Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Leviticus 11:1

A historical reference excerpt for this verse. Read it alongside the biblical text and other available sources.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown · 19th-century historical commentary
Source: BibleWord.ai's local reference edition of this named work.

BEASTS THAT MAY AND MAY NOT BE EATEN. (Lev. 11:1-47) the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron--These laws, being addressed to both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers in Israel, may serve to indicate the twofold view that is to be taken of them. Undoubtedly the first and strongest reason for instituting a distinction among meats was to discourage the Israelites from spreading into other countries, and from general intercourse with the world--to prevent them acquiring familiarity with the inhabitants of the countries bordering on Canaan, so as to fall into their idolatries or be contaminated with their vices: in short, to keep them a distinct and peculiar people. To this purpose, no difference of creed, no system of polity, no diversity of language or manner, was so subservient as a distinction of meats founded on religion; and hence the Jews, who were taught by education to abhor many articles of food freely partaken of by other people, never, even during periods of great degeneracy, could amalgamate with the nations among which they were dispersed. But although this was the principal foundation of these laws, dietetic reasons also had weight; for there is no doubt that the flesh of many of the animals here ranked as unclean, is everywhere, but especially in warm climates, less wholesome and adapted for food than those which were allowed to be eaten. These laws, therefore, being subservient to sanitary as well as religious ends, were addressed both to Moses and Aaron.

Read Leviticus 11:1 →Read the full chapter →John Gill's Exposition →Barnes' Notes →Wesley's Explanatory Notes →Tyndale Open Study Notes →Keil & Delitzsch →

How to use this source
This excerpt is attributed to its named commentary. It is included as a historical study resource and should be evaluated in light of Scripture and other relevant evidence.