Defilements and Cleansing
We now enter on the second great division of the book (xi.-xvi.), which treats of defilements, and the legal manner of cleansing therefrom, and closes with the directions to be observed on the day of atonement.
Sacrifices appointed, and the priests consecrated; Israel are reminded that they are a holy people unto the Lord, and must therefore guard against that which would defile, or be cleansed from defilements, as the case might be. And the first subject that is taken up is that of animal food, which necessarily points out the “difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten” (Lev. 11:47).
After the flood, God gave to man a grant of every moving living creature for food (Gen. 9:3). Here, under the law, He introduces restrictions. Were men, then, contaminated in their souls by the indiscriminate use of animal food? Was that a source of moral defilement? Demons would instil into man's mind that it was. But the Lord has taught us (Matt. 15:18) from whence the moral defilement comes—even from out of the heart of man. Hence abstinence from meats will not promote true piety (1 Tim. 3:16; 4:5). But why these restrictions? Because the law not only places man at a distance from God, and makes him conscious of it; but it also is meant to teach him the great difference between standing on the ground of its observance, and on the ground of grace. How simple and free was the intercourse between the patriarchs and the Lord Jehovah whenever He made Himself known to them; whereas, though He dwelt in the midst of Israel, it was in thick darkness, and they never could get personally into His presence. How free was the grant to Noah and to his sons? How stringent the restrictions placed on Israel! For, since it was Jehovah who brought them up out of the land of Egypt to be their God, they were to be holy, for He was holy (Lev. 11:45). The privilege of being God’s people, which was great, entailed on them responsibilities which were not to be neglected. So it always must be By Israel, as we are told in this chapter, ceremonial defilement was to be carefully avoided. With Christians the danger arises from that which is within (2 Cor. 7:1).
The distinction between clean and unclean animals was known before the flood (Gen. 7:2). Here, however, the Lord for the first time gives marks by which to distinguish them, whilst in Deut. 14:4, 5, Moses, by God's command, mentions the beasts that were clean. The distinguishing marks were two; the one relating to their habit, the other to something which characterized them in their walk. The habit was that of ruminating, or chewing the cud. The characteristic about their walk was that they parted the hoof, and were cloven footed. Thus the habit, and the character of the walk were common to all the beasts of which the Israelites might eat. Such comprised those of the herd, or of the flock, from which alone sacrificial victims could be selected, and the hart, the roebuck or gazelle, and fallow deer, the wild goat, the pygarg or antelope, the wild ox or oryx, the chamois, or perhaps mountain sheep. Of these the hart, roebuck, and fallow deer, were served up daily at Solomon's table (1 Kings 4:23). The rest are not mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament.
To be a beast fit for an Israelite's table, it must have had both the above-mentioned distinguishing marks. The presence of the one without the other, whether real or apparent, would not suffice. We say real or apparent, because though neither the coney nor the hare chew the cud, yet they move their jaws in such a way that a common observer might class them as ruminants with the cow and the camel. So to instruct such as would never be naturalized, the law-giver uses language which is not scientifically correct. He spake in a manner that all could understand. This is often the way in Scripture. By the rules laid down, then, the camel, the coney, the hare, and the pig, were all excluded from the list of beasts fit for the people's food. Of their flesh they were not to eat, nor their carcases were they to touch. They were unclean to them. These directions, however, about clean and unclean, rested not here. All animated nature was thus classified, and in a very simple way. Beasts, fishes, birds, insects, and reptiles, were arranged by the Creator in one or other of these classes.
As to fishes, the possession of both fins and scales were requisite for any of them to be reckoned clean. Of birds, all were clean, except certain kinds which are enumerated. Carnivorous, omnivorous, foul-feeding birds, and night birds were unclean. By this standard, eagles, vultures, ravens, hawks, and owls, were shut out, as well as the ostrich, translated " owl " in verse 16, the gull, translated " cuckoo," the ibis, perhaps translated " swan," and the lapwing or hoopoe. Everything, too, which crept, though it had wings, was forbidden, except such as had legs above their feet to leap withal upon the earth, which comprised, it would seem, four species of locusts, among which the beetle could never be classed, for the word chargol, translated beetle (verse 22), must be taken as the name of some kind of locust. Of creeping things that creep upon the earth, the weasel (or perhaps mole), the mouse, and different kinds of lizards, translated in the authorized version tortoise, ferret, chameleon, snail, and the mole (or perhaps the chameleon) are enumerated as unclean. Besides, however, being merely unclean everyone was to be an abomination unto them, it was not to be eaten. " Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth on all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them shall ye not eat, for they are an abomination ' (verses 41, 42).
No one, then, of the common people, even when made acquainted with the marks which distinguished the clean from the unclean animal, need make any mistake. Scientific distinctions, however correct, or the classification of genera, however full, would have been here out of place. God could have given such by Moses, had it pleased Him! From whence has man derived his knowledge of the things of nature, but from the Creator? (Isa. 28:26). But for the unlearned, the common people, scientific distinctions would have been of little use without a special education, and natural ability to receive it. Now, in no country are all the inhabitants capable of such an attainment. Yet it was necessary that every one in Israel, from the highest to the lowest, should learn about clean and unclean animals. Hence God directed Moses thus to classify them. For it is probable that a ready and a simple way of distinguishing what they might eat and what not, was all that they were intended to understand; coupled, however, with the reminder that enjoying the privilege of being Jehovah's people, they were to keep themselves from being defiled by eating of animals of which Gentiles were free to partake. But we, who are taught in the New Testament deeper lessons than Israel ever were, may draw from these directions about clean and unclean, important teaching for ourselves, learning from the characteristic marks enumerated by Moses, what those moral features are, which in God's sight are regarded as clean.
To chew the cud and to be cloven footed, marked the clean beast. To ponder over the truth we receive, and to walk firmly, and after the pattern of the Lord Jesus, should characterize Christians. “Let this mind' be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." “Be ye followers of me as even I also am of Christ." "Walk so as ye have us for an ensample " (Phil. 2:5, 1 Cor. 11:1, Phil. 3:17). These, and kindred exhortations, treat of uniformity in walk. To have fins and scales characterized clean fishes. Motive power, and guidance to go even against the stream, and to pass through the surrounding element without being hindered by it; such features should be seen in Christians who are exhorted to overcome (Rev. 3), and to resist the snares and attractions of the world (1 John 2:5; 5:6; James 4:4). Carrion eating, foul feeding, omnivorous, and night birds, as well as everything that crept upon the earth, locusts excepted, which had legs above their feet to leap withal upon the earth, were unclean to the Israelite. So the loving of darkness rather than light must be foreign to a Christian; and the having fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness must be wholly eschewed (John 3:19, Eph. 5:11). Carnality, too, is to be avoided. (Gal. 5:19-21, Eph. 5:3,4, Col. 3:5); and that lack of discrimination as to teaching, so common in these days, with the imbibing of any and every form of doctrine, is to be carefully guarded against (1 John 2:20-27, 2 Tim. 4:3, 4), and all groveling propensities are to be avoided (Phil. 3:19). Further, it should be noticed that, whereas the beasts which did not chew the cud, nor were cloven footed, were simply called unclean; the fish, the birds, and the reptiles that were forbidden the people are written of by the law-giver as abominations. Now, whatever the Israelite might have thought of this difference in terms, to us who get moral instruction from this subject, the distinction is intelligible. The absence of the characteristic features of the clean beast in any Christian would indicate something lacking in that person, whereas the presence in any one of such features as characterized the unclean fish, &c., would be manifested by ways and habits which should be wholly foreign to every one who fears the name of Christ.