Deuteronomy 14:3-8 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 14:3-8 Commentary: The Principle of Distinction
Hebrew · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Examine the dietary laws in Deuteronomy 14:3-8, focusing on the term 'abominable thing', the criteria for cleanness, and the purpose of holiness among God's
Research Summary
- Meaning: Dietary laws as a daily expression of Israel's holy identity and separation from pagan nations.
- Key words: abominable (to'evah), clean/unclean (tahor/tame), holy (qadosh).
- Main debate: Whether the criteria were based on hygiene, symbolic meaning, or a test of obedience.
- Theological theme: Holiness as distinction, God's people are called to be different in every area of life.
- Best use: Teaching the importance of listening to God's word in practical matters and understanding the continuity from OT to NT.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
3You must not eat any detestable thing.
4These are the animals that you may eat: The ox, the sheep, the goat,
5the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.
6You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud.
7But of those that chew the cud or have a completely divided hoof, you are not to eat the following: the camel, the rabbit, or the rock badger.
8Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof. They are unclean for you, as well as the pig; though it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. It is unclean for you. You must not eat its meat or touch its carcass.
WEB World English Bible 2000
3You shall not eat any abominable thing.
4These are the animals which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat,
5the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the chamois.
6Every animal that parts the hoof, and has the hoof split in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.
7Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of those who have the hoof split: the camel, the hare, and the rabbit. Because they chew the cud but don’t part the hoof, they are unclean to you.
8The pig, because it has a split hoof but doesn’t chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat their meat. You shall not touch their carcasses.
KJV King James Version 1769
3Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
4These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
5The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
6And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.
7Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
8And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
3Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
4These are the beasts which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
5the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the antelope, and the chamois.
6And every beast that parteth the hoof, and hath the hoof cloven in two, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat.
7Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the coney; because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you.
8And the swine, because he parteth the hoof but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you: of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
3`Thou dost not eat any abominable thing;
4`this is the beast which ye do eat: ox, lamb of the sheep, or kid of the goats,
5hart, and roe, and fallow deer, and wild goat, and pygarg, and wild ox, and chamois;
6and every beast dividing the hoof, and cleaving the cleft into two hoofs, bringing up the cud, among the beasts--it ye do eat.
7`Only, this ye do not eat, of those bringing up the cud, and of those dividing the cloven hoof: the camel, and the hare, and the rabbit, for they are bringing up the cud but the hoof have not divided; unclean they are to you;
8and the sow, for it is dividing the hoof, and not bringing up the cud, unclean it is to you; of their flesh ye do not eat, and against their carcase ye do not come.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
3Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
4These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat;
5the hart, and the gazelle, and the stag, and the wild goat, and the dishon and the oryx, and the wild sheep.
6And every beast that hath cloven hoofs, and the feet quite split open into double hoofs, [and] which cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that ye shall eat.
7Only these ye shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those with hoofs cloven and split open: the camel, and the hare, and the rock-badger; for they chew the cud, but have not cloven hoofs — they shall be unclean unto you;
8and the swine, for it hath cloven hoofs, yet cheweth not the cud — it shall be unclean unto you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
3Eat not the things that are unclean.
4These are the beasts that you shall eat, the ox, and the sheep, and the goat,
5The hart and the roe, the buffle, the chamois, the pygarg, the wild goat, the camelopardalus.
6Every beast that divideth the hoof in two parts, and cheweth the cud, you shall eat.
7But of them that chew the cud, but divide not the hoof, you shall not eat, such as the camel, the hare, and the cherogril: because they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof, they shall be unclean to you.
8The swine also, because it divideth the hoof, but cheweth not the cud, shall be unclean, their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Deuteronomy 14:3
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across the tradition agree that Deuteronomy 14:3-8 repeats and adapts the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 for a new generation facing life in Canaan. The opening command, "You shall not eat any abominable thing", uses the strong term to'evah, a word also applied to idols and detestable pagan practices. As Matthew Henry notes, what God forbade was to be viewed by Israel as abominable. Gill points out that the criteria of split hoof and chewing the cud identify animals suitable for both sacrifice and common use. The Cambridge Bible adds that the list reflects close observation of animal habits in Palestine, using popular rather than scientific language. Keil and Delitzsch observe that Moses is not offering a new law but grounding the old one within the covenant relationship. The unity of this passage lies in its connection to holiness: Israel's distinctiveness was to extend to the dinner table.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The passage clearly commands Israel to avoid eating animals that do not meet the criteria of split hoof and chewing the cud, establishing these dietary restrictions as a concrete expression of their holy identity as God's chosen people.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of dietary laws | All traditions affirm that these laws were given to mark Israel as holy and separate from other nations. | Some see the primary purpose as hygiene, others as symbolic teaching about purity, and others as a temporary test of obedience. |
| Applicability to Christians | Christians agree that the ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ and the specific food restrictions no longer bind. | Some traditions hold the entire law is abrogated except for moral principles, while others maintain some food laws remain as wise practice, and a few apply them as ongoing commands. |
| The term 'abominable' | The Hebrew word 'to'evah' denotes something detestable to God, often associated with idolatry. | Debate centers on whether the term implies an inherent moral evil in the animals themselves or a ceremonial uncleanness for Israel only. |
| The pig prohibition | The pig is singled out as especially unclean because it has the hoof but does not chew the cud. | Some interpret the pig's uncleanness as related to its association with Canaanite pagan cults; others see it as purely ritual. Its ongoing significance is debated: is it a universal principle or fulfilled in Christ? |
Historical & Cultural Context
These verses sit within a section that begins with a call to holiness: "For you are a holy people to Yahweh your God" (Deuteronomy 14:2). The dietary laws that follow are not isolated rules; they make concrete what it meant to be set apart. In the ancient Near East, food was deeply connected to religious identity. Canaanite cultures used pigs in sacrificial rituals and feasts, a practice God explicitly forbade to Israel. The Cambridge Bible notes that all Semitic peoples distinguished clean from unclean animals, but the details varied widely. By giving clear criteria, split hoof and chewing the cud, Moses provided Israel with a practical, teachable system.
The list of permitted wild animals (hart, gazelle, roebuck, and others) reflects the terrain of Canaan, where these species were abundant. Barnes comments that the variations between this passage and Leviticus 11 are likely due to the changed circumstances: Israel was leaving the wilderness for a land of plenty. The prohibition against even touching the carcasses of unclean animals (v.8) served as an additional barrier against defilement, possibly linked to corpse impurity and pagan mourning rites (see Deuteronomy 14:1). Wesley sums up the principle: what God calls unclean should be abominable to His people. This daily lesson in discrimination taught Israel that obedience to God's word was more important than appetite or custom.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants between Hebrew manuscripts for Deuteronomy 14:3-8. The primary variation is between this passage and the parallel in Leviticus 11:2-8, where the lists differ slightly in the names of wild animals and in the order of presentation. Commentators such as Keil and Delitzsch and the Cambridge Bible explain these differences as adjustments for the new geographical and historical context of the Israelites about to enter Canaan. The Septuagint also exhibits minor variations in animal names, reflecting translation choices rather than textual corruption.
Reception History
Throughout church history, Deuteronomy 14:3-8 has been read as part of the ceremonial law that distinguished Israel. Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr argued these laws were temporary, pointing to Christ. The allegorical tradition (e.g., Augustine) saw clean animals as types of virtuous believers and unclean ones as vices. Reformation commentators often emphasized the pedagogical role of the law: it taught Israel to depend on God's word. In modern times, scholarship has focused on the ancient Near Eastern context, noting parallels with other cultures' food taboos. The passage continues to be used in discussions about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and the nature of holiness in everyday life.
Preaching This Verse
Three-Point Outline
- The Principle of Holiness, The opening command (v.3) establishes that God's prohibition is total: any abominable thing must be avoided. This sets the stage for Israel's calling as a holy nation.
- The Pattern of Distinction, The two criteria (split hoof and chewing the cud) are observable and teachable. God gave clear guidelines, not guesswork, so that every Israelite could discern clean from unclean.
- The Purpose of Separation, These laws were not about health or nutrition alone; they were about identity. By obeying, Israel demonstrated that they belonged to Yahweh, separate from surrounding nations.
Five-Point Outline
- The Prohibition (v.3): "Abominable thing" is a strong word, it is not just unhealthy but detestable to God.
- The Permitted Animals (vv.4-5): Both domestic and wild animals are listed, showing God's generous provision within clear boundaries.
- The Criteria (v.6): A split hoof and chewing the cud are the marks of cleanness. Both must be present.
- The Exceptions (v.7): The camel, hare, and rock badger fail one criterion; they are unclean despite some resemblance.
- The Pig (v.8): The pig has the split hoof but does not chew the cud, it is especially unclean, and even touching its carcass is forbidden.
Illustration Hooks
- A child learning table manners from parents; not all foods are allowed. The rule teaches belonging to the family.
- Crossing a border and having to declare items; Israel's dietary laws were like a border between holy and common.
- A health-conscious person chooses foods based on ingredients; Israel's food choices were based on God's word.
Questions Your Congregation Is Asking
- Why did God create animals He would later forbid?
- Does the pig prohibition apply to Christians today?
- How do we distinguish clean from unclean in our own lives, especially after Acts 10?
Leading a Discussion
This passage invites us to consider how God's call to holiness shapes our everyday choices. The Israelites learned that what they ate mattered to God. For us, the principle of being distinct remains, even if the specific food laws no longer bind us as the New Testament teaches. Read the passage aloud together, then discuss these questions.
Discussion Questions
- Read verses 3-8. What stands out about the language used, especially the word "abominable"?
- Why do you think God gave such detailed instructions about food to ancient Israel?
- How does the context of verses 1-2 (being holy and chosen) shape the meaning of these laws?
- What do the criteria of split hoof and chewing the cud suggest about God's character?
- The camel, rock badger, and pig are singled out. What makes them so significant?
- How does the New Testament (e.g., Acts 10, Romans 14) help us understand whether these laws apply to Christians?
- In what areas of life do we need to make distinctions as God's holy people today?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Leviticus 11:43 | You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps. You shall not make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled by them. |
| Leviticus 20:25 | “‘You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean fowl and the clean. You shall not make yourselves abominable by animal, or by bird, or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have separated from you as unclean for you. |
| Isaiah 65:4 | who sit among the graves, and spend nights in secret places; who eat pig’s meat, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; |
| Ezekiel 4:14 | Then I said, “Ah Lord Yahweh! Behold, my soul has not been polluted; for from my youth up even until now I have not eaten of that which dies of itself, or is torn of animals. No abominable meat has come into my mouth!” |
| Acts 10:12 | in which were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and birds of the sky. |
| Acts 10:14 | But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” |
| Romans 14:14 | I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. |
| I Corinthians 10:28 | But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” don’t eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for the sake of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, with all its fullness.” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke identifies each clean animal by its Hebrew name and Linnaean classification, noting that words like seh (sheep) or az (goat) actually cover every age and sex within the species. He pauses on uncertain animals such as the yachmur, which he identifies as the buffalo based on Solomon's table, and admits that the akko and dishon cannot be confidently named.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes argues the dietary differences between Leviticus and Deuteronomy are practical adjustments to Israel's changing circumstances. In the wilderness, selling carcasses was impossible, so limited tolerance was granted. Now, entering the promised land's abundance, that tolerance is withdrawn and stricter rules apply.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible notes that the marks of chewing the cud and parting the hoof are practical signs, not the cause of cleanness. The animal names are generic, not specific species. No single theory (hygiene, familiarity, or ritual) explains every case; the law likely blends physical observation with religious separation from foreign cults.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Notes list specific clean animals such as beef, sheep, goat, and wild game, then state the rule: any beast that parts the hoof and chews the cud may be eaten. Animals that meet only one criterion are unclean, like the camel and hare (chew cud but lack split hoof) or the swine (split hoof but does not chew cud).
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill focuses on identifying the specific clean animals permitted for food, clarifying which Hebrew names refer to creatures like deer, antelope, and buffalo. He notes that the first three—ox, sheep, goat—are straightforward because they were used in sacrifice, while the other seven are far harder to determine. He draws on ancient naturalists and historians to propose likely matches for each.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB clarifies the Hebrew names for the clean animals, correcting common English translations. For example, the "fallow deer" is actually an antelope, the "chamois" a Syrian sheep-goat, and the "pygarg" a species of antelope with white buttocks. His focus is on accurately identifying each creature from the original language.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch observes that Deuteronomy's dietary commands are not new legislation but a deliberate restatement of earlier laws from Leviticus and Exodus. The repetition of clean and unclean animal classifications along with the prohibitions against eating carrion and boiling a kid in its mother's milk emphasizes continuity in Israel's holiness requirements.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues the food laws are not about health or arbitrary divine whim but symbolize Israel's consecration to the living God. Clean animals with cloven hooves and cud-chewing recall the original creation without sin or death, while unclean animals represent death's corruption. What is an abomination to God must therefore defile His holy people.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry connects Israel's unusual dietary laws directly to their identity as God's own children, chosen and holy. What they ate and how they mourned were not just arbitrary rules but daily reminders that they belonged to the Lord above all other nations.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley emphasizes that the thing is called abominable because God himself has declared it unclean and forbidden. The reader's proper response is to share God's own view and treat it as equally abhorrent.