John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 11

These are the beasts which you shall eat. The holy fathers, before the birth of Moses, knew what animals were unclean. Noah provided clear proof of this fact when, by God’s command, he took into the ark seven pairs of the clean animals and offered some of them as his sacrifice of thanksgiving to God.

Certainly, he could not have obeyed God's command unless he had either been taught by secret inspiration or this tradition had descended to him from his forefathers. But there is nothing absurd in the idea that God, desiring to confirm the traditional distinction, appointed certain marks of difference by which its observation might be more scrupulously attended to, and so that no transgression of it would creep in through ignorance.

For God also consecrated the Sabbath to Himself from the creation of the world and desired it to be observed by the people before the promulgation of the Law; and yet afterwards, the peculiar holiness of the day was more distinctly expressed. Besides, the clean animals are distinguished here from the unclean by name as well as by signs.

The proper names that are recited are of little service to us nowadays because many species common in the East are unknown elsewhere. It was therefore easy for Jews³⁵ who were born and had lived in distant countries to fall into error about them; while, on the other hand, the bolder they are in their conjectures, the less they are to be trusted.

Regarding many of them, I acknowledge that there is no ambiguity, especially concerning the tame animals, or those found everywhere, or those that have plain descriptions of them given in the Bible. A positive knowledge, then, is only to be sought from the signs which are set forth here: namely, that the animals which have cloven hoofs and which ruminate are clean, and that those are unclean in which either of these two things is lacking. Also, that either sea or river fish which have fins and scales are clean.

No such distinction for birds is given, but only the unclean are named, which it was sinful to eat. Lastly, mention is made of reptiles. As for details, if there is anything worthy of observation, the place to consider them will be later.

Let us now remember, in general, what I have mentioned before: namely, that while the Gentiles could eat every kind of food, many were forbidden to the Jews, so that they might learn in their very food to cultivate purity. This was the object of their separation from ordinary customs.

Hence it arose that they use the word חלל, chalal³⁶ both for “to make common” and to “contaminate”; and the word חול, chol, signifies “polluted,” because it is opposed to anything holy or set apart. It is true, indeed, that the Gentiles, by natural instinct, have regarded with the utmost horror the eating of some of the animals forbidden here; still, God would surround His people with barriers, which must separate them from their neighbors.

Those who imagine that God here was concerned with their health, as if acting as 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 clear that this distinction of meats was a part of that elementary instruction³⁷ under which God kept His ancient people.

Let no man therefore judge you (says Paul) in meat or in drink, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ (Colossians 2:16–17).

By these expressions he means that what was spiritual had been prefigured in the external rite of abstaining from certain meats. To the same effect he elsewhere says (Romans 14:14) that he knows and is persuaded³⁸ that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is nothing unclean; namely, because Christ by His death has redeemed His people from slavish subjection.

Hence it follows that the prohibition of meats must be considered among the ceremonies, which were exercises in the worship of God. But here a question arises: how can it be reconciled that, even from the days of Noah, certain animals were unclean, and yet that all without exception were allowed to be eaten?

I cannot agree with some in thinking that the distinction originally made by God grew obsolete by degrees; for God, in excepting only the eating of blood, grants whatever moves upon the earth as food for the descendants of Noah.

I therefore restrict to the sacrifices that uncleanness with the knowledge of which the hearts of the Patriarchs were then inspired. Nor do I doubt that it was as lawful for Abraham, as well as for them, to eat swine’s flesh as the flesh of oxen.

Afterwards, when God imposed the yoke of the Law to repress the licentiousness of the people, He somewhat restricted this general permission, not because He repented of His liberality, but because it was useful to compel in this way to obedience these almost rude and uncivilized people.

But, since before the Law the condition of the saints was the same as our own, it must be remembered, as I said before, that, according to the dictates of nature, they spontaneously avoided certain foods, just as at present no one will hunt wolves or lions for food, nor desire to eat serpents and other venomous animals.

But the object of this ordinance was different: namely, so that they, who were God’s sacred and unique people, would not freely and promiscuously associate with the Gentiles.

Whatsoever parteth the hoof. While I fear that little confidence can be placed in the allegories in which many have taken delight, I do not find any fault with, nor even refuse, what has been handed down from the ancients,³⁹ namely, that by the cleaving of the hoof is signified prudence in distinguishing the mysteries of Scripture, and by the chewing of the cud serious meditation on its heavenly doctrines.

However, I cannot approve of the subtlety⁴⁰ they add, namely, that those “rightly divide the word” who have known how to elicit mystical senses from its letter; because from this it has come to pass that they have allowed themselves all sorts of imaginations.

I therefore embrace the simpler notion: that those who only have a taste for the carnal sense do not divide the hoof, for, as Paul says, only he that is spiritual discerneth all things (1 Corinthians 2:15, margin).

The chewing of the cud ought to follow, to duly prepare and digest the spiritual food. For many gulp down Scripture without profit because they neither sincerely desire to profit by it, nor seek to refresh their souls by it as their nourishment; but, satisfied with the empty delights of knowledge, make no effort to conform their life to it.

In the first clause, then, brutal stupidity is condemned; in the other, the ambition and levity of curious men.⁴¹ God, indeed, set before Peter in the vision unclean animals as images and figures of the Gentiles (Acts 10:12); and therefore it is lawful, by probable analogy, to transfer to men what is said about the animals.

But why God should have appointed the cloven hoof and rumination as signs is no more clear to me than why He should have forbidden their eating swine’s flesh; unless, perhaps, because the solid hoof is a sign of wildness, while the animals that do not ruminate feed for the most part on filth and excrement.

We know that on this point there was much contention immediately after the promulgation of the Gospel. Some of the Jews, in their excessive devotion to the Law, and considering that the distinction of meats was not to be reckoned among the ceremonial enactments, desired that the new Church should be bound by the same restrictions as had been imposed upon the ancient people.

Eventually, by the decree of the Apostles, permission was given to the Gentiles to eat all kinds of meat, except only blood and things strangled—and that only for a time, to avoid offense, since the Jews would not otherwise have been propitiated.

Now, after what God Himself had ordained respecting the distinction of meats had been abrogated, it was an act of diabolical audacity to oblige men’s consciences by human laws and to prevent them from enjoying the liberty obtained by Christ.

Another question remains: how God could pronounce anything He has created to be unclean. For, if an animal is rejected on account of its uncleanness, part of the reproach reflects on the Author Himself. Besides, this rejection also seems to be opposed to the first declaration of God, when, considering all things He had made, He acknowledged them to be very good.

The solution is that no animal was ever unclean in itself; this status merely refers to its use. Thus, in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was naturally neither fault nor harm that it should infect man by its pollution; yet he contracted death from it on account of God’s prohibition.

Therefore, in this passage, God does not condemn His work in the animals. Rather, as to their being eaten, He would have them considered unclean so that the people might abominate what is forbidden to them. In short, it is only transgression that defiles, for the animals have never changed their nature; but it was in God’s power to determine what He would have to be lawful or unlawful. Thus another objection is removed. Christ declares that not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man (Matthew 10:11).

If anyone should therefore infer that harmless animals are improperly condemned, we must reply that they are not considered unclean in themselves, but that the prohibition had a different object. For that doctrine was always true, that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink (Romans 14:17).

But when God forbade the Israelites to eat this or that kind of food, they were admonished by this ceremonial precept how abominable the inward corruption of the heart is. By such elementary teaching they were prepared and led onward to spiritual doctrine, so that they might know that nothing defiles a man except what comes out of his mouth. Nowadays the condition of believers is different, for liberty is obtained for them, since Christ, having abrogated the Law, has nailed the handwriting of ordinances to his cross (Colossians 2:14).

Nevertheless these shall you not eat of. He more clearly expresses what he had previously alluded to, namely, that an animal, although it may ruminate, shall not be clean unless it also cleaves the hoof; and, on the other hand, that the cloven hoof will not be sufficient unless combined with rumination. In these words Moses taught that partial and imperfect purity must not be imposed upon God. If anyone chooses to think that rumination is the symbol of internal purity, and the cloven hoof of external purity, that opinion will be a probable one. Since this distinction has occurred to my mind, although I have no taste for subtle speculations, I have thought it well to mention it, yet leaving it free for anyone to accept it or not.

Meanwhile, we must hold it as certain, as I have recently said, that God demands perfect cleanliness, undefiled by any mixture. But the prohibition was most burdensome to the Jews with respect to pork, because it is very suitable for food, not only as being a pleasant accompaniment to other meats, but because the working classes are fed on it at a lower cost. In this point, therefore, the religion of the Jewish people was especially tested.

For, when the soldiers of Antiochus desired to force the people to an entire renunciation of the Law, they only urged them to eat pork.⁴² And hence the famous quip of Augustus, “I would rather be Herod’s pig than his son;”⁴³ because, while Herod abstained from pork, he was the murderer of his children. But, so that the Jews would observe this prohibition more strictly, the very touch was also forbidden to them, so that it was not only wicked to taste pork, but even to touch it with their hands after the animal was killed. The same rule did not apply to beef or mutton, for it is necessary to handle the meat that is appointed for our food.

These shall you eat of all that are in the waters. Here, also, some who know little of religion plausibly contend that God is acting as a physician, distinguishing wholesome from unwholesome food. But although their opinion is sufficiently refuted by physicians themselves, yet, even if I were to grant what they claim, they reason poorly.

For God's purpose was different from providing for the people’s health. Because He was dealing with an unsophisticated people, He chose common signs, by which, being instructed, they might gradually ascend to higher things.

It would be useless to follow the allegories Isychius has invented,⁴⁴ and I would willingly consign these trivialities to oblivion, except that many have such an inclination towards subtleties that sensible views would hardly satisfy them until the foolishness of these allegories has been exposed. I will say nothing of the scales and fins.

If, at first glance, anyone approves of his claim that the fishes' names are omitted because the Church does not seek a name on earth, and that fish signify the Church, they should consider several points. Is it consistent for the Church to exist only in the water? Furthermore, should the birds, which are nearer to heaven, be excluded from this honor? Thirdly, should the clean animals be rejected, as if they did not belong to the Church? And lastly, should those who by their contagion pollute the Church be counted among the elect, whose names are written in heaven? For certainly, many fish are unclean.

Those who will not accept these clear reasons, I will let them wander in their labyrinth.

This simple view—that the fish are not named because most of them were unknown to the Jews, whose land did not produce many river fish since it hardly had any river besides the Jordan, while sea fish only visited the neighboring shores—will satisfy the moderate and teachable.

And these are they which you shall have in abomination. The species of birds and reptiles that are forbidden are such as common feeling almost naturally repudiates. And certainly, God dealt with great indulgence towards His people, so as not to weigh them down with too heavy burdens.

But because human greed sometimes delights in monstrous food, He desired even in minor matters to restrain them, lest they should rush with Gentile nations into intemperance, by which they would be polluted. For there was a danger that, by eating unclean animals, they would harden themselves to join in various other corrupt practices.

Another law is added: they should not only abstain from eating these unclean animals, but if any such were killed, they should not defile themselves by touching its carcass. Indeed, if any containers had come into contact with them, those made of earth were to be broken, and others were to be washed.

It seems to be a trivial matter to command that if a mouse had drowned in a container of water, the container itself would be unclean. The strictness also appears excessive in commanding the Jews,⁴⁵ if any such animal had fallen into a container of wine and died there, not only to pour out the wine but also to destroy the container. Furthermore, if it had been smothered in an oven or had lain in the hearth, they were to break down both of them. It is as if spiritual contamination reached even inanimate objects.

But we must always consider God’s intention. From this, we will learn that He was not so severe and demanding in unimportant things as to bind His people to the observance of (superfluous)⁴⁶ matters. Instead, these were acts of discipline by which He might accustom them to pursue purity, which is so generally neglected and overlooked by people.

Nowadays, we are also commanded by Paul, whether we eat, or drink, or whatsoever we do, to do all to the glory of God, (1 Corinthians 10:31). But in this respect we differ from the ancient people: being delivered from elementary principles, we are directed only to what is spiritual—namely, that food and drink are supplied to us by God so that we may serve the Author of our life in purity.

However, it was necessary to motivate the Jews in various ways so that they might be more attentive to this goal. God commanded them to keep their houses free from all uncleanness and to be diligent in safeguarding the purity of their water and all their containers, so that He might constantly set before their eyes how diligently He would have them strive for true cleanliness, as follows at the end of the chapter.