TRV
Study This Verse
Commentary on Leviticus 11 verses 1–8
Now that Aaron was consecrated a high priest over the house of God, God spoke to him with Moses, and appointed them both as joint-commissioners to deliver his will to the people. He spoke both to Moses and to Aaron about this matter; for it was particularly required of the priests that they should put a difference between clean and unclean, and teach the people to do so. After the flood, when God entered into covenant with Noah and his sons, he allowed them to eat flesh (Gen 9:13), whereas before they were confined to the productions of the earth. But the liberty allowed to the sons of Noah is here limited to the sons of Israel. They might eat flesh, but not all kinds of flesh; some they must look upon as unclean and forbidden to them, others as clean and allowed them. The law in this matter is both very particular and very strict. But what reason can be given for this law? Why may not God's people have as free a use of all the creatures as other people? 1. It is reason enough that God would have it so: his will, as it is law sufficient, so it is reason sufficient; for his will is his wisdom. He saw good thus to try and exercise the obedience of his people, not only in the solemnities of his altar, but in matters of daily occurrence at their own table, that they might remember they were under authority. Thus God had tried the obedience of man in innocency, by forbidding him to eat of one particular tree. 2. Most of the meats forbidden as unclean are such as were really unwholesome, and not fit to be eaten; and those of them that we think wholesome enough, and use accordingly, as the rabbit, the hare, and the swine, perhaps in those countries, and to their bodies, might be hurtful. And then God in this law did by them but as a wise and loving father does by his children, whom he restrains from eating that which he knows will make them sick. Note, The Lord is for the body, and it is not only folly, but sin against God, to prejudice our health for the pleasing of our appetite. 3. God would thus teach his people to distinguish themselves from other people, not only in their religious worship, but in the common actions of life. Thus he would show them that they must not be numbered among the nations. It should seem there had been, before this, some difference between the Hebrews and other nations in their food, kept up by tradition; for the Egyptians and they would not eat together, Gen 43:32. And even before the flood there was a distinction of beasts into clean and not clean (Gen 7:2), which distinction was quite lost, with many other instances of religion, among the Gentiles. But by this law it is reduced to a certainty, and ordered to be kept up among the Jews, that thus, by having a diet peculiar to themselves, they might be kept from familiar conversation with their idolatrous neighbours, and might typify God's spiritual Israel, who not in these little things, but in the temper of their spirits, and the course of their lives, should be governed by a sober singularity, and not be conformed to this world. The learned observe further, That most of the creatures which by this law were to be abominated as unclean were such as were had in high veneration among the heathen, not so much for food as for divination and sacrifice to their gods; and therefore those are here mentioned as unclean, and an abomination, which yet they would not be in any temptation to eat, that they might keep up a religious loathing of that for which the Gentiles had a superstitious value. The swine, with the later Gentiles, was sacred to Venus, the owl to Minerva, the eagle to Jupiter, the dog to Hecate, etc., and all these are here made unclean. As to the beasts, there is a general rule laid down, that those which both part the hoof and chew the cud were clean, and those only: these are particularly mentioned in the repetition of this law (Deu 14:4, Deu 14:5), where it appears that the Israelites had variety enough allowed them, and needed not to complain of the confinement they were under. Those beasts that did not both chew the cud and divide the hoof were unclean, by which rule the flesh of swine, and of hares, and of rabbits, was prohibited to them, though commonly used among us. Therefore, particularly at the eating of any of these, we should give thanks for the liberty granted us in this matter by the gospel, which teaches us that every creature of God is good, and we are to call nothing common or unclean. Some observe a significancy in the rule here laid down for them to distinguish by, or at least think it may be alluded to. Meditation, and other acts of devotion done by the hidden man of the heart, may be signified by the chewing of the cud, digesting our spiritual food; justice and charity towards men, and the acts of a good conversation, may be signified by the dividing of the hoof. Now either of these without the other will not serve to recommend us to God, but both must go together, good affections in the heart and good works in the life: if either be wanting, we are not clean, surely we are not clean. Of all the creatures here forbidden as unclean, none has been more dreaded and detested by the pious Jews than swine's flesh. Many were put to death by Antiochus because they would not eat it. This, probably, they were most in danger of being tempted to, and therefore possessed themselves and their children with a particular antipathy to it, calling it not by its proper name, but a strange thing. It should seem the Gentiles used it superstitiously (Isa 65:4), they eat swine's flesh; and therefore God forbids all use of it to his people, lest they should learn of their neighbours to make that ill use of it. Some suggest that the prohibition of these beasts as unclean was intended to be a caution to the people against the bad qualities of these creatures. We must not be filthy nor wallow in the mire as swine, nor be timorous and faint-hearted as hares, nor dwell in the earth as rabbits; let not man that is in honour make himself like these beasts that perish. The law forbade, not only the eating of them, but the very touching of them; for those that would be kept from any sin must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, and every thing that looks towards it or leads to it.
The all-wise Educator, by the lips of Moses, compared association with corrupt men to living with swine when he forbade the ancient people to partake of swine. He made it plain in those words that they who invoke God should not seek the company of the unclean who, like swine, revel in bodily pleasures and filthy habits of life and impure delights, itching for evil-minded pleasures of sex.
He adds too that they are not to eat “kite or mastophage or eagle,” meaning “You shall not go near those who make their livelihood by plundering others.” He says other similar things under some sort of allegory.
It is then proper that the barbarian philosophy, on which it is our business to speak, should prophesy also obscurely and by symbols, as was evinced. Such are the injunctions of Moses: “These common things, the sow, the hawk, the eagle and the raven, are not to be eaten.” For the sow is the emblem of voluptuous and unclean lust of food and lecherous and filthy licentiousness in venery, always prurient, and material, and lying in the mire and fattening for slaughter and destruction.
Fish with rough scales are considered clean, just as persons with austere, rough, unpolished, steadfast and grave traits are commended. Fish without scales are considered unclean, just as loose, fickle, insincere and effeminate traits are censured. What does the law mean when it states, “You shall not eat the camel”? From the example of an animal, it censures an unruly life and one distorted by unpleasantness. What does the law mean when it forbids one to partake of the flesh of swine? It condemns, you can be sure, a foul and filthy life—one that delights in sordid vices by placing its supreme good not in nobility of spirit but in the flesh alone. What does the law want to indicate when it forbids the hare? It denounces nervous, effeminate men. Who would use as food the flesh of the weasel? In it the law condemns theft.Who would dare partake of the skink? The law abhors a capricious and fickle life. Who would eat the newt? The law detests aberrations of the mind. Who would dare partake of the hawk, the kite or the eagle? The law hates marauders and those who live by violence. Who does not loathe the vulture? The law execrates those who look for booty in someone else’s death. Who would eat the crow? The law detests immoral and shady intentions. When the law prohibits ostrich, it disapproves of intemperance. When it condemns the nightjar, it hates those who shun the light of truth. When it bans the swan, it loathes stiff-necked pride. When it excludes the heron, it dislikes a garrulous and undisciplined tongue. When it detests the bat, it condemns those who seek out the darkness of error that is like night. The law execrates these and similar characteristics in animals. Since the animals, however, are born with such characteristics, they are without reproach. Conversely such qualities are reprehensible in humanity, which was not created with them but learns from them by comparison with contrary nature, through the exercise of their own error.
Believing people are forbidden to use fish without its fins for food. Fish with fins and scales even leap up above the water. What do the fish with fins represent if not chosen souls? They alone pass over into the body of the heavenly church.
Continue studying Leviticus 11:7 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Leviticus 11:7 meticulously details the divine prohibition against consuming swine, unequivocally classifying it as an "unclean" animal within the comprehensive dietary laws given to ancient Israel. This specific command is an integral part of a broader set of regulations outlined in Leviticus 11, designed not merely for hygiene but primarily to distinguish God's chosen people, emphasizing their unique identity and their call to a life of holiness through strict adherence to divine standards of purity, both ritual and moral. The verse precisely highlights the pig's failure to meet the dual criteria for clean land animals—having a divided hoof and chewing the cud—thereby solidifying its status as unfit for consumption and a potent symbol of ceremonial impurity.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
Leviticus 11:7 employs several powerful literary devices to convey its message effectively and reinforce its theological implications. Casuistic Law is prominently evident, as the verse presents a specific case ("if the swine...") and then states the clear legal consequence ("then it is unclean"). This precise, conditional legalistic style is characteristic of much of the Mosaic Law, providing unambiguous, actionable directives for the Israelite community. Contrast is also a profound feature, highlighting the discrepancy between the pig's superficial appearance (having a cloven hoof, which seems to align with cleanliness) and its actual status (not chewing the cud, therefore definitively unclean). This inherent contrast underscores that external appearances can be deceptive and that adherence to God's full, comprehensive standard is paramount, rather than relying on partial fulfillments. Furthermore, the pig itself functions as potent Symbolism. Beyond its literal prohibition as food, the swine became a powerful symbol of impurity, defilement, and that which was utterly antithetical to Israel's holy calling. Its inclusion in the list of forbidden animals served as a constant, tangible reminder of the sacred boundaries God established for His people, reinforcing their distinct identity and their unwavering commitment to ritual and moral purity.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
The prohibition against swine, like the broader dietary laws within the Old Covenant, profoundly underscores God's unwavering call for His people to live a life of holiness and distinction. These regulations were not merely arbitrary rules but served as tangible, daily expressions of Israel's unique covenant relationship with Yahweh, their holy God. By diligently adhering to these specific commands, the Israelites tangibly demonstrated their obedience to divine authority and their commitment to being "set apart" from the defiling practices and idolatrous customs of surrounding nations. This separation was not for exclusivity's sake but for the profound purpose of reflecting God's own holy character to a world in need of divine light. The dietary laws, therefore, functioned as a pedagogical tool, deeply embedding into Israelite consciousness the pervasive nature of holiness and the critical importance of discerning between the clean and the unclean in all aspects of life, from their plates to their worship.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
While the specific dietary prohibitions of the Old Covenant, including the ban on pork, are not binding on New Testament believers (as clarified by Christ and the apostles), the underlying principles of holiness, obedience, and distinction remain profoundly relevant and eternally true. For us today, the call is not to external dietary purity but to a far deeper, internal heart purity and a life wholly set apart for God in character, conduct, and conviction. We are called to exercise spiritual discernment, distinguishing between what is spiritually "clean" (that which is pleasing to God, righteous, truthful, and life-giving) and what is spiritually "unclean" (that which is sinful, defiling, worldly, and contrary to God's will). This involves a conscious, daily choice to live in alignment with God's moral and ethical standards, rather than passively conforming to the patterns and values of the world. Our "diet" now consists of the spiritual nourishment we consume—the Word of God, fervent prayer, meaningful fellowship, and righteous living—and the choices we make that either build up or defile our spiritual temple. The essence of the Levitical law, therefore, transforms into a compelling call for Christ-like living, where our entire lives become a vibrant testimony to God's transforming power and our unwavering commitment to His holiness.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why was pork specifically forbidden to the Israelites, and what was the rationale behind these dietary laws?
Answer: Pork was specifically forbidden because the pig failed to meet both of God's divinely ordained criteria for clean land animals: it has a divided hoof but critically does not chew the cud, as explicitly stated in Leviticus 11:7. The rationale behind these dietary laws, often referred to as kashrut, was primarily theological and symbolic, rather than merely hygienic or health-related. They served as a tangible and constant reminder to distinguish Israel as a holy nation, set apart for God Himself (Leviticus 11:44-45). By adhering to these unique and specific commands, Israel tangibly demonstrated their obedience to God's supreme authority and maintained a clear, visible boundary between themselves and the pagan nations who often consumed forbidden animals or even used them in idolatrous rituals. These laws instilled a disciplined approach to daily life, fostering a constant awareness of God's standards of purity and holiness in all aspects of their existence, thereby reinforcing their covenant identity.
Are Christians today still bound by the Old Testament dietary laws, including the prohibition against eating pork?
Answer: No, Christians are not bound by the Old Testament dietary laws, including the prohibition against eating pork. The New Testament clearly indicates a profound shift in understanding regarding ceremonial purity and food. Jesus Himself declared all foods clean, emphasizing that true defilement comes from within a person's heart—their thoughts, words, and actions—not from external foods (Mark 7:19 and Mark 7:20-23). Furthermore, Peter's transformative vision in Acts 10:9-16 explicitly revealed God's declaration that what He had cleansed should no longer be called unclean, paving the way for the gospel to be preached to Gentiles without requiring them to adhere to Jewish ceremonial laws. The Apostle Paul also taught extensively on Christian liberty concerning food, emphasizing that what one eats does not commend them to God, but rather faith, love, and a clear conscience are paramount (Romans 14:1-4 and Colossians 2:16-17). While the specific dietary rules are no longer binding for believers in Christ, the underlying principles of holiness, self-control, and living a life set apart for God's glory remain vitally important.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The prohibition of swine in Leviticus 11:7, like all the Old Covenant dietary laws and ceremonial regulations, finds its ultimate fulfillment and profound transformation in the person and work of Jesus Christ. These laws served as "a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ" (Colossians 2:17). Christ, through His perfect life of obedience, His atoning death on the cross, and His glorious resurrection, completely fulfilled the law's demands for perfect purity and holiness. He did not merely cleanse certain foods; He came to cleanse humanity from the root of all defilement—sin itself. Jesus authoritatively declared that "what comes out of a person is what defiles him" (Mark 7:20), fundamentally shifting the focus from external ritual purity to the internal purity of the heart. The dramatic vision given to Peter in Acts 10:9-16 powerfully illustrates this fulfillment, where God declares all animals clean, signifying the abolition of ceremonial distinctions and the radical inclusion of Gentiles into God's family without requiring adherence to the Mosaic Law. In Christ, the dividing wall of hostility and the ceremonial barrier between clean and unclean, Jew and Gentile, is utterly broken down (Ephesians 2:14). True holiness for believers is now found not in dietary restrictions or external observances, but in being made righteous through saving faith in His finished work, living by the power of the Holy Spirit, and presenting our entire bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God (Romans 12:1). He is the ultimate Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, making us truly clean and perfectly acceptable before a holy God (John 1:29).