CLEAN AND UNCLEAN BEASTS.
By J. H. Waggoner
THE subject of this distinction among beasts has not been exhausted by all that has been written upon it; and as long as erroneous conclusions are so generally received and defended, no apology can be required for an effort to further extend the knowledge of the truth. 1. The distinction of clean and unclean beasts is first noticed in the Scriptures in the order to Noah to take them into the ark. As no explanation is there given, it is evident that Noah understood what was meant by this distinction. He then knew that some beasts were clean and some were unclean. 2. This distinction did not relate to what might, or might not, be eaten; it lay back of that; for no permission had then been given to eat animal food of any kind. 3. But it did divide between animals which might and might not be offered in sacrifice. Unclean beasts were not accepted as offerings to the Lord. 4. When Abraham was directed by the Lord to prepare an offering, he was told to take "an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old." Genesis 15. These three kinds of animals were the only ones that were offered in sacrifice, and the only ones among those known as "domestic" that were ever allowed to be eaten. The first offering of which we read, which was accepted of God, was of "the firstlings of his flock." Of the original word for flock here used, Gesenius says it is used only of sheep and goats. There is little said in the book of Genesis about eating flesh; but all that is said gives us to understand that only clean beasts were eaten. Nothing can be even inferred to the contrary. Noah could not eat of the unclean when he came out of the ark; there was no provision for his so doing. He was to preserve seed of all; but of the unclean he took only two, male and female. Of clean he took by sevens; and if the permission then given to eat animal food related to his circumstances, in view of the condition of the earth at that time, he could not so interpret it as to include the eating of unclean beasts, for the circumstances rendered it impossible for him to eat of them and to preserve their seed. And so of Abraham, he "fetched a calf" and dressed it for his visitors. 5. The patriarchs and their descendants did not deal in unclean beasts; they were no part of their possessions, except beasts of burden, which were comparatively little used and never eaten. It is interesting to note that the word "cattle" in Genesis is from two words, one denoting all kinds of animals, as in chapter 1: 24, 25; 8: 1; 9: 10 (also Ex. 12: 29); the other, as Gesenius says, being "strictly used only of sheep, and goats, and neat cattle excluding beasts of burden." This word is235used in Gen. 13: 2; 30: 29; 31: 9; 34: 5, 23; 46: 32, etc. The word generally rendered flock refers only to sheep and goats. That rendered herds (Ex. 10: 9) refers only to kine, or "neat cattle." If the reader will turn to the passages cited above, he will see that possessions of cattle, flocks, and herds were of kine, sheep, and goats; and the idea of a herd of swine, as we find it in the New Testament, is utterly excluded from the early records of the Bible. 6. The rules laid down in Leviticus do not appear to be new or arbitrary, or to refer only to the Jews (I mean those referring to kinds of animal food), but were based on an original distinction existing and recognized before the existence of the Jews. The facts were not created to supply the rules there given; but the rules were the recognition of facts long existing. From all this it has long appeared, to my mind, to be clearly established that this distinction had regard to the nature of the animals, and that the permission to eat animal food never extended to the eating of unclean beasts. They were not fit for food even in their best days. True science is certainly in harmony with this declaration. In this I do not mean what certain doctors may say about it; for there is nothing too unscientific or absurd for some of them to say. Who would trust the judgment of any doctor who recommends the habitual use of tobacco for numerous diseases? or of the doctor who recommended a mother to feed her child fat pork, because it was covered with scrofulous sores? (This occurred in Iowa.) The swine is the only unclean beast that is generally eaten, and I know of but one reason for their so general use, namely, they are so easily and cheaply raised. Most people now acknowledge that pork is not among the best kinds of food; its use is but a question of appetite and dollars. Yet would they examine and reason with patient candor, they would soon perceive that the appetite is best satisfied with good, clean, healthful food, and that grains and fruits are cheaper than meat. 7. No argument against the position herein taken can be drawn from Peter's vision in Acts 10, as it has no reference to this subject. Peter's interpretation of it was this: "God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." This is, he should preach to a Gentile as readily as to a Jew. But I do not believe (who does?) that Peter would have eaten a hyena, toad, or serpent, any more readily after that vision was given than he would before. Yet he would have been compelled to do so if the vision referred to eating what he saw, for therein were "all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things." But the meaning of the vision being explained by Peter himself, we must rest our judgments on that explanation. 8. Nor can any argument in favor of unclean beasts be drawn from 1 Tim. 4: 4, 5, which reads: "For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." If this refers to animal food at all, it cannot refer to all animals, for the unclean were not sanctified, that is, set apart, for food by the word of God, but they were expressly forbidden by that word. If this truth be overlooked, then this text would as certainly bind us to eat cats, dogs, etc., as swine. "Every creature" in verse 4 is limited by verse 5. The reader may admit all this and believe with me that the eating of unclean beasts is not allowed, and yet this question may arise, Why advise against eating of clean beasts, seeing that permission was given to eat them? —J. H. Waggoner.