Leviticus 11:46-47 · Bible study
Leviticus 11:46-47 Commentary: Distinction and Holiness
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
The summary of dietary laws teaches Israel to distinguish clean and unclean as part of being holy because God is holy. Its relevance for Christians today.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The dietary laws are summarised with a clear purpose: to teach Israel to distinguish clean from unclean as part of their call to holiness.
- Key words: Torah (instruction), l'havdil (to separate, make a distinction), tame (unclean), tahor (pure/clean).
- Main debate: Whether the distinctions were primarily hygienic, symbolic, or solely covenantal markers. Keil champions the ethical-symbolic view; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown suggest some sanitary motives.
- Theological theme: Holiness as separation unto God, embodied in daily practices, especially eating.
- Best use: Teaching that God’s commands about ordinary life shape a people’s identity, and that the call to distinctiveness remains for Christians, though the dietary rules are fulfilled in Christ.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
46This is the law regarding animals, birds, all living creatures that move in the water, and all creatures that crawl along the ground.
47You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between animals that may be eaten and those that may not.’”
WEB World English Bible 2000
46“‘This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth,
47to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.’”
KJV King James Version 1769
46This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
46This is the law of the beast, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth;
47to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
46`This is a law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature which is moving in the waters, and of every creature which is teeming on the earth,
47to make separation between the unclean and the pure, and between the beast that is eaten, and the beast that is not eaten.'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
46This is the law of cattle, and of fowl, and of every living soul that moveth in the waters, and of every soul that crawleth on the earth;
47to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that is to be eaten and the beast that is not to be eaten.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
46You shall be holy, because I am holy. This is the law of beasts and fowls, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and creepeth on the earth:
47That you may know the differences of the clean, and unclean, and know what you ought to eat, and what to refuse.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Leviticus 11:46
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that these two verses form the summary and purpose clause for the dietary regulations in Leviticus 11. The Cambridge Bible notes they refer only to the rules about eating, not to contact defilement. Gill describes the verses as a recapitulation of the laws concerning animals, birds, water creatures, and creeping things. Barnes emphasizes that the basis of the obligation to maintain clean/unclean distinctions was the call of Israel to be Yahweh's special people. Keil and Delitzsch stress the ethical ground: the prohibited animals exhibit the darker type of sin, death, and corruption, so the restrictions were not merely sanitary but designed to teach holiness. Matthew Henry concludes that God taught them to put a difference between good and evil and to maintain a constant observance of divine law in all actions, even common ones. The summary thus ties the detailed rules back to the foundational command: "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (v.44). For the Christian reader, the distinctions were temporary (as Wesley notes, expressly repealed under the gospel), yet the underlying call to live as a distinct, holy people remains central to New Testament ethics.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The passage summarises the dietary laws and states that their purpose is to enable Israel to distinguish between clean and unclean, which is directly tied to the call to be holy because God is holy.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the dietary laws | The laws set Israel apart as God's holy people and taught them to distinguish between clean and unclean. | Whether the distinctions were inherently moral (reflecting creation order and sin) or purely ceremonial (establishing national identity). Keil and Delitzsch emphasise the moral-symbolic; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown note possible sanitary and pagan-context reasons. |
| Basis for categorising animals as unclean | Some animals were prohibited because they exhibited traits associated with predation, scavenging, or living in filth. | Whether these reasons were sanitary (hygiene in hot climate) or theological (representing death and corruption). Keil argues the latter was primary; others see a combination. |
| Christian application of the clean/unclean distinction | The Mosaic dietary code is no longer binding for believers (Acts 10:15; Mark 7:19). | How to apply the principle of separation. Some see it as a call to avoid sinful practices; others view it as fulfilled in Christ so that no dietary distinction remains; some Pentecostal or Messianic groups still observe elements. All traditions affirm that holiness remains required. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Leviticus 11 sits within the larger section of the book concerned with purity and holiness (chapters 11-15). In the ancient Near East, dietary practices often marked ethnic and religious boundaries. For Israel, these laws served as a daily reminder of their identity as a covenant people set apart for God. The concluding verses 46-47 echo earlier summary formulas found in Leviticus 7:37 and 14:54-57. The Hebrew word torah (instruction) in v.46 is the same term used for the whole body of Mosaic teaching. The purpose clause in v.47 uses the Hiphil infinitive of bâdal (to separate, make a distinction). This verb also appears in Leviticus 10:10, where the priests are commanded to distinguish between holy and common, unclean and clean. The surrounding context (vv.44-45) grounds the entire dietary system in God's redemptive act: He brought Israel out of Egypt to be their God. The call "be holy, for I am holy" is the theological foundation. Keil and Delitzsch argue that the ethical rationale was more important than sanitary or political motives; the forbidden animals represented traits like predation, scavenging, and uncleanness that reminded Israel of sin and the need for separation from death. The dietary laws thus functioned as an embodied lesson in holiness, shaping daily life and table fellowship to reflect Israel's unique relationship with the holy God of the covenant.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants in Leviticus 11:46-47. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts, and the various English translations reflect the same underlying reading, adjusted for style.
Reception History
The early church wrestled with the applicability of the dietary laws after Peter’s vision (Acts 10) and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Most Christian tradition regarded the clean/unclean food distinctions as fulfilled and abrogated in Christ, as reflected in Wesley’s note that the law was “expressly repealed by a voice from heaven.” Matthew Henry, however, drew ethical application: the laws taught God’s people to put a difference between good and evil in all actions. In the medieval period, allegorical readings identified clean animals with virtuous habits and unclean with vices. The Reformation generally saw the laws as temporary and pedagogic, while some Anabaptist groups retained a concern for separation from the world. Modern conservative scholarship (Keil, Lange) highlights the ethical symbolism, while others (Barnes) point to the New Testament’s liberation from these “rudiments.” Across all eras, the underlying call to holiness has remained central.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God’s law provides clear boundaries. The detailed lists of clean and unclean animals teach that God cares about the specifics of daily life. Boundaries are not arbitrary; they shape identity and obedience.
- The purpose of distinction is holiness. The summary in v.47 connects directly to the command "be holy, for I am holy" (v.44). Distinguishing clean from unclean was a practical way to live out set-apartness.
- In Christ, the dietary boundary is fulfilled, but the call to holiness remains. Jesus taught that what defiles a person comes from the heart (Matthew 15:11). Peter’s vision (Acts 10:15) declared all foods clean. Yet the New Testament continually calls believers to "make a difference" in moral and spiritual choices (Ezekiel 44:23; Malachi 3:18).
Five-point outline
- The summary recaps God’s comprehensive instruction for creation: land animals, birds, water creatures, swarming things.
- The concrete categories train Israel to think in terms of sacred and common.
- Holiness begins at the table, the most basic arena of life.
- The law points to a deeper separation from sin and death, as Keil notes.
- Christians now discern right and wrong not by a diet list but by the Spirit’s guidance applied to the conscience.
Illustration hooks
- Sorting laundry or groceries: Just as we separate whites and colours, the dietary laws taught Israel to separate what belongs to God’s order from what does not.
- Choosing not to participate in an activity at work or school: Many believers today face decisions about what they will watch, attend, or endorse. That daily discernment is a parallel to Israel’s table choices.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does God really care what I eat? (The answer: under the old covenant yes, but now the kingdom is about righteousness, peace, and joy, Romans 14:17).
- How do I know what is holy or common in my Christian life? (Use Scripture, prayer, and the example of Christ to form a discerning conscience.)
- Does the Old Testament dietary law still apply today? (Most Christians see it as fulfilled in Christ, but the principle of living distinctly for God remains.)
Leading a Discussion
These two verses act as a hinge: they link the detailed dietary rules (vv.1-45) back to the great command to be holy because God is holy. The purpose is clear, Israel was to learn to make distinctions. For Christians, the laws themselves have been set aside, but the call to holiness and the practice of discernment are permanent.
Discussion questions
- Observation: Look at the four categories listed in v.46. Why do you think the summary covers every kind of living creature? What does that say about God’s instruction?
- Observation: In v.47, what is the specific goal of the law? Circle the words “distinction,” “unclean,” “clean,” “eaten,” “not eaten.”
- Interpretation: Read Leviticus 11:44-45 and 10:10 together. How do these verses explain the purpose of the dietary laws?
- Interpretation: Keil and Delitzsch argue the unclean animals symbolise sin and death. How does that interpretation help you understand why God gave such detailed rules?
- Application: In what areas of your life do you need to “make a distinction” between what belongs to God and what does not?
- Application: The New Testament declares all foods clean (Acts 10:15). Does that mean holiness no longer concerns daily choices? Why or why not?
- Application: How can your small group help one another develop discernment about the world’s values while remaining grace-filled and non-judgmental?
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 7:37 | This is the law of the burnt offering, the meal offering, the sin offering, the trespass offering, the consecration, and the sacrifice of peace offerings |
| Leviticus 11:2 | “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. |
| Leviticus 14:54 | This is the law for any plague of leprosy, and for an itch, |
| Leviticus 15:32 | This is the law of him who has a discharge, and of him who has an emission of semen, so that he is unclean by it; |
| Ezekiel 43:12 | “This is the law of the house. On the top of the mountain the whole limit around it shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house. |
| Leviticus 10:10 | You are to make a distinction between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean. |
| Ezekiel 44:23 | They shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. |
| Malachi 3:18 | Then you shall return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God and him who doesn’t serve him. |
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
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes explains that the dietary distinction between clean and unclean was given to remind Israel of their special covenant with God. Christ later revealed that the elect are no longer bound by the letter of these food laws, but are called to exercise a regenerated judgment, focusing on righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentary points out that this passage concerns only the rules about which animals may be eaten. It does not cover the separate laws about uncleanness from touching carcasses, which appear earlier in the chapter. The section is strictly dietary.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Notes emphasize that the purpose of these dietary laws is to establish and maintain a clear distinction between clean and unclean creatures. This distinction governs not only which animals may be eaten but also underscores God's demand for his people to remain set apart in their daily practices.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill treats this verse as a recapitulation of the dietary laws, noting it does not follow the earlier chapter's exact order. He emphasizes that the specific descriptions of clean and unclean creatures were given so the Israelites could clearly distinguish what might be eaten from what might not.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB argues these dietary laws likely did not start from scratch but gave divine sanction to longstanding customs. Many prohibited animals had already been rejected by human experience, while others were declared unclean for health reasons specific to warm regions or for associations with surrounding idolatry.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch argue the food laws rest on an ethical basis: unclean animals are those that recall sin, death, and corruption, not sanitary or political reasons. They acknowledge some listed animals (like the ass or camel) do not obviously fit this pattern, but appeal to primeval tradition, claiming ancient humanity had a deeper intuitive grasp of nature than modern, corrupted minds can recover.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange reads the clean and unclean animal laws as fundamentally about sacrifice and holiness. The cloven hoof and chewing the cud mark animals that are tame, domesticated, and suitable for offering to God, while excluding wild,
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry reads these dietary laws not as mere food rules but as God's training in holiness itself. The point was to teach Israel to tell good from evil in every ordinary action, to obey God in eating and drinking, and to stand distinct from the nations around them.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that the Mosaic dietary restrictions were only binding during that dispensation. Under the gospel, God directly repealed this law, so Christians may eat any creature with thanksgiving, blessing God that nothing is off-limits.