top of page

Why Were Some Animals Unclean in the Bible? A Look From Genesis to Acts

  • Writer: Jane Isley
    Jane Isley
  • Jun 18
  • 5 min read

Why were some animals considered unclean?


Questions like this are what make the Bible so gloriously fun to me. Understanding why were some animals unclean in the Bible begins with recognizing the practical and symbolic purposes behind God’s distinctions. While digging for answers, you end up learning all sorts of unexpected things along the way. There’s definitely more going on here than just clean versus unclean animals.


It all begins in Genesis, but let’s start in Leviticus instead. If you have ever read Leviticus 11, it can be overwhelming at first, and I’m definitely not going to quote the whole thing here or every single animal. I’m just shooting for the specifications and examples.


Clean

  • “divided hoof and that chews the cud.”

  • “you may eat any that have fins and scales.”

  • “some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.”

  • And birds, we get by process of elimination.


Unclean

Here, I’m shooting for a basic list: Pigs, Camels, Thumper, Tom and Jerry, Dogs, Horses, Felines, Shellfish, Lizards, Bear, Squidward, Monkeys, Vultures, believe me, I could go on for quite a bit.


The Obvious Question

What did unclean animals have in common? It was because of their questionable eating habits. Such as eating already dead animals, eating decayed matter, hunting the weakest (usually the sickest or weakest) of the herd, meat eaters in general, or even yummier to think about are the ones that eat poo, whether their own or others. The common theme is that the stuff being eaten would make a human sick.


Here is a fun nugget to check out, this is a great educational point if a nonbeliever tries to use this to prove the Bible is in error. (Had this happen to me years ago, got caught with my drawers down and completely blew it, so now you’ll be made wiser because of my mistake)


Verse 6  ~  Rabbits 


“The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.”


It’s not that “divided hoof” part that gets attention. It’s the “chews the cud” part that gets zeroed in on, because technically, they don’t chew cud like a cow, so therefore it's a full-blown Bible error according to nonbelievers, and yes, unfortunately, some will die on that hill.


Without turning this into a 30-minute article. Have you ever watched a rabbit eat and then watched, say, a cow eat? Looks just like chewing cud, especially if they haven’t recently just finished a meal, but you see them doing it, that’ll make sense in a minute.


So while they don’t have the same internal mechanics that a cow does, they do have to re-ingest partially digested food for the same process, the digestion of food. Basically, they eat one of two types of their own poo to finish their meal. 


Also, remember that Leviticus was written in Hebrew, not English. There’s more nuance in the original wording than a surface reading in translation might suggest. You can read about it here at Got Questions, because they nailed that.


Back To Unclean Animals

At the start of this article, I mentioned this all started back in Genesis. I know that probably doesn’t make sense, but there's a really neat layer going on here.


“Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,” Genesis 7:2


Noah was pre-Leviticus, yet clean and unclean animals were already established. Think about that for a second. Then consider this: Cain and Abel also both knew about sacrifices, way before Noah.


“Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering — fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.” Genesis 4:3–4


Now, while yes, both are acceptable as offerings to God, and we know God didn’t care for Cain’s, but that’s not my point here. My point is that they both knew what was acceptable and what was not. There has always been some contention among people that God just sorta left people to figure things out on their own after Eden’s doors were closed, and that’s why things went so bad. 


But both Cain and Abel’s sacrifices, then Abel’s being described as “fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock,” (which is very specific) along with Noah’s instructions from God and then his sacrifice of some clean animals and birds right after the flood, disprove that and prove a very direct interaction with mankind from the beginning.


God has always told people what was what from the beginning. He didn’t just drop and walk on anyone. The world pre-flood was absolutely communicated with and made aware of what was acceptable to God and what was not. 


Giant Leap To The New Testament Now

After Jesus died, all sorts of amazing stuff happened, and one of those was a very surprised Peter. Imagine over 400 years of dietary restrictions being lifted all of a sudden. 

There were practical and symbolic reasons for the restrictions. 


On the practical side, it was to keep the Israelites/Jews healthy; on the symbolic side, it was meant to set them apart from the rest of the world for a greater purpose. Mind you, that’s just a basic gist for the purposes of this article.


So, back to Peter, in Acts 10, we get to see God basically set up one heck of a cool scenario. First, He blows Peter's complete sense of what is acceptable and not right out the window, and then, being brilliant as He is, God already had a plan in motion for Peter to go to a Gentile's place where he ate with them.


There’s a bit more to that whole situation, where Peter got called out by Paul for being a hypocrite because he stopped out of fear of getting in trouble with other Jews. You can read Galatians 2 for that full story. My point with all this is, Jesus declared everything clean. 


“It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” and “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” Acts 10:12,15


Then Peter made a powerful connection: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism,” Acts 10:34 The message wasn’t just about food, it was about people, everything was made clean so all could come to God’s table and eat.


“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28


© 2026 Jane Isley

Want more content like this? Explore more articles in Exploring Scripture.


Sources & Recommended reads:


Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF.




2 Comments


dkarl
Jan 31

No, NO, NO....Jesus did NOT come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it! Matt 5:17 God is the same God in the Old Testament and the New Testament. This was not saying to start eating unclean animals! It was used to show Peter that Gentiles were NOT UNCLEAN! If you study you will see that in the Book of Ruth, (Gentiles were included in the bloodline that far back). Never does God want us to eat unclean animals, they give us parasites! They are still unclean. Study this and allow the Holy Spirit to show you the truth. Why on earth would God say we cannot and then change it to we can. Jesus fulfilled the law; He DID…

Edited
Like
Jane Isley
Jun 14
Replying to

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I can tell you care deeply about honoring Scripture, and I respect that. Just to clarify, the article wasn’t saying that Jesus abolished the law or that God changed His mind about anything. Matthew 5:17 is absolutely true: He fulfilled the law, not erased it.


The point I was making is simply the one Peter himself realized in Acts 10. God used the clean/unclean categories (which Peter had followed his whole life) to teach him something bigger than food: that Gentiles were no longer to be considered ‘unclean’ or outside God’s family. Peter’s own conclusion was, ‘God has shown me that I should not call any person unclean.’


Whether someone personally chooses to follow…


Like
bottom of page