Leviticus 11 (Non-exhaustive)

Bei She'an Valley, Israel (Google Images)

I wish to visit Israel and Asia one day.

I listen to an audio Bible presentation online and was somewhat intrigued by Leviticus 11.

Verses 1-23

11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, ² “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. ³ Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. ⁴ Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ⁵ And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ⁶ And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ⁷ And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. ⁸ You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

⁹ “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. ¹⁰ But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. ¹¹ You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. ¹² Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.
¹³ “And these you shall detest among the birds;^[a] they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle,^[b] the bearded vulture, the black vulture, ¹⁴ the kite, the falcon of any kind, ¹⁵ every raven of any kind, ¹⁶ the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, ¹⁷ the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, ¹⁸ the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, ¹⁹ the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.
²⁰ “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. ²¹ Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. ²² Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. ²³ But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

End

Robert P. Gordon in his Leviticus commentary (1986) states that the priests were required to do more than alter service work as they were also distinguish between 'holy and profane' and 'clean and unclean'. Gordon (1986: 200).

Victor P. Hamilton in Handbook on the Pentateuch (1988) discusses the clean and unclean creatures which is the subject that intrigued me. Fruits and vegetables were part of the human diet in Genesis 1 and were not an aspect of the Chapter, the same for creatures of land and air. Hamilton (1988: 275). Hamilton deduces and provides the opinion human beings became carnivorous after the flood of Genesis 9: 3-5. Hamilton (1988: 275). From the New American Standard Bible is the idea that in verse 3:

'Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.'

Verse four explains not to eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

The English Standard Version is very similar:

'Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.'

Verse four stating not to eat the flesh which is the life, that is the blood.

Hamilton offers four common scholarly proposals for the approach to Leviticus 11:

1. Ethical

He documents Aristeas a first-century Egyptian Hebrew that states the law was ethical as abstaining from blood for example, would keep persons away from violence. Hamilton (1988: 275).

This seems weak philosophically in my opinion. I doubt that would curb sinful nature. Abstaining from blood would be more for health reasons.

2. Aesthetic

Unattractive animals were not likely to be cooked for a meal. Hamilton (1988: 275).

3. Theological

Animals associated with pagan religions were not allowed for Israel. Hamilton (1988: 275).

4. Hygienic

The most cited option. Hamilton (1988: 275).

As reasonably and rationally reasoned out carriers of disease, certain creatures/animals were not good candidates to be eaten. Hamilton (1988: 275). Hamilton mentions in the New Testament/new covenant context the Apostle Peter may very well have been allowed to eat some of these creatures via his vision in Acts 10:14. Hamilton (1988: 276-277).

Rules concerning animals are dealt with in verses 2-8, fish, 9-12, birds, 13-19, and winged insects 13-19. Gordon (1986: 200). Eating of a pig (and so pork) was considered unclean in verse 7. Gordon (1986: 200). It is stated that is quite difficult to find 'uniform principle according to which the creatures were pronounced clean or unclean'. Gordon (1986: 200). The opinion is provided that habits and physical characteristics were not sufficient to make clear distinctions. Gordon (1986: 200). Another suggestion is that hybrid creatures were discounted. Gordon (1986: 200). From the Scripture there does seem to be some pattern is the animals chosen and not...

³ Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. ⁴ Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ⁵

The text Old Testament Survey (Hebrew Bible) mentions that the book of Hebrews, which was written to Jewish Christians and was dealing with the issue of how the this sacrificial system of Leviticus and the old covenant was a shadow of the new covenant of Christ (Hebrews 10). La Sor, Hubbard, Bush (1987: 1590). The old covenant had no actual power to take away sins, however the sacrifice of Christ, the God-Man did once and for all. La Sor, Hubbard, Bush (1987: 1590). The old sacrificial system therefore became obsolete and vanished. La Sor, Hubbard, Bush (1987: 1590).

Hebrews 8: 13 states the old covenant is obsolete.

Contrary to what is at times seen in media from the professional critic or scientific critic of Christianity that quotes Leviticus as if it would be moronic and ignorant for Christians and modern persons to follow the Old Testament laws and the Bible word for word today, this is a misunderstanding, (again because of a lack of serious religious and philosophical academic education in society) as the Bible is not flat. In other words, the Bible is a progressive book with two covenants from a Christian perspective with Leviticus needing to be kept and used in its proper context. I am not an expert on Judaism but different groups within Judaism would handle Leviticus differently depending on the range of interpretations as in conservative to liberal. But I am certain there is a progressive realization within Judaism as well as there has been a transfer from temple and related sacrifices to synagogue.

Inspired by God as true and accurate religious history, in a pre-scientific era Leviticus 11 most likely protects Israel/God's people against unhealthy food practices by making what would be dangerous food choices, at least primarily in those times, religiously unclean. It therefore promotes both healthy food practices and religious observance to the Biblical God of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and makes rational, reasonable sense within its context.

GORDON, ROBERT P. (1986) 'Leviticus' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LA SOR, W.S., D.A HUBBARD and F.W BUSH (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

(Google Images)

Demotivational.com








This is not me when I do martial arts. Classic how he states 'alone'. Has cracked me up for years.