The Animals That May Or May Not Be Eaten (Leviticus 11:2-8).
“Speak to the children of Israel, saying, These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that may you eat.”
The definition of what of animals can be eaten is simple and clear and could be followed by any Israelite. The ‘perfect' edible animal intended by God as man's food is the one that parts the hoof, is cloven-footed and chews the cud (or more strictly ‘masticates well'). These therefore may be eaten. This is indeed the kind that God intended to be eaten, for He created them as such (Genesis 1:24-25). They are wholesome and can fully satisfy all Israel's need. For these attributes will determine largely what the animals themselves eat and where they tend to roam. They eat grass and vegetation, and walk and feed in places less likely to be ‘unclean' or to be infected by parasites and death. They keep their proper place. They are probably seen as themselves generally avoiding eating ‘unclean' things, or what had been in contact with ‘unclean' things and especially the ‘abominations' as described later.
Examples of such clean animals are given in Deuteronomy 14:4-6. ‘These are the beasts which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck, and the wild goat, and the ibex, and the antelope, and the mountain sheep.' These are still ‘eaters of herbs' (Genesis 1:30). A special group among these are those which can be offered in sacrifice; the ox, the goat and the sheep, the cleanest of the clean. But attention is not drawn to this.
(The goat's sometimes eating habits might be seen to contradict this, but we are to see them as they were seen by the Israelites in their camp, clean grazing animals, eaters of herbs. Their going astray from this was ignored).
But those which are cloven-footed or appear to chew the cud (masticate well), doing one but not both, are less than ‘perfect' and should therefore not be eaten. They are thereby ‘blemished' in one or other aspect of their way of living, and do not keep to their proper sphere. And because God's people are holy, they should therefore eat only what is ‘perfect'.
Thus it is not in the first place a question as to whether they are bad for health, although that might necessarily arise from their lifestyle, it is because the way in which they lack brings them in contact with uncleanness in one way or another, in a way that should not be, and is not so for the clean beasts. For that reason it can be seen that they have not been created for eating purposes for a holy people. They are not ‘cattle' but ‘beasts of the earth' (Genesis 1:24-25).
This is not put up for debate. It is God's demand on the basis that Israel are His people. It may be that pork is delicious and provides protein, that hares can be enjoyable, that camel milk has its own tang, but they are forbidden because they were not created with the intention of being eaten, and because their lifestyles bring them constantly in contact with what is ‘unclean'. And as we shall see, wise were those who obeyed given the circumstances of the time. But the basic purpose of the restriction was also to teach obedience. If God said it, that was what they must do.
“ Nevertheless these shall you not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that part the hoof; the camel, because he chews the cud but does not part the hoof, he is unclean to you. And the rock badger (coney), because he chews the cud but does not part the hoof, he is unclean to you. And the hare, because she chews the cud but does not part the hoof, she is unclean to you. And the pig, because he parts the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but does not chew the cud, he is unclean to you. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.”
Thus they are not to eat the flesh of, or touch the dead carcasses of, the camel, the rock badger, the hare, and the pig. These are all ‘unclean'. They are lacking in one way or the other. They are blemished. And their very adaptation results in their going into unclean places, partaking of unclean things, scrabbling in the dust of death, and thus being generally unclean. They must therefore be avoided.
And as it happens medically the pig, the rock badger and the hare can all commonly contribute to unpleasant diseases of one kind or another through parasitic infection, precisely as a result of their lifestyles, and while making them far safer, even modern methods of treatment can fail to remove totally these parasitic infections. Eating them would not necessarily result in such an infection, but there was a good likelihood that it would be so, far more so than with the clean animals. (We should also note that while the pig and the camel can be identified we are not absolutely certain as to the identity of the shaphan and the 'arnebeth which may be extinct).
As for the camel, as a result of not being cloven-footed it goes into the desert, and all knew that that was a place of death and uncleanness, witness the constant discovery of dry bones there, a place of barrenness. It was a place of wild beasts (Isaiah 13:21; Isaiah 34:14) and ghosts (Isaiah 34:14), and thus a land of death and darkness.
The camel can also render better service to man by being alive, for it is a vital means of transport where other creatures find it more difficult to go. Thus it is useful, but not in order to be eaten. It can be used for Israel's benefit, but it must not be partaken of. Furthermore, its milk is best avoided by those who are not inured to it, (it has devastating effects on the digestion), and its meat is tough and unpleasant to those not used to it. Not being widely eaten its health effects have not been fully analysed, but it is not the most desirable of food to most. The lesson to be learned from the ban, however, was to distinguish between what God had provided for food, and what He had not, and the wisdom of considering the environment from which these things came. They were forbidden because such was God's appointment, and because they did not remain in the sphere appointed by God for things that might be eaten. Any other benefits were secondary. Bedouin may eat camels. They were not a holy people. But Israelites may not. They were forbidden because of their regular contact with ‘uncleanness' and unclean spheres which made them continually ‘unclean'.
These then are ‘unclean'. God was undoubtedly concerned to maintain the health and wellbeing of his people by enabling them to avoid contact, not only with ‘death' (their carcasses you shall not touch), but also with the dirt and dust of unclean places, and with any resulting diseases. But the main point is that each of these animals is lacking in one or other of the essential virtues for an edible animal, virtues that tended to cleanness, and therefore they are ‘blemished' and not true ‘cattle', and eat and wander in places which are unclean. Their adaptation has therefore rendered them unfit for food for God's holy people. They are not of a ‘perfection' suitable for the people of God. Compare Deuteronomy 14:7-8.
There can be no question that those who observed these instructions would definitely on the whole have had better health, (and would also be wealthier by keeping their camels, which at that time were quite rare), than those who did not, especially in primitive conditions. It would seem that people did not think of eating asses as they are not mentioned. They were too valuable and useful for other purposes. They were to treat their camels as the same.
The pig was in fact bred for food in the Ancient Near East for centuries before the time of Moses, and was known to have at times been a sacrificial animal (see above). It had the advantage in some people's eyes in that it rooted around for food and thus broke up the earth, and in the fact that it would eat what other domestic animals would not eat, providing an easy source of meat. But Israel was warned against it precisely for this reason. It was not in the pattern of ‘perfect' edible animals. It nuzzled in the dust, sharing the serpent's fate, and was more in danger of touching and digesting, by its scrabbling, what was ‘unclean', and incidentally passing on parasites precisely because of its eating habits. And there is no doubt that medically speaking the decision was on the whole wise.
Christians are not called on to avoid these unclean foods, although there might be wisdom in considering it, but we should learn from this that if we too would be clean we must ensure that we abstain from all that God has forbidden us morally, and that we feed our minds properly and walk in clean paths. We should walk in our proper sphere. For those who do otherwise tend to uncleanness.