Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation 26 (1974) 61-64.
Copyright © 1974 by American
Scientific Affiliation. Cited with permission.
The Levitical Dietary Laws
in
the Light
of Modern Science
Thomas D. S. Key and Robert M. Allen
Thomas D.S. Key Robert M. Allen
Biology Dept Science
Dept
Oglethorpe University Babb
Junior High School
Atlanta, Georgia 30319 Forest
Park, Georgia 30054
Leviticus 11 presents dietary laws, specifying which
animals are "clean"
( edible) and "unclean" (inedible). Nine major theories to
account for these
dietary laws are described in this paper, giving arguments pro and
con regard-
ing each. The theories discussed are the Obedience Testing,
Arbitrary Divine
Command, Assertion of
Divine Authority, Moral Discipline, Hygiene, Spiritual
Symbolism, Pagan
Worship, Religious Badge, and Eclectic theories.
The authors conclude that more evidence is needed,
especially from
archaeology, to come to a definite conclusion regarding the validity of
any of
these theories. They feel that if the original purpose of these
dietary laws can
be determined, then perhaps we can make modern applications of
lessons from them.
Introduction
One
of the most obvious characteristics of orthodox
conservative Jews as well as of
Moslems and of the
Christian
groups who emphasize the Old Testament is
the influence of the Levitical
dietary laws on their
eating habits. Yet, when one questions those who
adhere to these dietary laws about the reasons for
them, he receives a variety of answers.
Leviticus 11 describes
"clean" animals (i.e., those
which may be eaten) as follows: any animals that
“part the hoof, are cloven-footed, and that chew the
cud." Also, all aquatic animals that have fins
and
scales, and winged insects that leap (i.e., locusts,
crickets, and grasshoppers) are "clean"
or permitted
for food.
"Unclean" animals (i.e.,
those that are forbidden
for food) were listed as follows: camel, rock
badger,
hare, swine, aquatic animals lacking fins and
scales,
eagle, ossifrages, osprey,
kite, falcon, raven, ostrich,
61a
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION 61b
nighthawk, sea gull, hawk, owl, cormorant, ibis,
water
hen, pelican, vulture, stork, heron, crawling
insects,
hoopoe, weasel, mouse, great lizard, gecko, land croco-
dile, bat, lizard, sand
lizard, and chameleon.
While the Bible nowhere states
specifically why
the dietary laws were given, several theories have
arisen
to account for them. Below are brief descriptions
of
nine1 of these theories,
along with some arguments for
and against their acceptance.
Obedience Testing Theory
This view asserts that the choice of
animals was
arbitrary, but that God's purpose was to evaluate
the
spirituality of the faithful. The
obedience testing theory
also considers the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
Evil
(Genesis 2) to have been arbitrarily selected,
and that it was the act of disobedience that
imparted
the knowledge of good and evil rather than any physio-
logical effect of the chemicals present in the
fruit.
Pro: The Scriptures indicate
in several places where
the faith of people was tested (Job, I Kings 19,
Gene-
sis 2 and 3, etc.).
Con:
The choice of animals does not appear to be
arbitrary as the animals classified are consistent
in
certain ways as discussed below.
Arbitrary Divine Command
Theory
It seems strange to some that most
strict adherents
of the Levitical dietary
laws accept this theory, though
62a T. D. S. KEY AND R. M. ALLEN
they may not refer to it by this name. According to
this theory, the animals were arbitrarily classified
by
God
as clean or unclean with no specific reason what-
ever. We are told that to raise questions about the
reasons or advantages of these laws is to evade
the
issue. We are to accept these laws by blind faith.
The
point is that God commanded, and we are to obey.
“God
said it. I believe it. And that settles it. Period."
Pro:
If God had reasons for the laws, or if it were
important for us to know of them, they would have
been recorded. But such is not the case. The fact
that
no reasons are given is evidence that they are unneces-
sary for us.
Con:
It seems inconsistent with a loving, just,
omniscient God to be arbitrary, or to command just
for the sake of commanding. The fact that the
animals
hold certain traits in common (shown in some of the
following theories) would tend to rule out the
concept
that they were haphazardly or arbitrarily chosen.
Assertion of Divine
Authority Theory
The purpose of these laws was to
establish God's
authority, and to serve as a continual reminder of
His
authority over and concern for His people,
according
to this theory. These laws are beneficial in that
they
tend to establish a habit of thinking frequently
about
God and His place in our lives.
Pro:
The concept of God's establishing His author-
ity and reminding others of
it is certainly consistent
with many Scripture passages, for example, the re-
quiring of phylacteries, and
redeeming each first-born
donkey with a lamb (Exodus
(Exodus
20:8-11); the rainbow (Genesis
stars (Genesis
Miriam's
leprosy (Numbers
(Genesis
17:11); and labor pangs, toil and thorns
(Genesis
3:17-19). The fact that no reasons are given
means none are needed. Reasons would weaken His
authority.
Con:
The selection of animals would seem to in-
dicate that there was more to
it than this (as indicated
in certain of the following theories). It would
seem
arbitrary and superficial for God to assert His
author-
ity in such an unproductive
fashion. Would it not be
more profitable for God's kingdom and the spiritual
welfare of countless people if God required His
people
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION 62b
to seek to win others to His ways? If God's
purpose
for these laws is simply to assert His authority,
why
would He not make useful laws, such as requiring the
faithful to be neighborly?
Moral Discipline Theory
According to this concept, the laws
were to teach
moral discipline, much as it was once believed that
mathematics and Latin should be taught to discipline
the intellect. For similar reasons some military acade-
mies have required certain
patterns of eating (i.e.,
special ways of holding silverware, of sitting
erect
while eating, etc.) in order
to remind cadets constantly
of their discipline.
Pro:
The Bible is consistent with moral disciplinary
techniques. The fact that the price of a whore and
of
a dog (Sodomite) were unclean tends to favor the
moral interpretation of these laws. In numerous pas-
sages the Hebrews were reminded that they "came
up
out of the
laws would serve as similar daily reminders of their
moral discipline. Nazarites
were to remain unshaved
and to abstain from alcohol for disciplinary
reasons
(Numbers
6:2-20). Paul beat his body into subjection
(I
Cor. 9:27). "The rod" is to be used for
discipline
in certain circumstances (Proverbs
26:3).
Con:
As with the preceding theories, the particular
animals selected to be clean or unclean appear
to have
enough in common to warrant other explanations than
this. To limit what foods may be eaten merely for
reasons of moral discipline, and to allow no
exceptions,
could result in malnutrition, death, or forcing an im-
moral beaking of the laws
in the event of famine,
poverty, or other problems.
Hygiene Theory
The adherents of this theory point
out that there
is close correlation between clean animals and
those
that are less likely to transmit zoonoses
(diseases
spread from animals to man), and between unclean
animals and those that are most likely to
transmit
worms, bacteria, and other pathogens to man.
Pro:
Hogs are particularly likely to spread disease,
e.g., trichinosis and Ascaris. Buzzards can transmit
many of the diseases that kill the animals on which
62c T. D. S. KEY AND
R. M. ALLEN
they feed. Rat meat could give those who eat it
trichinosis and other diseases.
On the other hand, while cattle can give us
tuber-
culosis, tapeworms, undulant
fever, for example, they
are much less likely to give us more serious
diseases.
Essentially
the same can be said for sheep.
Any fish that "looks like a fish" is
considered clean,
while oysters, clams, and other sea creatures are un-
clean. It is noteworthy here that true fish as a rule
are
less likely to be
aquatic animals.
Not only does the hygiene theory account for the
particular selection of clean and unclean animals,
but
also accounts for the listing of other unhygienic
things
as unclean. For example, human wastes were
unclean!
(Deut.
23:12-14), as well as cooking utensils and other
solid objects which were contaminated by people with
running sores (Leviticus
Paul wrote to Timothy that he should not drink
water, but should drink wine (I Timothy
reason obviously favors the hygiene theory, as water
was often polluted by human wastes, carcasses and
other bacteria sources.
Con:
A much more sensible and practical regulation
would be to specify that all animals in sanitary
environ-
ments are clean, while those
that are raised in unsani-
tary environments are
unclean. Or, better still, proper-
ly cooked meat is clean,
while raw or rare meat is
unclean, regardless of the animal from which it
comes.
If
this were the regulation, not only could beef, mutton,
and true fishes be eaten without fear of zoonoses, but
the same would be true even of pork and other
animals
listed as unclean. This theory also faces the
difficulty
that unclean animals were let down from heaven to
Peter
(Acts 10:9-29 and 11:5-12), and God responded
to Peter's refusal to eat with, "What God has
cleansed,
you must not call unclean." The fact that
menstruating
women and women who had just given birth were con-
sidered unclean (Leviticus 12),
showed that the desig-
nation of unclean does not necessarily imply a poten-
tial source of contagion or
infection. The fact that the
price of a whore or of a dog (or Sodomite) was un-
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION 63a
clean shows the same. Although there are numerous
poisonous plants, none is listed as unclean. And
al-
though water could be polluted by carcasses, human
wastes, and other contaminants, nothing is discussed
regarding clean or unclean water. Even in those
days
water was a main source of the spreading of disease.
Paul's
advice to Timothy not to drink water was of
course written many centuries after the dietary laws
of Leviticus, and under the circumstances of
Timothy
going on missionary journeys in which water could be
polluted.
Some object to the Hygiene Theory on
the grounds
that little was then known about hygiene, while
others
insist that these hygiene laws prove divine
inspiration.
(See
also Matthew 15:11).
Spiritual Symbolism
Theory
It is pointed out by those who favor
this theory
that the clean animals have in common the fact that
they all symbolize spiritual virtues, while the
unclean
animals symbolize spiritual vices.
Pro:
It should be emphasized that the Bible is an
Oriental
book, and that Orientals have long been noted
for symbolic and figurative speech. The Bible uses
several symbols for Christ: e.g., lamb (John
lion (Revelation 5:5), root (Revelation 5:5), and
grapevine (John 15: 1). The Holy Spirit is
symbolized
by the dove (Luke 3), fire (Hebrews 12), and water
(Acts
bellious wicked, the Gospel,
sin, and other persons
and concepts are represented by still other
symbols, and
many of the symbols were animals. Cattle and oxen
are clean animals because they represent honest
hard
work and obedience to duty. Donkeys are unclean as
they symbolize stubbornness, spiritual stupidity,
and
selfishness. Snakes are unclean because they depict
Satan
and sin (Genesis 3:1-15). Hogs are unclean
because they are greedy and look down. The horse
is
unclean as it symbolizes pride and human
military
conquest.
Con:
While the Spiritual Symbolism Theory is in-
triguing, it has some fatal
inconsistencies. The lion is
unclean, yet it is used to represent Christ
(Revelation
5:5)
and the righteous (Proverbs 28:1). The pearl
represents the church (Matthew
duced by unclean clams and oysters.
The symbolism in
63b T. D. S. KEY AND
R. M. ALLEN
the Bible is not intended to be consistent and
clear-
cut as this theory would assume. Thus, while doves
illustrate the Holy Spirit (Luke
trate wicked Ephraim (Hosea
an unclean animal, yet was chosen by Christ to
ride
for His "triumphal entry" into
21).
The serpent was a symbol of Satan, but was also
used for salvation (Numbers 21:9). Grapes are clean,
but their juice was warned against when it is fer-
mented (Ephesians 5:8 and I
Timothy 3:3), and was
forbidden to Nazarites
under most circumstances
(Numbers
6:3-20). The eagle is unclean, yet is used
to symbolize God's power (Revelation 4:7). The
lion
is used to symbolize Christ (Revelation 5:5),
Satan
(I
Peter 5:8), the righteous (Proverbs 28:1), and the
rebellious wicked (Joel 1:6).
Pagan Worship Theory
It is noteworthy that the Hebrews
spent centuries
living among neighbors who worshipped animal-like
gods. Part of the worship rites of these religions
some-
------------------------------------------------
While the Bible nowhere
states spe-
cifically why the dietary laws were giv-
en, several theories have arisen to ac-
count for them. Given here are brief
descriptions of nine of these theories,
with arguments for and against their
acceptance.
------------------------------------------------
times included the eating of these animals. Thus, the
sacred animals of these pagan religions were unclean,
while animals not sacred to these religions were
clean.
Pro:
The eagle was sacred to the Egyptians. The
snake, hawk, hog, goat, and horse were sacred to
other
neighboring religions. Sheep, camels, true fish, and
most plants were not sacred to the nations and
tribes
around the Hebrews, and hence were clean. The
faithful were to avoid all appearance of evil (I Thes-
salonians 5:22). They were
forbidden to eat food
sacrificed to idols (Revelation
esting that even today Arabs
consider eating with
someone to be a close form of fellowship.
Con:
Several plants were sacred to the pagan re-
ligions, but were not unclean
(II Kings 23: 4). Cattle
were sacred to several groups (II Kings
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION 63c
were clean. There have long been fish gods and sea
gods, yet true fish were clean. In fact, fish
deities are
more common than clam, oyster, or shrimp deities,
yet
the fish were clean while the latter were not.
Religious Badge or Mark
Theory
Many peoples have done or worn
certain things to
distinguish themselves from others. The uniforms of
certain occupations are partly for this purpose,
as are
some greetings, gestures, hairdos, and customs. The
Jews
were God's earthly chosen people (Deuteronomy
7:6),
chosen to witness for Him.
Pro:
The Jews were required to do several things
as religious marks or badges to make them stand
apart
as witnesses for God: circumcise their boy babies
(Genesis
17:10-27), rest on the Sabbath (Exodus
20:8-11),
wear phylacteries on their foreheads (Exo-
dus
ical extension of these
religious badges. The Bible
describes several other marks or badges of
spiritual
significance. Paul was blinded on
the road to
to get Paul's attention and to show God's mark of
approval of Christ (Acts 9:3-9). Zechariah was
struck
speechless for several days as a mark of God's
relation-
ship to Christ's birth (Luke
Miriam,
was marked with a whitish skin disease to
show God's disapproval of her objecting to Moses'
dark skinned African wife (Numbers 12:1-15). God
put a mark on Cain's forehead as a warning that no
one was to seek revenge against him (Genesis
15).
The Nazarites wore long hair and beards and ate
a strict diet (Numbers 6:1-21).
Con:
The selection of clean and unclean animals
does not appear to be haphazard, but to fit certain
patterns (as discussed in some of the foregoing
theories). To prohibit certain wholesome foods
merely
as religious badges could result in malnutrition
or death
during famines. It could severely handicap the poor or
physically disabled. It could result in financial exploi-
64a T. D. S. KEY AND R. M. ALLEN
tation and monopolies of the
few clean species. It
could result in upsetting the balance of nature due
to extermination of some species and the ignoring
of
others. A more practical badge would appear to be
some kind of ritual associated with food preparation
or eating.
Eclectic Theory
Some Bible students prefer to
combine parts of two
or more of the above theories to account for the
reasons
behind the dietary laws. Actually, there are many vari-
ations of the eclectic theory.
They obviously differ on
which of the above explanations are regarded as
valid,
and to what extent the accepted explanations are
con-
sidered to account for each
animal.
Pro:
The fact that the Bible does not indicate any
one reason might be due to the fact that several
ex-
planations are necessary. The fact
that several of the
preceding theories appear to be partially valid,
yet
no one of them is capable of accounting for each
an-
imal indicates that some
eclectic explanation is neces-
sarily the correct one.
Con:
It is difficult to evaluate the eclectic theory
as its variations are so numerous. Yet, the con argu-
ments for each of the
preceding theories are sufficient
to show that none is valid as understood at
present. If
all the links in a chain are weak, simply adding
more
links will not make it stronger. Adding more straw to
a
straw house does not make it more fireproof.
Likewise,
simply adding useless theories together does not make
a valid explanation.
Conclusions
In the light of the above the
authors conclude that
present evidence is not sufficient to warrant
total ac-
ceptance of any one of the nine
theories. More evidence
is needed, especially from possible future archaeological
discoveries. In the meantime, it would appear that,
in
the light of the different kinds of dietary and
other
"hygiene" laws given, that some eclectic interpretation
is probably correct.
It should be noted that many
Christians feel that
it is no longer necessary to obey the Levitical dietary
laws as the Old Testament Law was our
"schoolmaster"
to bring us to Christ (Galatians
terest in them is primarily
historical. Yet if we are
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION 64b
able to determine the original purpose of the laws,
perhaps we can make modern applications of
lessons
from them. For this reason it is recommended that
further study be made on this subject.
REFERENCES
l A tenth important theory was inadvertently omitted: the
Social Mores Theory. It argues
that all societies have
certain customs and taboos, and
that the dietary laws
are no more than this.
American Public Health Association, The. The Control of Com-
municable
Diseases
in Man. U.S. Public Health Service,
1950.
Cable,
Raymond M. An Illustrated Laboratory
Manual of
sitology.
Lapage, Geoffrey. Animals
Parasitic in
MacLehose
and Co., Ltd., 1957.
Rosebury, Theodor. Life on
1969.
Yearbook
of Agriculture, The Animal Diseases.
The United States
Department of Agriculture, 1956.
Yearbook
of Agriculture, The Food.
States Department
of Agriculture, 1959.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
The
American Scientific Affliation
http://www.asa3.org/
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: