as often in
Hebrew, the original expression here is simply equivalent to our
compound pronoun "yourselves," and is therefore so translated both
in the Authorised and the Revised Versions. As for any other proof
of such a mystical evil influence of the various kinds of food
prohibited in this chapter, there is simply none at all.
Others, again, have sought the explication of these facts in the
undoubted Divine purpose of keeping Israel separate from other
nations; to secure which separation this special dietetic code, with
other laws regarding the clean and the unclean, was given them. That
these laws have practically helped to keep the children of Israel
separate from other nations, will not be denied; and we may
therefore readily admit, that inasmuch as the food of the Hebrews
has differed from that of the nations among whom they have dwelt,
this separation of the nation may therefore have been included in
the purpose of God in these regulations. However, it is to be
observed that in the law itself the separation of Israel from other
nations is represented, not as the end to be attained by the
observance of these food laws, but instead, as a fact already
existing, which is given as a reason why they should keep these
laws. {Lev 20:24-25} Moreover, it will be found impossible, by
reference to this principle alone, to account for the details of the
laws before us. For the question is not merely why there should have
been food laws, but also why these laws should have been such as
they are? The latter question is not adequately explained by
reference to God’s purpose of keeping Israel separate from the
nations.
Some, again, have held that the explanation of these laws was to be
found simply in the design of God, by these restrictions, to give
Israel a profitable moral discipline in self-restraint and control
of the bodily appetites; or to impose, in this way, certain
conditions and limitations upon their approach to Him. which should
have the effect of deepening in them the sense of awe and reverence
for the Divine majesty of God, as their King. Of this theory it may
be said, as of the last-named, that there can be no doubt that in
fact these laws did tend to secure these ends; but that yet, on the
other hand, the explanation is still inadequate, inasmuch as it only
would show why restrictions of some kind should have been ordered,
and not, in the least, why the restrictions should have been such,
in detail, as we have here.
Quite different from any of these attempted explanations is that of
many who have sought to explain the law allegorically. We are told
by such that Israel was forbidden the flesh of certain animals,
because they were regarded as typifying by their character certain
sins and vices, as, on the other hand, those which were permitted as
food were regarded as typifying certain moral virtues. Hence, it is
supposed by such that the law tended to the holiness of Israel, in
that it was, so to speak, a continual object lesson, a perpetually
acted allegory, which should continually remind them of the duty of
abstaining from the typified sins and of practising the typified
virtues. But, assuredly, this theory cannot be carried out. Animals
are in this law prohibited as food whose symbolic meaning elsewhere
in Scripture is not always bad, but sometimes good. The lion, for
example, as having paws, is prohibited as food; and yet it is the
symbol of our blessed Lord, "the Lion of the tribe of Judah." Nor is
there the slightest evidence that the Hebrews ever attached any such
allegorical significance to the various prescriptions of this
chapter as the theory would require. Other expositors allegorise in
a different but no more satisfactory manner. Thus a popular, and, it
must be added, most spiritual and devout expositor, sets forth the
spiritual meaning of the required conjunction of the two marks in
clean animals of the chewing of the cud and the dividing of the hoof
in this wise: "The two things were inseparable in the case of every
clean animal. And as to the spiritual application, it is of the very
last importance in a practical point of view A man may profess to
love and feed upon, to study and ruminate over, the Word of God-the
pasture of the soul; but if his footprints along the pathway of life
are not such as the Word requires, he is not clean."
But it should be evident that such allegorising interpretation as
this can carry with it no authority, and sets the door wide open to
the most extravagant fancy in the exposition of Scripture.
Others, again, find the only principle which has determined the laws
concerning defilement by the dead, and the clean and unclean meats,
to be the presence in that which was reckoned unclean, of something
which is naturally repulsive to men; whether in odour, or in the
food of a creature, or its other habits of life. But while it is
true that such marks distinguish many of the creatures reckoned
unclean, they are wanting in others, and are also found in a few
animals which are nevertheless permitted. If this had been the
determining principle, surely, for example, the law which permitted
for food the he-goat and forbade the horse, would have been exactly
the opposite; while, as regards fishes and insects permitted and
forbidden, it is hard to see any evidence whatever of the influence
of this principle.
Much more plausible, at first sight, and indeed much more nearly
approaching the truth, than any of the theories above criticised, is
one which has been elaborated with no little learning and ingenuity
by Sommer, according to which the laws concerning the clean and the
unclean, whether in regard to food or anything else, are all
grounded in the antithesis of death and life. Death, everywhere in
Holy Scripture, is set in the closest ethical and symbolical
connection with sin. Bodily death is the wages of sin; and inasmuch
as it is the outward physical expression and result of the inner
fact that sin, in its very nature, is spiritual death, therefore the
dead is always held to be unclean; and the various laws enforcing
this thought are all intended to keep before the mind the fact that
death is the visible representation and evidence of the presence of
sin, and the consequent curse of God. Hence, also, it will follow
that the selection of foods must be governed by a reference to this
principle. The carnivora, on this principle, must be forbidden, -as
they are, -because they live by taking the life of other animals;
hence, also, is explained the exclusion of the multitudinous
varieties of the insect world, as feeding on that which is dead and
corrupt. On the other hand, the animals which chew the cud and
divide the hoof are counted clean; inasmuch as the sheep and the
cattle, the chief representatives of this class, were by everyone
recognised as at the furthest possible remove from any such
connection with death and corruption in their mode of life; and
hence the familiar marks which distinguish them, as a matter merely
of practical convenience, were taken as those which must distinguish
every animal lawful for food.
But while this view has been elaborated with great ability and
skill, it yet fails to account for all the facts. It is quite
overlooked that if the reason of the prohibition of carnivorous
birds and quadrupeds is to be found in the fact that they live by
the destruction of life, the same reason should have led to the
prohibition of all fishes without exception, as in Egypt; inasmuch
as those which have fins and scales, no less than others, live by
preying on other living creatures. On the other hand, by the same
principle, all insects which derive their sustenance from the
vegetable world should have been permitted as food, instead of one
order only of these.
Where so much learning and profound thought has been expended in
vain, one might well hesitate to venture anything in exposition of
so difficult a subject, and rest content, as some have, with
declaring that the whole subject is utterly inexplicable. And yet
the world advances in knowledge, and we are therefore able to
approach the subject with some advantage in this respect over
earlier generations. And in the light of the most recent
investigations, we believe it highly probable that the chief
principle determining the laws of this chapter will be found in the
region of hygiene and sanitation, as relating, in this instance, to
diet, and to the treatment of that which is dead. And this in view
of the following considerations.
It is of much significance to note, in the first place, that a large
part of the animals which are forbidden as food are unclean feeders.
It is a well-ascertained fact that even the cleanest animal, if its
food be unclean, becomes dangerous to health if its flesh be eaten.
The flesh of a cow which has drunk water contaminated with. typhoid
germs, if eaten, especially if insufficiently cooked, may
communicate typhoid fever to him who eats it. It is true, indeed,
that not all animals that are prohibited are unclean in their food;
but the fact remains that, on the other hand, among those which are
allowed is to be found no animal whose ordinary habits of life,
especially in respect of food, are unclean.
But, in the second place, an animal which is not unclean in its
habits may yet be dangerous for food, if it be, for any reason,
specially liable to disease. One of the greatest discoveries of
modern science is the fact that a large number of diseases to which
animals are liable are due to the presence of low forms of parasitic
life. To such diseases those which are unclean in their feeding will
be especially exposed, while none will perhaps be found wholly
exempt.
Another discovery of recent times which has a no less important
bearing on the question raised by this chapter is the now
ascertained fact that many of these parasitic diseases are common to
both animals and men, and may be communicated from the former to the
latter. All are familiar with the fact that the smallpox, in a
modified and mild form, is a disease of cattle as well as of men,
and we avail ourselves of this fact in the practice of vaccination.
Scarcely less familiar is the communication of the parasitic
trichinae, which often infest the flesh of swine, to those who eat
such meat. And research is constantly extending the number of such
diseases. Turkeys, we are now told, have the diphtheria, and may
communicate it to men; men also sometimes take from horses the
loathsome disease known as the glanders. Now in the light of such
facts as these, it is plain that an ideal dietary law would, as far
as possible, exclude from human food all animals which, under given
conditions, might be especially liable to these parasitic diseases,
and which, if their flesh should be eaten, might thus become a
frequent medium of communicating them to men.
Now it is a most remarkable and significant fact that the tendency
of the most recent investigations of this subject has been to show
that the prohibitions and permissions of the Mosaic law concerning
food, as we have them in this chapter, become apparently explicable
in view of the above facts. Not to refer to other authorities, among
the latest competent testimonies on this subject is that of Dr. Noel
Gueneau de Mussy, in a paper presented to the Paris Academy of
Medicine in 1885, in which he is quoted as saying:
"There is so close a connection between the thinking being and the
living organism in man, so intimate a solidarity between moral and
material interests, and the useful is so constantly and so
necessarily in harmony with the good, that these two elements cannot
be separated in hygiene It is this combination which has exercised
so great an influence on the preservation of the Israelites, despite
the very unfavourable external circumstances in which they have been
placed The idea of parasitic and infectious maladies, which has
conquered so great a position in modern pathology, appears to have
greatly occupied the mind of Moses, and to have dominated all his
hygienic rules. He excludes from Hebrew dietary animals particulary
liable to parasites; and as it is in the blood that the germs or
spores of infectious disease circulate, he orders that they must be
drained of their blood before serving for food."
If this professional testimony, which is accepted and endorsed by
Dr. Behrends, of London, in his remarkable paper on "Diseases caught
from Butcher’s Meat," be admitted, it is evident that we need look
no further for the explanation of the minute prescriptions of these
dietary laws which we find here and elsewhere in the Pentateuch.
And, it may be added, that upon this principle we may also easily
explain, in a rational way, the very minute prescriptions of the law
with regard to defilement by dead bodies. For immediately upon death
begins a process of corruption which produces compounds not only
obnoxious to the senses, but actively poisonous in character; and
what is of still more consequence to observe, in the case of all
parasitic and infectious diseases, the energy of the infection is
specially intensified when the infected person or animal dies. Hence
the careful regulations as to cleansing of those persons or things
which had been thus defiled by the dead; either by water, where
practicable; or where the thing could not be thus thoroughly
cleansed, then by burning the article with fire, the most certain of
all disinfectants.
But if this be indeed the principle which underlies this law of the
clean and the unclean as here given, it will then be urged that
since the Hebrews have observed this law with strictness for
centuries, they ought to show the evidence of this in a marked
immunity from sickness, as compared with other nations, and
especially from diseases of an infectious character; and a
consequent longevity superior to that of the Gentiles who pay no
attention to these laws. Now it is the fact, and one which evidently
furnishes another powerful argument for this interpretation of these
laws, that this is exactly what we see. In this matter we are not
left to guessing; the facts are before the world, and are
undisputed. Even so long ago as the days when the plague was
desolating Europe, the Jews so universally escaped infection that,
by this their exemption, the popular suspicion was excited into
fury, and they were accused of causing the fearful mortality among
their Gentile neighbours by poisoning the wells and springs. In our
own day, in the recent cholera epidemic in Italy, a correspondent of
the Jewish Chronicle testifies that the Jews enjoyed almost absolute
immunity, at least from fatal attack.
Professor Hosmer says:
"Throughout the entire history of Israel, the wisdom of the ancient
lawgivers in these respects has been remarkably shown. In times of
pestilence the Jews have suffered far less than others; as regards
longevity and general health, they have in every age been
noteworthy, and, at the present day, in the life-insurance offices,
the life of a Jew is said to be worth much more than that of men of
other stock."
Of the facts in the modern world which sustain these statements, Dr.
Behrends gives abundant illustration in the article referred to,
such as the following:
"In Prussia, the mean duration of Jewish life averages five years
more than that of the general population. In Furth, the average
duration of Jewish life is 37, and of Christians 26 years. In
Hungary, an exhaustive study of the facts shows that the average
duration of life with the Croats is 20.2, of the Germans 26.7, but
of the Jews 46.5 years, and that although the latter generally are
poor, and live under much more unfavourable sanitary conditions than
their Gentile neighbours."
In the light of such well-certified facts, the conclusion seems
certainly to be warranted, that at least one chief consideration
which, in the Divine wisdom, determined the allowance or
prohibition, as the food of Israel, of the animals named in this
chapter, has been their fitness or unfitness as diet from a hygienic
point of view, especially regarding their greater or less liability
to have, and to communicate to man, infectious, parasitic diseases.
From this position, if it be justified, we can now perceive a
secondary reference in these laws to the deeper ethical truth which,
with much reason, Sommer has so emphasised; namely, the moral
significance of the great antithesis of death to life; the former
being ever contrasted in Holy Scripture with the latter, as the
visible manifestation of the presence of sin in the world, and of
the consequent curse of God. For whatever tends to weakness or
disease, by that fact tends to death, -to that death which,
according to the Scriptures, is, for man, the penal consequence of
sin. But Israel was called to be a people redeemed from the power of
death to life, a life of full consecration to God. Hence, because
redeemed from death, it was evidently fitting that the Israelite
should, so far as possible in the flesh, keep apart from death, and
all that in its nature tended, or might specially tend, to disease
and death.
It is very strange that it should have been objected to this view,
that since the law declares the reason for these regulations to have
been religious, therefore any supposed reference herein to the
principles of hygiene is by that fact excluded. For surely the
obligation so to live as to conserve and promote the highest bodily
health must be regarded, both from a natural, and a Biblical and
Christian point of view, as being no less really a religious
obligation than truthfulness or honesty. If there appear sufficient
reason for believing that the details of these laws are to be
explained by reference to hygienic considerations, surely this, so
far from contradicting the reason which is given for their
observance, helps us rather the more clearly to see how, just
because Israel was called to be the holy people of a holy God, they
must needs keep this law. For the central idea of the Levitical
holiness was consecration unto God, as the Creator and Redeemer of
Israel, -consecration in the most unreserved, fullest possible
sense, for the most perfect possible service. But the obligation to
such a consecration, as the essence of a holy character, surely
carried with it by necessary consequence, then, as now, the
obligation to maintain all the powers of mind and body also in the
highest possible perfection.
That, as regards the body, and, in no small degree, the mind as
well, this involves the duty of the preservation of health so far as
in our power; and that this, again, is conditioned by the use of a
proper diet, as one factor of prime importance, will be denied by no
one. If, then, sufficient reason can be shown for recognising the
determining influence of hygienic considerations in the laws of this
chapter concerning the clean and the unclean, this fact will only be
in the fullest harmony with all that is said in this connection, and
elsewhere in the law, as to the relation of their observance to
Israel’s holiness as a consecrated nation.
It may very possibly be asked, by way of further objection to this
interpretation of these laws: Upon this understanding of the
immediate purpose of these laws, how can we account for the
selection of such test marks of the clean and the unclean as the
chewing of the cud, and the dividing of the hoof, or having scales
and fins? What can the presence or absence of these peculiarities
have to do with the greater or less, freedom from parasitic disease
of the animals included or excluded in the several classes? To which
question the answer may fairly be given, that the object of the law
was not to give accurately distributed categories of animals,
scientifically arranged, according to hygienic principles, but was
purely practical; namely, to secure, so far as possible, the
observance by the whole people of such a dietary as in the land of
Palestine would, on the whole, best tend to secure perfect bodily
health. It is not affirmed that every individual animal which by
these tests may be excluded from permitted food is therefore to be
held specially liable to disease; but only that the limitation of
the diet by these test marks, as a practical measure, would, on the
whole, secure the greatest degree of immunity from disease to those
who kept the law.
It may be objected, again, by some who have looked into this
question, that, according to recent researches, it appears that
cattle, which occupy the foremost place in the permitted diet of the
Hebrews, are found to be especially liable to tubercular disease,
and capable, apparently, under certain conditions, of communicating
it to those who feed upon their flesh. And it has been even urged
that to this source is due a large part of the consumption which is
responsible for so large part of our mortality. To which objection
two answers may be given. First, and most important, is the
observation that we have as yet no statistics as to the prevalence
of disease of this kind among cattle in Palestine and that,
presumably, if we may argue from the climatic conditions of its
prevalence among men, it would be found far less frequently there
among cattle than in Europe and America. Further, it must be
remembered that, in the case even of clean cattle, the law very
strictly provides elsewhere that the clean animal which is slain for
food shall be absolutely free from disease; so that still we see
here, no less than elsewhere, the hygienic principles ruling the
dietary law.
It will be perhaps objected, again, that if all this be true, then,
since abstinence from unwholesome food is a moral duty, the law
concerning clean and unclean meats should be of universal and
perpetual obligation; whereas, in fact, it is explicitly abrogated
in the New Testament, and is not held to be now binding on anyone.
But the abrogation of the law of Moses touching clean and unclean
food can be easily explained, in perfect accord with all that has
been said as to its nature and intent. In the first place, it is to
be remembered that it is a fundamental characteristic of the New
Testament law as contrasted with that of the Old, that on all points
it leaves much more to the liberty of the individual, allowing him
to act according to the exercise of an enlightened judgment, under
the law of supreme love to the Lord, in many matters which, in the
Old Testament day, were made a subject of specific regulation. This
is true, for instance, regarding all that relates to the public
worship of God, and also many things in the government and
administration of the Church, not to speak of other examples. This
does not indeed mean that it is of no consequence what a man or a
Church may do in matters of this kind; but it is intended thus to
give the individual and the whole Church a discipline of a higher
order than is possible under a system which prescribes a large part
of the details of human action. Subjection to these "rudiments" of
the law, according to the Apostle, belongs to a condition of
religious minority, {Gal 4:1-3} and passes away when the individual,
or the Church, so to speak, attains majority. Precisely so it is in
the case of these dietary and other laws, which, indeed, are
selected by the Apostle Paul {Col 2:20-22} in illustration of this
characteristic of the new dispensation. That such matters of detail
should no longer be made matter of specific command is only what we
should expect according to the analogy of the whole system of
Christian law. This is not, indeed, saying that it is of no
consequence in a religious point of view what a man eats; whether,
for instance, he eat carrion or not, though this, which was
forbidden in the Old Testament, is nowhere expressly prohibited in
the New. But still, as supplying a training of higher order, the New
Testament uniformly refrains from giving detailed commandments in
matters of this kind.
But, aside from considerations of this kind, there is a specific
reason why these laws of Moses concerning diet and defilement by
dead bodies, if hygienic in character, should not have been made, in
the New Testament, of universal obligation, however excellent they
might be. For it is to be remembered that these laws were delivered
for a people few in number, living in a small country, under certain
definite climatic conditions. But it is well known that what is
unwholesome for food in one part of the world may be, and often, is,
necessary to the maintenance of health elsewhere. A class of animals
which under the climatic conditions of Palestine may be specially
liable to certain forms of parasitic disease, under different
climatic conditions may be comparatively free from them. Abstinence
from fat is commanded in the law of Moses, {Lev 3:17} and great
moderation in this matter is necessary to health in hot climates;
but, on the contrary, to eat fat largely is necessary to life in the
polar regions. From such facts as these it would follow, of
necessity, that when the Church of God, as under the new
dispensation, was now to become a worldwide organisation, still to
have insisted on a dietetic law perfectly adapted only to Palestine
would have been to defeat the physical object, and by consequence
the moral end for which that law was given. Under these conditions,
except a special law were to be given for each land and climate,
there was and could be, if we have before us the true conception of
the ground of these regulations, no alternative but to abrogate the
law.
This exposition has been much prolonged; but not until we have
before us a definite conception as to the principle underlying these
regulations, and the relation of their observance to the holiness of
Israel, are we in a position to see and appreciate the moral and
spiritual lessons which they may still have for us. As it is, if the
conclusions to which our exposition has conducted be accepted, such
lessons lie clearly before us. While we have here a law which, as to
the letter, is confessedly abrogated, and which is supposed by the
most to be utterly removed from any present day use for practical
instruction, it is now evident that, annulled as to the letter, it
is yet, as to the spirit and intention of it, in full force and
vital consequence to holiness of life in all ages.
In the first place, this exposition being granted, it follows, as a
present day lesson of great moment, that the holiness which God
requires has to do with the body as well as the soul, even with such
commonplace matters as our eating and drinking. This is so, because
the body is the instrument and organ of the soul, with which it must
do all its work on earth for God, and because, as such, the body, no
less than the soul, has been redeemed unto God by the blood of His
Son. There is, therefore, no religion in neglecting the body, and
ignoring the requirements for its health, as ascetics have in all
ages imagined. Neither is there religion in pampering, and thus
abusing, the body, after the manner of the sensual in all ages. The
principle which inspires this chapter is that which is expressed in
the New Testament by the words: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink,
or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God". {1Co 10:31} If,
therefore, a man needlessly eats such things, or in such a manner,
as may be injurious to health, he sins, and has come short of the
law of perfect holiness. It is therefore not merely a matter of
earthly prudence to observe the laws of health in food and drink and
recreation, in a word, in all that has to do with the appetite and
desires of the body, but it is essential to holiness. We are in all
these things to seek to glorify God, not only in our souls, but also
in our bodies.
The momentous importance of this thought will the more clearly
appear when we recall to mind that, according to the law of Moses,
{Lev 5:2} if a man was defiled by any unclean thing, and neglected
the cleansing ordered by this law, even though it were through
ignorance or forgetfulness, he was held to have incurred guilt
before God. For it was therein declared that when a man defiled by
contact with the dead, or any unclean thing, should for any reason
have omitted the cleansing ordered, his covenant relation with God
could only be reestablished on his presentation of a sin offering.
By parity of reasoning it follows that the case is the same now;
and, that God will hold no man guiltless who violates any of those
laws which He has established in nature as the conditions of bodily
health. He who does this is guilty of a sin which requires the
application of the great atonement.
How needful it is even in our day to remind men of all this, could
not be better illustrated than by the already mentioned argument of
many expositors, that hygienic principles cannot have dominated and
determined the details of these laws, because the law declares that
they are grounded, not in hygiene, but in religion, and have to do
with holiness. As if these two were exclusive, one of the other, and
as if it made no difference in respect to holiness of character
whether a man took care to have a sound body or not!
No less needful is the lesson of this law to many who are at the
opposite extreme. For as there are those who are so taken up with
the soul and its health, that they ignore its relation to the body,
and the bearing of bodily conditions upon character; so there are
others who are so preoccupied with questions of bodily health,
sanitation, and hygiene, regarded merely as prudential measures,
from an earthly point of view, that they forget that man has a soul
as well as a body, and that such questions of sanitation and hygiene
only find their proper place when it is recognised that health and
perfection of the body are not to be sought merely that man may
become a more perfect animal, but in order that thus, with a sound
mind in a sound body, he may the more perfectly serve the Lord in
the life of holiness to which we are called. Thus it appears that
this forgotten law of the clean and the unclean in food, so far from
being, at the beast, puerile, and for us now certainly quite
useless, still teaches us the very important lesson that a due
regard to wholeness and health of body is essential to the right and
symmetrical development of holiness of character. In every
dispensation, the taw of God combines the bodily and the spiritual
in a sacred synthesis. If in the New Testament we are directed to
glorify God in our spirits, we are no less explicitly commanded to
glorify God in our bodies. {1Co 6:20} And thus is given to the laws
of health the high sanction of the Divine obligation of the moral
law, as summed up in the closing words of this chapter: "Be ye holy;
for I am holy."
This law concerning things unclean, and clean and unclean animals,
as thus expounded, is also an apologetic of no small value. It has a
direct and evident hearing on the question of the Divine origin and
authority of this part of the law. For the question will at once
come up in every reflecting mind: Whence came this law? Could it
have been merely an invention of crafty Jewish priests? Or is it
possible to account for it as the product merely of the mind of
Moses? It appears to have been ordered with respect to certain
facts, especially regarding various invisible forms of noxious
parasitic life, in their bearing on the causation and propagation of
disease, - facts which, even now, are but just appearing within the
horizon ofmodern science. Is it probable that Moses knew about these
things three thousand years ago? Certainly, the more we study the
matter, the more we must feel that this is not to be supposed.
It is common, indeed, to explain much that seems very wise in the
law of Moses by referring to the fact that he was a highly educated
man, "instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." But it is just
this fact of his Egyptian education that makes it in the last degree
improbable that he should have derived the ideas of this law from
Egypt. Could he have taken his ideas with regard, for instance, to
defilement by the dead, from a system of education which taught the
contrary, and which, so far from regarding those who had to do with
the dead as unclean, held them especially sacred? And so with regard
to the dietetic laws: these are not the laws of Egypt; nor have we
any evidence that those were determined, like these Hebrew laws, by
such scientific facts as those to which we have referred. In this
day, when, at last, men of all schools, and those with most
scientific knowledge, most of all, are joining to extol the exact
wisdom of this ancient law, a wisdom which has no parallel in like
laws among other nations, is it not in place to press this question?
Whence had this man this unique wisdom, three thousand years in
advance of his times? There are many who will feel compelled to
answer, even as Holy Scripture answers; even as Moses, according to
the record, answers. The secret of this wisdom will be found, not in
the court of Pharaoh, but in the holy tent of meeting; it is all
explained if we but assume that what is written in the first verse
of this chapter is true: "The Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron."
|