The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Clean and Unclean Animals
Deuteronomy 14:1–21 — Clean and Unclean Animals. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
1You are sons of the LORD your God; do not cut yourselves or shave your foreheads on behalf of the dead,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’at·tem bā·nîm Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hê·ḵem lō ṯiṯ·gō·ḏə·ḏū wə·lō- ṯā·śî·mū qā·rə·ḥāh bên ‘ê·nê·ḵem lā·mêṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Sons [are] you to-Yahweh your-God; not shall-you-gash-yourselves, and-not shall-you-set a-baldness between your-eyes for-a-dead-one.
Where the English smooths the original
Sons are ye to Jehovah your God ] The order of the EVV. misses the emphasis. Note not merely the change to the Pl. address but its cause, the conception of individual Israelites as the sons of Jehovah: not elsewhere in D. In the discourses in D Israel, the nation, is as the son of Jehovah, Deuteronomy 1:31 , Deuteronomy 8:5 and so more definitely in J, Exodus 4:22 f., Hosea 11:1 , and Jeremiah 31:20 .
It was a common practice of idolaters, both on ceremonious occasions of their worship (1Ki 18:28), and at funerals (compare Jer 16:6; 41:5), to make ghastly incisions on their faces and other parts of their persons with their finger nails or sharp instruments. The making a large bare space between the eyebrows was another heathen custom in honor of the dead
The divine sonship of Israel was founded upon its election and calling as the holy nation of Jehovah, which is regarded in the Old Testament not as generation by the Spirit of God, but simply as an adoption springing out of the free love of God, as the manifestation of paternal love on the part of Jehovah to Israel, which binds the son to obedience, reverence, and childlike trust towards a Creator and Father, who would train it up into a holy people.
The practices named in this verse were common among the pagan, and seem to be forbidden, not only because such wild excesses of grief (compare 1 Kings 18:28 ) would be inconsistent in those who as children of a heavenly Father had prospects beyond this world, but also because these usages themselves arose out of idolatrous notions.Barnes supplies the redemptive logic the chapter leaves implicit: gashing and self-disfigurement for the dead are the despair of those with no hope beyond the grave — which is why sons of a living Father may not act them out.
2for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD has chosen you to be a people for His prized possession out of all the peoples on the face of the earth.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî ’at·tāh ‘am qā·ḏō·wōš Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā ū·ḇə·ḵā Yah·weh bā·ḥar lih·yō·wṯ lə·‘am lōw sə·ḡul·lāh mik·kōl hā·‘am·mîm ’ă·šer ‘al- pə·nê hā·’ă·ḏā·māh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
For a-people holy [are] you to-Yahweh your-God, and-in-you chose Yahweh to-be for-him a-people, a-treasured-possession, out-of-all the-peoples that [are] upon the-face-of the-ground.
Where the English smooths the original
This verse is repeated from Deuteronomy 7:6 , word for word, except the “ and,” which is added here. In the former passage, the principle is made the ground for destroying all monuments of idolatry in the land of Israel. Here it is made the basis of outward personal dignity and purity.
in order to keep them a distinct peculiar people from all others, a peculiar diet was appointed them, that so being prohibited to eat such things as others did, they might be kept out of their company and conversation, and so from being drawn into their idolatrous practices
Since you have the honour to be separated to God as a peculiar people, by laws different from those of all other nations, it behooves you to act suitably to the dignity of your privileges, and to beware of defiling yourselves with any such heathenish rites or practices as are either impious or absurd.
3You must not eat any detestable thing.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō ṯō·ḵal kāl- tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Not shall-you-eat any abomination.
Where the English smooths the original
That is, anything which Jehovah has pronounced abominable. The distinctions between His creatures were alike established and removed by the Creator.
"Every creature of God is good," and "there is nothing unclean of itself" ( 1 Timothy 4:4 ; Romans 14:14 ); "but by the ordinance of God, certain creatures, meats, and drinks were made unclean to the Jews... and this taught them holiness in abstaining from the impure communion with the wicked" (Ainsworth).
The same noun as abomination , Deuteronomy 7:25 , q.v. ; a term characteristic of D.
i.e. Unclean and forbidden by me, which therefore should be abominable to you.Poole catches the relational logic of tôʿēḇāh: the thing is “abominable” not in its own nature but because forbidden “by me” — loathing follows the Lord’s ordinance, the very point the Pulpit Commentary makes against 1 Timothy 4:4.
4These are the animals that you may eat: The ox, the sheep, the goat,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
zōṯ hab·bə·hê·māh ’ă·šer tō·ḵê·lū šō·wr śêh ḵə·śā·ḇîm wə·śêh ‘iz·zîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
These [are] the-animals that you-may-eat: an-ox, a-young-one of-the-sheep, and-a-young-one of-the-goats.
Where the English smooths the original
“The sheep and the goat” are literally, “a young one of the sheep or of the goats.” This may serve to illustrate Exodus 12:5 , “Ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats.” According to the letter of the Law in Exodus, the Passover victim might be either lamb or kid. The word sêh, used there and in Genesis 22:7-8 , is not distinctive of the species.
the ox, the sheep, and the goat; which were creatures used in sacrifice, and the only ones, yet nevertheless they might be used for food if chosen.
This ceremonial Law instructed the Jews to seek a spiritual pureness, even in their meat and drink.
5the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ay·yāl ū·ṣə·ḇî wə·yaḥ·mūr wə·’aq·qōw wə·ḏî·šōn ū·ṯə·’ōw wā·zā·mer
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Deer, and-gazelle, and-roe-deer, and-wild-goat, and-pygarg, and-wild-ox, and-mountain-sheep.
Where the English smooths the original
Thus the names in this verse are all general and popular; each may have covered more than one species found in Syria or Arabia: to identify it with any one species is foolish.
fallow deer—The Hebrew word (Jachmur) so rendered, does not represent the fallow deer, which is unknown in Western Asia, but an antelope (Oryx leucoryx), called by the Arabs, jazmar. It is of a white color, black at the extremities, and a bright red on the thighs. It was used at Solomon's table.
The hart ; ayyal ( אַיָּל ), probably the fallow deer , or deer generally. The roebuck; tsebi ( צְבִי ), the gazelle ( Gazella Arabica ). The fallow deer ; yachmur ( יחְמוּר ), the roebuck. The wild goat ; akko ( אַקּו ), the ibex.
6You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
tō·ḵê·lū wə·ḵāl bə·hê·māh še·sa‘ map̄·re·seṯ par·sāh wə·šō·sa·‘aṯ šə·tê p̄ə·rā·sō·wṯ ma·‘ă·laṯ gê·rāh bab·bə·hê·māh ’ō·ṯāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-every animal [having] a-cleft, parting the-hoof and-cloven [in] two hooves, [and] bringing-up the-cud, among-the-animals — it you-may-eat.
Where the English smooths the original
that parteth the hoof, and hath the hoof cloven in two ] Lit. and cleaveth a cleft of two hoofs . The hoof must be entirely cloven (see below on camel ); and cheweth the cud ] Heb. bringeth up the gerah , Ar. girrah , so called from either the straining or the gurgling of the process.
In this and the two following verses two general rules are given, by which it might be known what beasts were fit for food and what not; one is if they parted the hoof, and the other if they chewed the cud, such might be eaten
These directions are the same given in Leviticus 11:3-8 .
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. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof. They are unclean for you,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’aḵ ’eṯ- mim·ma·‘ă·lê hag·gê·rāh ū·mim·map̄·rî·sê haš·šə·sū·‘āh ’eṯ- hap·par·sāh lō ṯō·ḵə·lū zeh hag·gā·māl wə·’eṯ- hā·’ar·ne·ḇeṯ wə·’eṯ- haš·šā·p̄ān kî- hêm·māh ma·‘ă·lêh ḡê·rāh lō hip̄·rî·sū ū·p̄ar·sāh hêm ṭə·mê·’îm lā·ḵem
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Only this you-shall-not-eat, of-those-bringing-up the-cud or of-those-parting the-cloven hoof: the-camel, and-the-hare, and-the-rock-badger — for they bring-up the-cud but the-hoof they-have-not-parted; unclean [are] they to-you.
Where the English smooths the original
The rock-badger, shaphan , Ar. wabr and ṭubsun; procavia ( hyrax ) syriaca (Tristram, 1) does not chew the cud. It seems, however, to the observer to chew the cud: ‘both the jerboa and the wabr ruminate, say the hunters, because they are often shot with the cud in their mouth’
Nevertheless 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.
but such that only chewed the cud, but did not divide the hoof, as the camel, hare, and coney, might not be eaten; and so if they divided the hoof, and did not chew the cud, as the swine, they were alike unlawful
8as 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.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’eṯ- ha·ḥă·zîr kî- hū map̄·rîs par·sāh wə·lō ḡê·rāh hū ṭā·mê lā·ḵem lō ṯō·ḵê·lū mib·bə·śā·rām ṯig·gā·‘ū ū·ḇə·niḇ·lā·ṯām lō
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-pig, for it parts the-hoof but-not [does it bring up] the-cud — unclean [is] it to-you; of-their-flesh you-shall-not-eat, and-their-carcass you-shall-not-touch.
Where the English smooths the original
swine ] ḥǎzîr , Ar. khanzir ; from the animal’s indiscriminate feeding the flesh is liable to become the host of many parasites and therefore without care dangerous especially in warm climates. Used in heathen sacrifices, Isaiah 65:4 f., 17.
The laws which regarded many sorts of flesh as unclean, were to keep them from mingling with their idolatrous neighbours. It is plain in the gospel, that these laws are now done away.
and so if they divided the hoof, and did not chew the cud, as the swine, they were alike unlawful
9Of all the creatures that live in the water, you may eat anything with fins and scales,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’eṯ- zeh mik·kōl ’ă·šer bam·mā·yim tō·ḵə·lū kōl ’ă·šer- lōw sə·nap·pîr wə·qaś·qe·śeṯ tō·ḵê·lū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
This you-may-eat of-all that [is] in-the-waters: all that [has] to-it fins and-scales you-may-eat.
Where the English smooths the original
The rule given here, that only those with fins (points) or scales are clean practically rules out eels1[133], lampreys and others, with of course all shellfish, some of which are wholesome fare. In inquiring for a reason for their exclusion, their likeness in shape to serpents must be kept in view
The fishes there, even such as have fins and scales, but they that have not were not to be eaten
(9-10) See Leviticus 11:9-12 .Ellicott’s whole note for this verse is a bare cross-reference to Leviticus 11 — itself evidence of how closely the two codes track.
10but you may not eat anything that does not have fins and scales; it is unclean for you.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō ṯō·ḵê·lū wə·ḵōl ’ă·šer ’ên- lōw sə·nap·pîr wə·qaś·qe·śeṯ hū ṭā·mê lā·ḵem
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-all that [has] not to-it fins and-scales you-shall-not-eat; unclean [is] it to-you.
Where the English smooths the original
And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
the laws of Leviticus 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Leviticus 11 )
The fishes there, even such as have fins and scales, but they that have not were not to be eaten
11You may eat any clean bird,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
tō·ḵê·lū kāl- ṭə·hō·rāh ṣip·pō·wr
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Every bird [that is] clean you-may-eat.
Where the English smooths the original
Which the Targum of Jonathan describes, everyone that has a craw, and whose crop is naked, and has a superfluous talon, and is not rapacious; but such as are unclean are expressed by name in the following verses, so that all except them might be reckoned clean and fit for food.
Of Birds, cp. Leviticus 11:13-19 ; only the unclean are named; of clean birds we know of the dove, quail, partridge and barbur .
De 14:11-20. Of Birds. 11-20. Of all clean birds ye shall eat
12but these you may not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·zeh ’ă·šer lō- ṯō·ḵə·lū mê·hem han·ne·šer wə·hap·pe·res wə·hā·‘ā·zə·nî·yāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-this [is what] you-shall-not-eat of-them: the-eagle, and-the-bearded-vulture, and-the-black-vulture.
Where the English smooths the original
eagle ] nesher , Ar. nisr , the great vulture or griffon, gyps fulvus , identified by the baldness of its head and neck, Micah 1:16 ; from its frequency and its size ‘the most striking ornithological feature of Palestine’
With one exception, the unclean birds are the same described in Leviticus 11:13-19 .
But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
13the red kite, the falcon, any kind of kite,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hā·rā·’āh wə·’eṯ- hā·’ay·yāh lə·mî·nāh wə·had·day·yāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-red-kite, and-the-falcon, and-the-kite after-its-kind.
Where the English smooths the original
This word occurs only here, and it is supposed by some that, by an error of the copyist, substituting ר for ד , it has come instead of דָאָה , as used in Leviticus 11:14 .
And the glede — Hebrew, הראה , haraah, a bird of the vulture kind, which evidently has its name from its sharp sight. This is omitted in Leviticus.
In Leviticus 11:14 , “the vulture and the kite ” alone are named. The Hebrew words are in Leviticus dââh and ayyah. In this place they are rââh, ayyah, and dayyah. The close resemblance between the names is noticeable.
14any kind of raven,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’êṯ kāl- lə·mî·nōw ‘ō·rêḇ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And every raven after-its-kind.
Where the English smooths the original
and every raven , etc.] ‘oreb Ar. ghorâb , covering all the species of the corvidae in Palestine of which Tristram (74 ff.) distinguishes eight; a carrion feeder with the ’agab and rakham
And every raven after his kind,
Jarchi observes, that the unclean birds are particularly mentioned, to teach that the clean sort are more than the unclean, and therefore the particulars of the fewest are given
15the ostrich, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’êṯ baṯ hay·ya·‘ă·nāh wə·’eṯ- hat·taḥ·mās wə·’eṯ- haš·šā·ḥap̄ wə·’eṯ- lə·mî·nê·hū han·nêṣ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the-daughter-of the-greed (the-ostrich), and-the-screech-owl, and-the-gull, and-the-hawk after-its-kind.
Where the English smooths the original
16the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’eṯ- hak·kō·ws wə·’eṯ- hay·yan·šūp̄ wə·hat·tin·šā·meṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
The-little-owl, and-the-great-owl, and-the-white-owl.
Where the English smooths the original
little owl ] kôs , LXX, νυκτικόραξ (?), both night-jar and screech-owl. Tristram (93): ‘probably’ the southern little owl, Athene glaux , ‘one of the most universally distributed birds in the Holy Land.’ It inhabits ruins, Psalm 102:6 (7). Arabs call it ‘mother of ruins.’
the swan—rather, the goose [Michaelis].
The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
17the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·haq·qā·’āṯ wə·’eṯ- hā·rā·ḥā·māh wə·’eṯ- haš·šā·lāḵ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-desert-owl, and-the-carrion-vulture, and-the-cormorant.
Where the English smooths the original
vulture ] raḥamah , Ar. rakhim , ‘a small white carrion eagle,’ migratory, and haunting the abodes of men, one of the commonest carrion birds in Arabia, ‘the white scavenger’
gier eagle—The Hebrew word Rachemah is manifestly identical with Rachamah, the name which the Arabs give to the common vulture of Western Asia and Egypt (Neophron percnopterus).
And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
18the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe, or the bat.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ha·ḥă·sî·ḏāh lə·mî·nāh wə·hā·’ă·nā·p̄āh wə·had·dū·ḵî·p̄aṯ wə·hā·‘ă·ṭal·lêp̄
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-stork, and-the-heron after-its-kind, and-the-hoopoe, and-the-bat.
Where the English smooths the original
bat ] ‘aṭalleph (cp. ἀττέλαβος , a kind of locust in N. Africa, Herod, iv. 172). In Palestine it haunts caverns and (as in Egypt) sepulchres. There is no doubt that the cheeping and muttering attributed to the dead (Isaiah 7) was derived from the sound made by the crowds of this animal when disturbed in sepulchres.
the lapwing—the upupa or hoop: a beautiful bird, but of the most unclean habits.
And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
19All flying insects are unclean for you; they may not be eaten.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ḵōl hā·‘ō·wp̄ še·reṣ ṭā·mê hū lā·ḵem lō yê·’ā·ḵê·lū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-every flying swarming-thing — unclean [is] it to-you; they-shall-not-be-eaten.
Where the English smooths the original
all winged creeping things are unclean ] Lit. swarming things that fly , all winged insects. To this Leviticus 11:21 f. adds that go upon all fours and excepts from the rule such as have jointed legs above their feet to leap on the earth, i.e. various kinds of leaping locusts, as distinguished from the running locust
all flies and wasps (or hornets), and worms of lentiles and of beans, which are separated from food, and fly as birds, they are uncleanGill is quoting the Targum of Jonathan’s paraphrase of the verse.
And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.
20But you may eat any clean bird.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
tō·ḵê·lū kāl- ṭā·hō·wr ‘ō·wp̄
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Every flying-thing [that is] clean you-may-eat.
Where the English smooths the original
Of all clean winged things ye may eat ] R.V. fowl is misleading; the term winged covers both birds and flying insects and here probably refers only to the latter. Arabs and other eastern peoples eat locusts not only in time of famine; fried or made into cakes they are considered a delicacy
Aben Ezra instances in the locust, as being a clean fowl, that might be eaten;
But of all clean fowls ye may eat.
21You are not to eat any carcass; you may give it to the foreigner residing within your gates, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a holy people belonging to the LORD your God. You must not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō ṯō·ḵə·lū ḵāl nə·ḇê·lāh tit·tə·nen·nāh lag·gêr ’ă·šer- biš·‘ā·re·ḵā wa·’ă·ḵā·lāh ’ōw mā·ḵōr lə·nā·ḵə·rî kî ’at·tāh qā·ḏō·wōš ‘am Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā lō- ṯə·ḇaš·šêl gə·ḏî ’im·mōw ba·ḥă·lêḇ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Not shall-you-eat any carcass; to-the-sojourner who [is] in-your-gates you-may-give-it and-he-shall-eat-it, or sell [it] to-a-foreigner; for a-holy people [are] you to-Yahweh your-God. Not shall-you-boil a-kid in-the-milk-of its-mother.
Where the English smooths the original
that both in E and J it immediately follows the offering of first-fruits suggests that this meaning was connected with the security of the harvest or of the fertility of the soil: ‘a superstitious usage of some of the Gentiles, who, ’tis said, at the end of their harvest seethed a kid in its dam’s milk, and sprinkled that milk pottage in a magical way upon their gardens and fields to make them the more fruitful the next yearThe inner quotation is the Cambridge editor citing Matthew Henry on Exodus 23:19.
It should be remembered that these rules and restrictions were intended to raise the Israelites above the common level; not to degrade the other nations in comparison of them. Strangers were not compelled to eat what Israel refused; they were left free to please themselves.
(c) Because their blood was not shed, but remains in them. (d) Who is not of your religion.Geneva’s two marginal glosses, keyed to “dieth of itself” (c) and “stranger” (d).
now that the plenty of the promised land was before them, the modified toleration of this unholy food was withdrawn.
Unto the stranger; not to the proselyte, for such were obliged by this law, Leviticus 17:15 , but to such as were strangers in religion as well as in nation.Poole sharpens the very distinction the divergence note draws: the gēr who may receive the carcass is not the religious proselyte (bound by Leviticus 17:15) but the outsider in faith as well as nationality — an honest reckoning with how this permission squares with the stricter Leviticus law.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The chapter opens not with a rule but with a name: bānîm attem la-YHWH, “Sons are ye to Yahweh.” The Cambridge Bible insists the English versions miss the force — “The order of the EVV. misses the emphasis” — for the predicate “sons” stands first, and the address shifts to individual Israelites as God’s children, “not elsewhere in D.” Keil & Delitzsch ground the whole law here: this sonship is “not as generation by the Spirit of God, but simply as an adoption springing out of the free love of God … which binds the son to obedience.” From that identity flow two prohibitions: not to gash oneself (the Hithpael of gāḏaḏ, the very verb of Baal’s prophets, 1 Kings 18:28) nor to shave a baldness (qorḥāh) between the eyes for the dead. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown catalogue these as “ghastly incisions … in honor of the dead,” and v. 2 gives the reason, repeated almost verbatim from Deuteronomy 7:6 (so Ellicott: “word for word, except the ‘and’”): Israel is qāḏôš, holy, a səḡullāh — a king’s treasured hoard — chosen out of all peoples. The mourning-rites are forbidden because a people who belong to a living God may not wear the marks of those who grieve as the hopeless do.
A single heading governs all that follows: lōʾ ṯōʾḵal kol tôʿēḇāh, “you shall not eat any abomination” (tôʿēḇāh, which the Cambridge Bible calls “a term characteristic of D”). Then Deuteronomy does what Leviticus 11 does not — it names the clean beasts: the ox, and the śeh of sheep and of goats (the indefinite Passover-word, Ellicott), and seven wild game animals whose identities the commentators cannot fix. The two diagnostic signs are stated with doubled, emphatic Hebrew: the hoof must be fully cloven (“The hoof must be entirely cloven,” Cambridge) and the animal must “bring up the gērāh” — rumination. Gill reduces it to “two general rules.” The chapter then tests the rules against the famous borderline cases: camel, hare, rock-badger chew but do not part the hoof; the pig parts the hoof but does not chew. The text says the rock-badger “brings up the cud” — which the Cambridge Bible admits “is not correct,” even as it notes “the peculiar munching movements … are so strongly suggestive of cud-chewing.” All four are ṭāmēʾ, unclean — the verdict-word that will toll through the rest of the chapter.
The survey moves through the three domains of Genesis 1 in order: water (vv. 9–10), air (vv. 11–18), swarmers (vv. 19–20). Fish are clean by a rare paired sign — sənappîr (fin) and qaśqeśeṯ (scale); the rule, says the Cambridge Bible, “practically rules out eels … lampreys … and all shellfish,” partly because of “their likeness in shape to serpents.” The birds are given only as a forbidden list — Gill, citing Jarchi, notes “the clean sort are more than the unclean, and therefore the particulars of the fewest are given.” Nearly every name is debated; Ellicott reckons “with one exception, the unclean birds are the same described in Leviticus 11:13–19,” that exception being the rāʾāh (v. 13), which the Pulpit Commentary suspects is a copyist’s resh-for-daleth slip of Leviticus’ dāʾāh. Two of the unclean birds carry names of tenderness — the rāḥām (v. 17) and the ḥăsîḏāh/stork (v. 18) are named from the roots for compassion and loyal love. Deuteronomy then forbids all winged swarmers (v. 19), where Leviticus 11 had excepted the leaping locust — a difference the Cambridge Bible carefully marks, reading v. 20 (“every clean flying thing”) of those very locusts.
The chapter closes as it opened — with holiness (qāḏôš, framing the whole) — and with three final laws. The nəḇēlāh (carcass, an animal dead of itself, its blood undrained — Geneva: “because their blood was not shed”) may not be eaten by Israel, but may be given to the gēr (resident sojourner) or sold to the noḵrî (passing foreigner) — two statuses the Hebrew distinguishes and the English blurs. Barnes reads the permission historically: in the wilderness it would have been useless, but “now that the plenty of the promised land was before them, the modified toleration of this unholy food was withdrawn” in the stricter Leviticus 17:15 — an honest acknowledgment that the codes differ. Ellicott guards against contempt: the laws were “intended to raise the Israelites above the common level; not to degrade the other nations.” Last comes the thrice-given command: lōʾ ṯəḇaššēl gəḏî ba-ḥălēḇ immô, “you shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” — which the Cambridge Bible, following Calvin, ties to a Gentile harvest-fertility rite and to a seemliness that recoils from cooking a young life “as it were, in its own blood.”
Read on its own terms, Deuteronomy 14 is not a hygiene manual but a liturgy of belonging — and that is why it begins with “sons,” not with “swine.” The logic runs identity → behavior → diet, never the reverse. Israel does not become holy by keeping the food-laws; Israel keeps the food-laws because it has already been made qāḏôš, set apart, and chosen as a səḡullāh, a treasured possession (v. 2). Every meal then rehearses the difference between the people of a living God and the peoples around them — even the table is catechism. The chapter’s own brackets prove the point: it opens with mourning forbidden “for the dead” (v. 1) and closes with the carcass, the dead-of-itself, and the kid not to be seethed in the milk that fed it (v. 21) — death and life are not to be confused, and the people of life must not handle death as the nations do. The honest tension this tool must name is that Matthew Henry states plainly: “It is plain in the gospel, that these laws are now done away” (Mark 7:19; Acts 10; 1 Timothy 4:4). Yet the ground of the laws is not done away — the called people is still to be holy, still set apart, still to let even its appetites be governed by whose it is. The shadow passes; the substance — “you are sons” — deepens into “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17). Test this against the text; it is the tool’s reading, offered to be weighed.
The chapter opens with sons, not with swine — diet is the last word of holiness, never the first.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
Verses 4–20 are, in Keil & Delitzsch’s words, “a repetition of Leviticus 11 … in all essential points.” This is not a vague thematic echo but a dense web of shared rare lexemes that the Verifier records: the cud-and-hoof vocabulary gērāh (H1625, 9 vv), parsāh (H6541, 16 vv), pāras (H6536, 12 vv), and the four-fold cleft šesaʿ (H8157, only 4 vv) link Deuteronomy 14:6–7 to Leviticus 11:3–7; the fish-signs sənappîr (H5579, 5 vv) and qaśqeśeṯ (H7193, 7 vv) link 14:9–10 to Leviticus 11:9–12; and the bird-and-kind words mîn (H4327, 18 vv) and ʾayyāh (H344, 3 vv) link 14:13–18 to Leviticus 11:13–19. Several of these (šesaʿ, ʾayyāh) are rare enough that their co-occurrence is a genuine verbal quotation, not coincidence — one Hebrew text deliberately reproducing another.
Deuteronomy 14:6 · Deuteronomy 14:7 · Deuteronomy 14:9 · Deuteronomy 14:13 · Leviticus 11:3 · Leviticus 11:7 · Leviticus 11:9 · Leviticus 11:13
basis: rare shared Strong's lexemes (Verifier): H8157 šesaʿ (4 vv), H1625 gērâh (9 vv), H6541 parçâh (16 vv), H6536 pâraç (12 vv), H5579 çᵉnappîyr (5 vv), H7193 qasqeseth (7 vv), H4327 mîyn (18 vv), H344 ʾayâh (3 vv) — low-frequency words shared across the two dietary codes; one Hebrew text reproducing another
The chapter’s closing prohibition (v. 21) is, as Jamieson, Fausset & Brown note, “the third place in which the prohibition is repeated” — the others being Exodus 23:19 and 34:26. The Verifier confirms the link as verbal: Deuteronomy 14:21, Exodus 23:19, and Exodus 34:26 share the rare cluster gəḏî (H1423, kid, 16 vv), bāšal (H1310, boil, 24 vv), ḥālāḇ (H2461, milk, 44 vv), and ʾēm (H517, mother) — the same four content-words in the same order, three times over. That triple repetition is itself the strongest internal signal that the command mattered; the Cambridge Bible, with Calvin, reads it against a Gentile fertility-rite, while declining to settle the matter.
Deuteronomy 14:21 · Exodus 23:19 · Exodus 34:26
basis: rare shared Strong's lexemes (Verifier): H1423 gᵉdîy (16 vv), H1310 bâshal (24 vv), H2461 châlâb (44 vv), H517 ʼêm (202 vv) — the identical four-word clause repeated verbatim across Exodus 23:19, 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21
Verse 2 is, by Ellicott’s reckoning, repeated from Deuteronomy 7:6 “word for word, except the ‘and.’” The Verifier bears this out with a chain of distinctive election-vocabulary: səḡullāh (H5459, “treasured possession,” only 8 vv), qāḏôš (H6918, holy), bāḥar (H977, chose), and ʾăḏāmāh (H127, ground/earth) are all shared between 14:2 and 7:6. The rare səḡullāh in particular — the king’s private treasure — ties this verse to Exodus 19:5 and, beyond the Hebrew canon, to the New Testament’s “a people for his own possession” (see the Christ section). The formula is the theological hinge of the whole chapter: the food-laws rest on this status, not the reverse.
Deuteronomy 14:2 · Deuteronomy 7:6 · Exodus 19:5
basis: rare shared Strong's lexemes (Verifier): H5459 çᵉgullâh (8 vv), H6918 qâdôwsh (106 vv), H977 bâchar (164 vv), H127 ʼădâmâh (211 vv) — the low-frequency çᵉgullâh anchors a verbatim repetition of the Deuteronomy 7:6 election formula
Three of the unclean birds of Deuteronomy 14:16–17 — the qāʾaṯ (desert owl/pelican, H6893, 5 vv), the yanšûp̄ (great owl, H3244, 3 vv), and the ʿōrēḇ (raven, H6158, 10 vv) — reappear together in Isaiah 34:11, the oracle of Edom’s desolation, where these very creatures inherit the ruined land. The Verifier records the shared lexemes. The link is real but its character is thematic, not a quotation: the prophet is not citing the food-law but drawing on the same fund of waste-place birds. The unclean creatures of the table become, in prophecy, the tenants of judgment — an association the Cambridge Bible hints at in noting that the owl “inhabits ruins” and the Arabs call it “mother of ruins.”
Deuteronomy 14:16 · Deuteronomy 14:17 · Isaiah 34:11
basis: shared Strong's lexemes (Verifier): H6893 qâʼath (5 vv), H3244 yanshûwph (3 vv), H6158 ʻôrêb (10 vv). The Verifier's mechanical tier reads 'verbal' on the rare qâʼath (5 vv) and yanshûwph (3 vv); we DOWNGRADE to structural — a shared rare word does not prove quotation when both texts independently reach for the standard desolation-fauna. Isaiah is not citing the food-law; prophet and lawgiver draw on the same fund of waste-place birds. Recorded as thematic.
Three of the seven wild game animals named in Deuteronomy 14:5 — the ʾayyāl (hart/deer, H354), the ṣəḇî (gazelle, H6643), and the yaḥmûr (roe deer, H3180, only 2 vv) — recur as a set in 1 Kings 4:23, the daily provision of Solomon’s table. The Verifier records the shared lexemes; the very rare yaḥmûr makes the overlap pointed. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown note of the yaḥmûr that “it was used at Solomon’s table.” The connection is structural — a later narrative drawing on the same catalogue of permitted clean game — rather than a citation: it shows the food-law lived, the clean wild beasts actually eaten in Israel’s royal house.
Deuteronomy 14:5 · 1 Kings 4:23
basis: shared Strong's lexemes (Verifier): H354 ʼayâl (11 vv), H6643 tsᵉbîy (32 vv), H3180 yachmûwr (2 vv). The Verifier's mechanical tier reads 'verbal' on the strength of the rare yachmûr (2 vv); we DOWNGRADE to structural deliberately — 1 Kings 4:23 is a narrative inventory of Solomon's daily provision, drawing on the same stock of clean game, not quoting or citing the Deuteronomic food-law. The link shows the law lived, not one text reproducing another.
The chapter’s opening word, “Sons are ye to Yahweh” (v. 1), is the seed of a great biblical theme that the Cambridge Bible traces forward by hand: from the nation-as-son (Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1; Jeremiah 31:20) to the individual Israelites as sons (Hosea 1:10; Isaiah 1:2), and on to its New Testament flowering. This thread is offered with caution. The Verifier finds no shared original-language lexeme between Deuteronomy 14:1 and Hosea 11:1 — the connection is conceptual, argued from the idea of divine sonship, not from a quoted word. It is recorded here flagged rather than as a verbal link, exactly because its basis is thematic and must be argued, not asserted. The commentators (Cambridge, Keil & Delitzsch) make the argument well; the reader should weigh it as interpretation.
Deuteronomy 14:1 · Hosea 11:1 · Exodus 4:22
basis: Verifier: no shared original-language lexeme between Deuteronomy 14:1 and Hosea 11:1 — the sonship link is conceptual/thematic, argued by the commentators (Cambridge, K&D), not a quoted word; flagged so the reader weighs it as interpretation
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The whole of Deuteronomy 14:3–20 turns on the line between clean (ṭāhôr) and unclean (ṭāmēʾ) food. The Gospel declares that line abolished in Christ: teaching that nothing entering a man from outside can defile him, Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19), and Peter is told in the vision at Joppa, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts 10:15) — the sheet let down with every unclean beast, bird, and creeping thing of this very chapter. Matthew Henry states the conviction directly: “It is plain in the gospel, that these laws are now done away.” Paul completes it: “every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected” (1 Timothy 4:4). The food-law was a tutor marking off a holy people until the One came in whom Jew and Gentile eat at one table. This is a cross-Testament reading: the link is theological, not verbal — the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 14 and the Greek of Mark, Acts, and 1 Timothy share no Strong’s number, so it is offered as widely-held interpretation, to be tested against the text.
Deuteronomy 14:3 · Mark 7:19 · Acts 10:15 · 1 Timothy 4:4
Verse 2 names Israel a səḡullāh, Yahweh’s treasured possession, holy and chosen out of all peoples. The New Testament takes that exact title and lays it on the church gathered in Christ: “you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Peter 2:9), and Christ “gave himself for us … to purify for himself a people for his own possession” (Titus 2:14). The holiness Deuteronomy 14 grounds in election and protects with food-laws is, in the Gospel, secured by the blood of Christ and extended to all who are his. Matthew Henry already read the chapter this way — its three privileges (election, adoption, sanctification) are “figures of those spiritual blessings … with which God has in Christ blessed us.” The link is thematic and cross-Testament — the Greek of 1 Peter shares no lexeme with the Hebrew səḡullāh; it is the Septuagint’s rendering and the apostle’s deliberate echo that carry it. Offered as widely-held; weigh it.
Deuteronomy 14:2 · 1 Peter 2:9 · Titus 2:14
The chapter’s first word — “Sons are ye to Yahweh your God” (v. 1) — is, the Cambridge Bible observes, vanishingly rare in the Old Testament compared to its abundance in the New: “how few are they in comparison to the number of times that sons … of God occur in the N.T.” What Deuteronomy grants by adoption (so Keil & Delitzsch: “an adoption springing out of the free love of God”) the Gospel fulfills in the Son who makes sons: “God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Galatians 4:6), so that believers are “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17) — the very verses the Cambridge editor reaches for. This is a cross-Testament, thematic reading: the Verifier finds no shared lexeme between the Hebrew of v. 1 and the Greek of Galatians 4:6. The connection is the unfolding of one doctrine of sonship, argued and widely held, not a quoted word — test it against the text.
Deuteronomy 14:1 · Galatians 4:6 · Romans 8:17
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain. The named voices are verbatim excerpts from public-domain commentaries — Ellicott, Benson, Matthew Henry, Barnes, Jamieson–Fausset–Brown, Poole, Gill, the Geneva Study Bible, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, the Pulpit Commentary, and Keil & Delitzsch — each attributed in place; nothing in a voice has been paraphrased or stitched, only trimmed to a pointed excerpt. The Hebrew is the Masoretic tradition; the transliterations, the “built from the original up” literal renderings, and the divergence notes are this tool’s own work (⚙), careful but fallible — check them against a lexicon (BDB, HALOT) and a standard grammar.
On the animal names. A reader should be warned that the great majority of the bird, fish, and game names in vv. 5 and 12–18 are genuinely uncertain. The Cambridge Bible says it plainly of v. 5: “to identify it with any one species is foolish.” Where the BSB prints a confident “ibex,” “antelope,” “screech owl,” or “desert owl,” the underlying Hebrew is a generic, popular name the old commentators rendered a dozen different ways. The divergence notes flag this; they do not resolve it, because it cannot honestly be resolved.
On the cross-references. Every thread badge records the Verifier’s computed basis. The Leviticus 11 and Exodus 23:19/34:26 links are verbal — rare shared Hebrew lexemes, one text reproducing another. The Isaiah 34:11, 1 Kings 4:23, and Hosea/sonship links are tiered structural / thematic or flagged, because they rest on shared fauna, shared practice, or a shared idea rather than a quotation. All three Christ-section links and the Hosea sonship thread are cross-Testament (Hebrew↔Greek) or conceptual: they share no Strong’s number and are NOT claimed as verbal. They are offered as widely-held interpretation under Sola Scriptura, to be weighed against the text, never as the text’s own assertion.
On the textual cruces this unit names honestly: (1) the rāʾāh of v. 13, which the Pulpit Commentary and Ellicott both suspect is a scribal resh-for-daleth variant of Leviticus’ dāʾāh; (2) the difference between Deuteronomy (which forbids all winged swarmers, v. 19) and Leviticus 11:21f. (which excepts leaping locusts); and (3) the difference Barnes notes between this chapter’s permission to give/sell the carcass and the stricter Leviticus 17:15. The Cambridge Bible’s lengthy source-critical argument that vv. 1–2 are an “exilic or post-exilic addition” is its own; it is reported as a voice, not adopted as this tool’s judgment.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)