Mormon Apologetics presents: Kosher Ham
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:58 am
Under the Law of Moses, animals had to be killed in a certain way before they could be ritually clean as food. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita
Some animals were considered unclean under the Law of Moses. Anti-Semitic critics with an agenda have tried to impose a fundamentalist reading on the text of the Bible to suggest that ancient Hebrews living the Law of Moses could not eat pork. A typical chestnut is this:
Leviticus 11
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Notice that the text does not explicitly refer to a "pig," but to a swine. According to the dictionary, there are several meanings to the word "swine," including "a coarse, gross, or brutishly sensual person" or "a contemptible person." Thus, we see that the ancient Hebrews were forbidden to eat unrighteous people. And no wonder: in Genesis 9:6, the Lord tells Noah, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." The Jews in Palestine who rejected the Savior thought that Jesus was contemptible, and, given their attachment to the Law of Moses, were shocked at the notion of eating Jesus' flesh.
John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Notwithstanding the fact that the text of Leviticus does not require a swine to be a "pig," anti-Semites with an ax to grind try to make much out of the language in Leviticus 11:7 referring to "though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted" to suggest that this is describing a pig in the modern sense of the word (see: Presentism). But again turning to the dictionary, we see that the word "though" can mean "even if; granting that." Thus, the "swine" alluded to in Leviticus is not required to be clovenfooted.
It is interesting to note that there is a genetic defect called ectrodactyly, which cause people to be born with missing toes. Usually just the big toe and an end toe are present, and the feet appear to be like claws. This perfectly fits the meaning of "cloven," which is a foot that is divided in two. Clearly, the Lord's message in Leviticus was that His people should not consider persons born with a genetic disorder as "contemptible," or "swine," and thus the ancient Israelites were forbidden to eat people with ectrodactyly.
Critics would do well to avoid imposing their legalistic readings on the Law of Moses to further their agenda and try to portray the ancient Israelites as superstitious on the supposed---and now thoroughly refuted---idea that they could not eat pork.
Some animals were considered unclean under the Law of Moses. Anti-Semitic critics with an agenda have tried to impose a fundamentalist reading on the text of the Bible to suggest that ancient Hebrews living the Law of Moses could not eat pork. A typical chestnut is this:
Leviticus 11
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Notice that the text does not explicitly refer to a "pig," but to a swine. According to the dictionary, there are several meanings to the word "swine," including "a coarse, gross, or brutishly sensual person" or "a contemptible person." Thus, we see that the ancient Hebrews were forbidden to eat unrighteous people. And no wonder: in Genesis 9:6, the Lord tells Noah, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." The Jews in Palestine who rejected the Savior thought that Jesus was contemptible, and, given their attachment to the Law of Moses, were shocked at the notion of eating Jesus' flesh.
John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Notwithstanding the fact that the text of Leviticus does not require a swine to be a "pig," anti-Semites with an ax to grind try to make much out of the language in Leviticus 11:7 referring to "though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted" to suggest that this is describing a pig in the modern sense of the word (see: Presentism). But again turning to the dictionary, we see that the word "though" can mean "even if; granting that." Thus, the "swine" alluded to in Leviticus is not required to be clovenfooted.
It is interesting to note that there is a genetic defect called ectrodactyly, which cause people to be born with missing toes. Usually just the big toe and an end toe are present, and the feet appear to be like claws. This perfectly fits the meaning of "cloven," which is a foot that is divided in two. Clearly, the Lord's message in Leviticus was that His people should not consider persons born with a genetic disorder as "contemptible," or "swine," and thus the ancient Israelites were forbidden to eat people with ectrodactyly.
Critics would do well to avoid imposing their legalistic readings on the Law of Moses to further their agenda and try to portray the ancient Israelites as superstitious on the supposed---and now thoroughly refuted---idea that they could not eat pork.
