Some types of animal-related or insect-related products during Old Testament times were regarded as “clean” and appropriate to be eaten, whereas other types of animal-related or insect-related products were considered to be “unclean” and, therefore, they were not to be eaten. However, there is some uncertainty as to whether or not the reason for these dietary laws was solely spiritual or if it was also health-related. [Note: We are not addressing meat that had been sacrificed to idols, which we regard as an entirely different matter.]
The following are our paraphrases of the primary scriptures that state which foods are clean and which foods are unclean:
Leviticus 3:17: No fat or blood should be consumed.
Leviticus 7:22, 26: The fat of cattle, goats, and sheep should not be eaten and the blood of neither birds or any other animal should be consumed.
Leviticus 11:3-23, 41-42:
- It is alright to eat the meat of any animal that has a split hoof that is completely divided and that chews the cud, but animals that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof should not be eaten. Examples of the latter include camels, coneys (or hyraxes), rabbits, and pigs.
- It is alright to eat the meat of fish that have fins and scales, but not the meat of any creatures living in water that do not have fins and scales.
- Examples of birds that should not be eaten are eagles, vultures, both red kites and black kites, ravens, virtually every type of owl, gulls, hawks, cormorants, ospreys, storks, herons, hoopoes, and bats.
- Flying insects that should not be eaten if they walk on four legs. However, some insects with jointed legs for hopping on the ground may be eaten. Examples of the latter include locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers.
- Every creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on its feet, is not to be eaten. (Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible indicates that this includes all footless reptiles, and mollusks, snakes of all kinds, snails, slugs, and worms; vermin, such as the weasel, the mouse or the lizard; all insects, except those in the locust family; and myriapods, spiders, and caterpillars.)
Deuteronomy 14:4-20: This scripture passage mostly reiterates what is stated in Leviticus 11, but it also provides the following examples of animals that are alright to eat: oxen, sheep, goats, deer, gazelles, ibexes, and antelopes.
Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible expresses the belief that the aforementioned dietary laws were given for a spiritual reason, rather than for a health reason. Barnes states,
The basis of the obligation to maintain the distinction was the call of the Hebrews to be the special people of Yahweh. It was to be something in their daily life to remind them of the covenant which distinguished them from the nations of the world.
John Calvin’s Commentaries on the Bible reaches essentially the same conclusion, as follows:
Those who imagine that God here had regard to their health, as if discharging the office of a Physician, pervert by their vain speculation the whole force and utility of this law. I allow, indeed, that the meats which God permits to be eaten are wholesome, and best adapted for food; but, both from the preface, in which God admonished them that holiness was to be cultivated by the people whom He had chosen, as also from the (subsequent) abolition of this law, it is sufficiently plain that this distinction of meats was a part of that elementary instruction . . . under which God kept His ancient people.
Likewise, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible asserts,
The purpose of [the dietary] restrictions was not in order to be a list of all harmless foods, although they certainly did prevent the eating of many harmful foods, nor was it in order to declare that what was unclean was necessarily bad in itself, it was in order to set apart His people from all others, and to lift them up from the squalor of the world and from the taint of death. It was to make them holy.
Although Adam Clarke Commentary expresses the belief that the primary purpose of the Old Testament dietary laws was spiritual (i.e., holiness), Clarke also infers that God additionally wanted to protect the health of the Israelites. According to Clarke,
[God is telling the Israelites to] keep yourselves separate from all the people of the earth, that ye may be holy; for I am holy. And this was the grand design of God in all these prohibitions and commands; for these external sanctifications were only the emblems of the internal purity which the holiness of God requires here, and without which none can dwell with him in glory hereafter.
While God keeps the eternal interests of man steadily in view, he does not forget his earthly comfort; he is at once solicitous both for the health of his body and his soul. He has not forbidden certain aliments because he is a Sovereign, but because he knew they would be injurious to the health and morals of his people.
John Gill’s Exposition on the Whole Bible likewise addresses both spiritual aspects and health aspects of the Old Testament dietary laws, as follows:
[God gave the Israelites the dietary] laws; and which, though they are not obligatory upon us, yet may be a direction to us, in the use of what may be most suitable and proper food for us . . . not that we are to suppose, that the case of health was the only reason of delivering out these laws to the children of Israel, for other ends, besides that, may be thought to be had in view; . . . to lay a restraint on their appetites, to prevent luxury, and to teach them self denial, and compliance with his will; as also to keep them the more from the company and conversation of the Gentiles, by whom they otherwise might be led into idolatry; and to give them an aversion to their idols, to whom the creatures forbidden them to eat, many of them were either now or would be sacred to them. . . .
[The Israelites were to] separate themselves from all other people, and be distinct from them, by using a different diet from theirs, as their Lord and God was different from all others, so called; and thus by observing his commands, and living according to his will, and to his glory, they would be holy in a moral sense, . . . particularly by attending to the above laws concerning food. . . .
Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible expresses a viewpoint similar to those of Clarke and Gill. Poole declares,
It pleased God to make a difference between clean and unclean, and to restrain the use of them, which he did in general and in part before the flood . . .; but more fully and particularly here for many reasons, as,To assert his own sovereignty over man, and over all the creatures, which men may not use but with God’s leave, and to inure that stiff-necked people to obedience.
- To assert his own sovereignty over man, and over all the creatures, which men may not use but with God’s leave, and to inure that stiff-necked people to obedience.
- To keep up the wall of partition between the Jews and other nations, which was very useful and necessary for many great and wise purposes.
- That by bridling their appetite in things in themselves lawful, and some of them very desirable and delightful for food, they might be better prepared and enabled to deny themselves in things simply and grossly sinful.
- For the preservation of their health, some of the creatures forbidden being, though used by the neigbbouring [sic] nations, of unwholesome nourishment, especially to the Jews, who were very obnoxious to leprosies, which some of these meats are apt to produce and foment.
- For moral signification, to teach them to abhor that filthiness and all those ill qualities for which some of these creatures are noted.
One additional scripture to consider is Acts 10:9-28, which may be regarded by some people as a revelation from God to Peter that it was alright for Peter to eat the types of meat that previously the Jews and other Hebrews had been forbidden to eat. However, the last several verses in this scripture passage make it clear that this was not the reason for the vision. The purpose of the vision was to teach Peter that God is concerned about the wellbeing of not only His “chosen people” (i.e., the Jews), but also the people who are not Jews (i.e., the gentiles, whom the Jews for centuries had regarded as unclean).
Conclusion
Although the Old Testament dietary laws probably were given primarily for a spiritual reason, there is rationale for believing that God also wanted to prevent His people from eating animal-related and insect-related products that could be unhealthy for them, given their limited food sanitation and preservation capabilities before modern times.
In our society today, there does not seem to be a valid reason to believe that eating most types of previously forbidden foods will adversely affect either a person’s spiritual condition or their physical health. David Guzik’s Commentary on the Bible declares, “Christians are free to eat or not eat whatever they please – and no one should think themselves more right with God because they eat or don’t eat certain things.” Furthermore, government inspections, as well as modern sanitation and preservation methods, have virtually eliminated the types of foods that need to be avoided because of health concerns.
Lending weight to the belief that the Old Testament dietary laws regarding certain types of foods are no longer in effect is the fact that, unlike some of the other Old Testament laws, the dietary laws are not reiterated or otherwise validated in the New Testament. This is especially significant if the dietary laws had primarily a spiritual basis.