"Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy." They were not to defile themselves with any swarming thing, for He is the Lord who brought them up out of Egypt to be their God; "you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy" (a paraphrase of Leviticus 11:44–45).

Peter writes that as obedient children, believers are not to be conformed to the passions of their former ignorance, but as He who called them is holy, they also are to be holy in all their conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (a paraphrase of 1 Peter 1:14–16).

The focus in Leviticus is on handling and eating clean and unclean animals. The focus in Peter is on moral conduct. The reason for both instructions comes from the same premise: God's people must be holy because God is holy.

"Holy" basically means "set apart." The same word family gives us words like "saint" (literally, "set-apart one") and "consecrate" ("to set apart"). So the command to "be holy" is to be set apart to God, which implies being set apart from something — such as unclean animals or immoral conduct.

When Isaiah witnessed God's holiness, all he could say was, "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips," dwelling among a people of unclean lips, and his eyes had seen the King (a paraphrase of Isaiah 6:5).

Isaiah immediately sensed the moral gulf between God and himself. We usually have no trouble understanding or accepting this. But what do various kinds of animals have to do with being holy or unholy?

They have as much to do with holiness as eating a fruit had to do with sin and death for all humanity. I believe holiness is not bound up in any thing or conduct in itself but in the presence and decree of God. In other words, whatever relates to God is holy. Whatever He commands is holy.

So when God forbade eating certain animals, holiness meant refraining from them. Yet when God later permitted eating those very animals, people's holiness was no longer affected by what they ate. What is important for us to understand? God, and not the particular command, is what matters. For He can change commands, but His essential holiness does not change.

Let me illustrate with another example. When Israel arrived at Kadesh-barnea, God commanded them to take the land, promising to be with them and give it to them. But the people grumbled in their tents and spoke of returning to Egypt. Then God gave them a new command: turn back toward the Red Sea and wander for the next forty years. He would not give them the land at that time. So what did the people do? They went out to fight and take the land.

Were the Israelites being obedient because they repented of their grumbling and chose to obey God's first command? No. The Bible declares them twice disobedient, stiff-necked and rebellious. They were not interested in God or His command but only in their own self-interest. They did not want to wander for forty years until they died in the desert. So they ignored God's current command and followed His earlier command, even though He had withdrawn it.

Friends, let us understand this about God's holiness. God is holy and good by definition. As the psalmist writes, "You are good and do good" (Psalm 119:68). I believe there is no inherent holiness or goodness in God's commands apart from Him; they are holy and good because God issues them. This means that, in principle, what was required at one time could be forbidden at another if God so declares. When the psalmist says, "All your commandments are sure," they are trustworthy because God is trustworthy. God defines what is holy and good.

If God declares dirt holy, then the dirt becomes holy. You may smile at this, but I am deadly serious. Didn't God tell Moses and others to take off their sandals because they were standing on holy ground? God was saying that the very dirt beneath them was holy. I daresay that if you found such a place today, the dirt would no longer be holy. It was holy then because God declared it so.

Let us not presume what is holy or unholy, good or evil, apart from what God has said — including what He has said for us now. To discern this, we must carefully study His Word, for not every part of it applies to everyone in the same way and for all time. We must discern what is particular and what is universal, what is conditional and what is unconditional, what is temporary and what is enduring. Failing to do this would be both dangerous presumption and a terrible failure to understand God's holiness.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The comment's examples — food laws, holy ground, and changed commands at Kadesh — are well chosen, since each involves a command tied to a particular time, place, or covenant. Jesus Himself "declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19), and Peter's vision in Acts 10 applied that change to the inclusion of Gentiles: "What God has made clean, do not call common" (10:15). The food laws had served as a daily reminder that Israel was set apart; in Christ, the separation between Jew and Gentile they symbolized was removed (Ephesians 2:14–15).

Theologians have long discussed the relationship between God's will and His character, and there is more than one view within the church. Many would agree with the comment regarding ceremonial and covenant-specific commands, while adding that God's moral commands flow from His unchanging nature — He commands truthfulness because He cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and faithfulness because He is faithful. On that view, God could not command cruelty or falsehood, not because a standard stands above Him, but because such commands would contradict who He is (2 Timothy 2:13, "he cannot deny himself"). The comment's closing counsel — to distinguish carefully between what is temporary and what is enduring in Scripture — is exactly how Christians of every tradition read the Law in light of Christ.

Friends,

I have included some good articles that detail a proper way to look at various matters presented in these passages, whether having to do with things that are clean and unclean or matters pertaining to certain diseases, often simply translated as "leprosy" in the text.

I have discovered that rather than appreciating what is written at face value, people have tried to find all kinds of hidden meanings and have carried symbolism beyond what the grammar and the context will allow. I encourage you to resist this temptation. As a basic rule, keep this instruction from Paul in mind: "Do not go beyond what is written":

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

I have included two articles in the Discussion Q & A section that try to explain the significance of the passages on cleanness and uncleanness in the Bible. It treats these subjects very biblically and contextually and would serve as a good model for both laymen and preachers to follow in interpreting passages like what we read today. Here are the links to those articles:

http://bible.org/seriespage/clean-and-unclean-part-i-leviticus-11

http://bible.org/seriespage/offending-god-clean-and-unclean%E2%80%94part-ii-leviticus-12–15

AI-Expanded Reflection

The original’s warning against uncontrolled symbolism addresses a real temptation in difficult portions of Leviticus. When a regulation feels remote, a reader may invent a hidden spiritual equivalent for every animal, bodily condition, or ritual action in order to make it immediately relevant. That approach can feel fruitful while gradually replacing the passage’s actual concerns with the interpreter’s imagination. Careful reading begins by asking what the regulations do within Israel’s covenant life.

One essential distinction is between ritual uncleanness and personal moral blame. Leviticus includes conditions associated with ordinary bodily life, such as childbirth and discharges, as well as conditions requiring priestly examination. Being unclean in these settings does not automatically mean that a person has committed a wicked act. The regulations concern access to sacred space and restoration to ordinary communal participation under the covenant. If this distinction is lost, readers may wrongly treat the affected person as morally inferior.

The term often translated leprosy also should not be assumed to identify only the modern disease known by that name. The biblical regulations address a range of visible conditions and even use related language concerning garments and houses. A priest’s task in these chapters is to inspect and declare ritual status; the text is not presenting a modern medical diagnostic manual. Recognizing that scope prevents confident but misleading explanations based on a single contemporary disease category.

The two recommended studies can be useful conversation partners, especially because they ask readers to consider how cleanness relates to holiness and the surrounding chapters. They should nevertheless be evaluated like any commentary. An author’s illustrative analogy, proposed explanation of an animal, or wider theological application is not identical with the biblical statement being explained. The original’s call to remain within the text should apply to favored resources as well as to interpretations one already doubts. The Clean and Unclean, Part I; Part II

First Corinthians 4:6 supplies a warning against pride in teachers and rivalry over human leaders. Its phrase about not going beyond what is written can encourage restraint, but it should not be detached from that immediate purpose. The verse is not a complete technical manual of interpretation. It calls the church away from using favored authorities to inflate one group over another.

A constructive method is to observe repeated terms, identify who acts and what changes, and compare the passage with later biblical uses of purity language. Mark 7, Acts 10–11, and Hebrews then help Christians consider how Christ’s work changes the covenantal setting. This allows theological development without forcing a secret meaning into every detail. The reward is a more patient understanding of God’s holiness, the provision for approach to him, and the grace that restores people to fellowship.

One thing I believe about these dietary laws is that God was not being a picky eater — perhaps the laws relate to the character of the animals' behavior or how they differ from others. A pig will eat anything. A cow eats a restricted diet. A typical fish has fins and scales; something without them is probably not what you would want to eat anyway. The birds mentioned are largely scavengers, or otherwise unusual. The insects permitted have narrow diets.

The purpose of these dietary laws is given at the end of chapter 11: God is the LORD their God, so they are to consecrate themselves and be holy, because He is holy (a reference to Leviticus 11:44).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Proposals like the one offered here have a long history, and none has achieved consensus. Suggestions have included hygiene, association with neighboring religious practice, and the idea that the categories track a creational order — that creatures conforming to the expected pattern of their domain are clean while anomalies are not, which would explain fish without fins and scales and land animals that fail one of the two criteria.

The honest position is that Leviticus states the purpose and withholds the rationale. The chapter says the point is holiness and distinction; it does not say why a rock badger is excluded and a locust included. Speculating carefully is fine, and this comment does it lightly rather than dogmatically. It's worth noting that Jesus's declaration that all foods are clean (Mark 7:19) and Peter's vision (Acts 10) both treat the abolition of these distinctions as a theological event tied to the inclusion of the Gentiles rather than as a correction of outdated dietary science.

The Old Testament law contains many interesting expressions. Today we read about animals that divide the hoof and chew the cud. Since no explanation is given as to why these particular animals were set apart as clean or unclean, preachers and theologians sometimes take this as license to supply meanings. As long as it sounds plausible, they feel free to employ this faulty method.

But God emphasized the importance of not adding to or subtracting from the Law: do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 4:2); see that you do all I command you, and do not add to it or take away from it (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 12:32). Do preachers not risk exactly this when they go beyond what is written (a reference to 1 Corinthians 4:6) and supply typological or allegorical interpretations that Scripture itself does not validate?

What does chewing the cud and dividing the hoof have to do with meditating on the Word of God? Everyone who knows me knows I would love to teach that, because I believe meditating on God's Word is genuinely important. But I would never teach it from a passage like Leviticus 11, because there is not a hint in the context that this is what God had in mind. If it were, He could have made it clearer. Why not teach it from clear texts like Psalm 1:1–2, or from 2 Timothy 2:15?

AI-Expanded Reflection

The discipline this comment is arguing for is the same one it applies to itself, which is what makes the argument credible: the author names a doctrine he genuinely wants to teach and declines to get it from a text that does not supply it. That is the test, and it is harder than it sounds — allegorical readings are most tempting precisely when the conclusion is one the interpreter already holds on other grounds.

Worth adding that Leviticus 11 does give a stated purpose, even if not a reason for each criterion. The chapter closes by grounding the whole system in God's holiness and Israel's calling to be distinct (Leviticus 11:44–45). Scholars have proposed various explanations for the specific categories — that they mark boundaries of creational order, or that certain animals were associated with neighboring religious practice — but these are inferences about the reasons, not statements from the text, and the chapter itself is content to leave the criteria unexplained while making the purpose explicit.

When a woman gives birth to a son, she's unclean for seven days, then waits thirty-three more for purification — forty days total. For a daughter, fourteen days unclean, then sixty-six more — eighty days total.

This whole section interested me, since reading Luke 2, I never fully understood what "purification rites" actually meant. Luke tells us that once the purification time required by the Law of Moses was complete, Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord — every firstborn male being consecrated to Him — and to offer the sacrifice specified in the Law, a pair of doves or two young pigeons (a paraphrase of Luke 2:22–24, referencing Exodus 13:2 and Leviticus 12:8).

So when Simeon and Anna saw Jesus, He must have been exactly forty days old. And since Mary and Joseph offer birds rather than a lamb, that indicates real poverty — they couldn't afford the standard sacrifice. The more I read back through the Old Testament, including these Leviticus passages, the more it helps me understand the New Testament.

The good news is that we're made clean before God through Christ's blood — if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on the ceremonially unclean, could sanctify them outwardly, how much more will Christ's blood, offered through the eternal Spirit as an unblemished sacrifice, cleanse our consciences from deeds leading to death, so we can serve the living God (a paraphrase of Hebrews 9:13–14)?

But how many of us are genuinely thankful for what Christ did? Only one of ten, if Luke 17 is any indication — ten lepers cry out to Jesus for mercy, and as they go to show themselves to the priests as instructed, all ten are healed. Only one returns, praising God loudly, throwing himself at Jesus's feet in thanks — and he's a Samaritan. Jesus asks where the other nine are, noting that only this foreigner returned to give God praise, then tells him his faith has made him well (a paraphrase of Luke 17:11–19).

Thank You, LORD, not only for what You've done for us, but for who You are.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The gender-based difference in purification time this comment records without comment is a genuinely puzzling detail Scripture never explains, and it's worth being honest about that rather than assuming a confident answer exists — as another comment elsewhere in this project notes on the same passage, any specific proposed explanation for the doubled timing remains speculative rather than textually stated. What is clear, and what this comment rightly emphasizes instead, is the passage's actual New Testament payoff: understanding these purification requirements is what makes sense of Mary and Joseph's specific actions in Luke 2, including the telling detail of their bird offering — a small, easily overlooked confirmation, decades before Jesus's ministry even began, that He was born into a family of genuinely modest means.

I agree. Personally, I feel that if health were the reason, Jesus wouldn't have told Peter that all things were clean, and Colossians wouldn't have said something like, "let no one judge you over what you eat or drink" (a loose paraphrase).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Both references here are worth pinning down precisely, since they strengthen the point: Peter's vision in Acts 10:9–16 has God declaring "unclean" animals clean specifically to prepare Peter for accepting Gentile believers, not to make any claim about nutrition — the vision's actual point, confirmed a few verses later, is that "God shows no favoritism" between Jew and Gentile (Acts 10:34). And Colossians 2:16 sits in a passage explicitly about not letting anyone judge believers by old covenant regulations that were only ever "a shadow of the things to come" (Colossians 2:17). Both texts treat the food laws as boundary markers tied to Israel's unique covenant status and its fulfillment in Christ — never as health guidance being reversed or overturned.

Someone asked an excellent question about the purpose of the food laws — particularly whether good health was one of the primary reasons behind them. Here's my response.

Unfortunately, the Bible never actually gives health as a stated reason for the food laws. I know Joel Osteen, the popular Houston pastor, once preached an entire sermon built on that premise. Others suggest the food laws were meant to teach moral discipline rather than protect health. Still others argue they were meant to contrast Israel with surrounding pagan nations, who freely ate unclean foods in unclean ways.

While we should always avoid dogmatism where Scripture itself is unclear or silent, I think this last explanation comes closest to the actual biblical reasoning. God ties these regulations, among many others, directly to His own holiness and Israel's calling to be a holy people — as Leviticus 11:44–45 explains, since God is the LORD who is holy, and who brought Israel up out of Egypt to be their God, they too are called to be holy, avoiding defilement through any of these creeping things (a paraphrase).

"Holy" means "set apart" to God. Recall Isaiah's own despairing cry in Isaiah 6, confronted with God's holiness, calling himself a man of unclean lips living among a people of unclean lips. Throughout both Testaments, God's people are called to remain morally distinct from surrounding pagan practices — to be the earth's salt. In other words, what God prescribes for His people sets them apart from the nations around them. Even Revelation pictures a voice from heaven calling God's people to come out of Babylon, so they won't share in her sins or her plagues (a paraphrase of Revelation 18:4) — Babylon having just been described as a dwelling place for demons and every kind of unclean, detestable creature (a paraphrase of Revelation 18:2), the very embodiment of godlessness, immorality, and greed. Could the restrictions on unclean foods and eating practices have served exactly this same purpose — visibly setting God's people apart from the surrounding nations?

I've read that even authoritative Jewish sources confirm health was never the biblical reason behind these laws. Michael Friedlander, in his respected book The Jewish Religion, argues that these precepts shouldn't be understood primarily as sanitary regulations, however valuable such regulations might otherwise be — holiness, he insists, remains the Torah's actual, stated purpose behind the dietary laws (a paraphrase).

Plenty of websites attempt to draw out specific health benefits from this or that individual food law, but I've never found any comprehensive treatment — mostly just selective, cherry-picked examples. The case for health being a primary reason for the food laws strikes me as genuinely flimsy.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The "holiness, not health" reading this comment defends gets further support from a detail easy to overlook: several animals permitted under the food laws (like locusts, Leviticus 11:22) aren't obviously "healthier" than several forbidden ones (like pork, which isn't uniquely dangerous compared to other permitted meats when properly prepared) — a purely health-based rationale struggles to explain the specific list consistently, while the "distinctiveness from surrounding nations" reading fits the actual pattern of clean and unclean animals more naturally, since the specific categories chosen don't map cleanly onto any known ancient health hazard.