John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 11:2

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth." — Leviticus 11:2 (ASV)

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.

³⁵ “Rabins Juifs.” — .” — Fr.

³⁶ חול is rendered by is rendered by A.V. unholy, Leviticus 10:10; ; common, , 1 Samuel 21:5; ; profane, Ezekiel 22:26, and , and Ezekiel 42:20, in which last instance , in which last instance common, or or public, would have been more suitable. — would have been more suitable. — W

³⁷ “Pedagogiae.” — Lat. “.” — Lat. “La doctrine puerile.” — .” — Fr..

³⁸ Vide C. in loco, (Calvin Society Translation,) and Owen’s (Calvin Society Translation,) and Owen’s note. . C. evidently does not understand the words in the sense of our translation; “I know, and am persuaded evidently does not understand the words in the sense of our translation; “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,” — but rather as I have given them in the text, supposing the Apostle to speak of Christ, not as the author of his persuasion, but as the remover of the uncleanness referred to. The the Lord Jesus,” — but rather as I have given them in the text, supposing the Apostle to speak of Christ, not as the author of his persuasion, but as the remover of the uncleanness referred to. The Fr. is “. is “il sait, et est persuade qu’il n’y a rien impur a ceux, qui croyent en Jesus Christ; “he knows and is persuaded that there is nothing unclean to them that believe in Jesus Christ.; “he knows and is persuaded that there is nothing unclean to them that believe in Jesus Christ.