Food Laws not for health reasons

Wenham, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, pp 167-68.

The hygienic interpretation holds that the unclean creatures are unfit to eat because they are carriers of disease. The clean animals are those that are relatively safe to eat. This explanation is adopted by many modern writers. Pork can be a source of trichinosis. The coney and hare are carriers of tularemia. Fish without fins and scales tend to burrow into the mud and become sources of dangerous bacteria, as do the birds of prey which feed on carrion. [1]

This interpretation is particularly attractive to twentieth century Western readers, obsessed as we are by health care and medical science. And it may well be that God in his providence did give rules that contributed to the health of the nation. But just because we can see hygienic considerations underlying some of the laws does not mean that the human authors of Scripture did too. There are good reasons for believing that they did not see these provisions as hygienic.

First, hygiene can only account for some of the prohibitions. Some of the clean animals are more questionable on hygienic grounds than some of the unclean animals.[2] If ancient Israel had discovered the dangers of eating pork, they might also have discovered that thorough cooking averts it. In any event, trichinosis is rare in free-range pigs. Among the Arabs camel flesh is regarded as a luxury, though Leviticus brands it as unclean.

Secondly, the OT gives no hint that it regarded these foods as a danger to health. Motive clauses justifying a particular rule are a very characteristic feature of OT law, yet there is never a hint that these animal foods must be avoided because they will damage health. Yet this would surely have constituted an excellent reason for avoiding unclean food.

Third, why, if hygiene is the motive, are not poisonous plants classed as unclean?

Finally, if health were the reason for declaring certain foods unclean in the first place, why did our Lord pronounce them clean in his day? Evidence is lacking that the Middle Eastern understanding of hygiene had advanced so far by the first century A.D. that the Levitical laws were unnecessary. Indeed, if the primary purpose of the food laws was hygienic, it is surprising that Jesus abolished them.

[1] See for example Clements, p. 34.

[2] J. Simoons, Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances in the Old World (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1961), pp. 37ff.