The Bible mentions in a few places that rabbits “chew the cud” (Leviticus 11:6, Deuteronomy 14:7). However, rabbits do not have multiple stomach compartments like cows and other ruminants that allow them to fully chew the cud. So why does the Bible say that rabbits chew the cud? There are a few potential explanations.
The Hebrew phrase may refer to motions resembling cud chewing
The Hebrew phrase translated “chew the cud” in these verses is literally “raising up what has been swallowed.” This may be referring to the motion of a rabbit’s jaws as it chews, which could resemble cud chewing from an external perspective. While rabbits do not regurgitate their food like ruminants, they do engage in a lot of post-gastric chewing and processing of their food. Their chewing motions and activity could seem similar to “raising up what has been swallowed.” So the terminology may be descriptive of the external appearance rather than the internal digestive process.
Categorizing animals based on general characteristics
Another possibility is that rabbits are grouped with ruminants like cattle, sheep, and goats based on general similarities, even if they do not ruminate in precisely the same way. The Mosaic law categorized animals by basic characteristics for the purposes of diet and ritual purity. Rabbits resemble ruminants in that they are vegetarian, have a compartmentalized stomach, engage in a lot of oral chewing, and have split upper lips. So it is possible the biblical authors categorized rabbits with ruminants based on these general similarities, without intending to imply they had multiple stomachs and regurgitated their food. The focus was on observable qualities rather than precise anatomical details.
Referring to coprophagy
Some have proposed that “chewing the cud” in rabbits could refer to their practice of coprophagy. Rabbits produce two types of feces – soft feces which they eat directly from the anus, and hard feces. Eating the soft feces allows more time to extract nutrients. So when the Bible refers to rabbits “raising what has been swallowed,” it could mean they raise the soft feces to eat them. However, it is uncertain if coprophagy would be described as “chewing the cud.” And since coprophagy occurs in many rodents, it seems unlikely this one trait alone would result in rabbits being categorized as ruminants.
An observable characteristic of rabbits
Ultimately, the Bible was not intended to present detailed anatomical descriptions or teach animal digestion physiology. The mention of rabbits chewing the cud likely refers to some observable characteristic that rabbits share with ruminants, even if they do not have the same internal processes. The biblical authors were drawing distinctions between animals based on macro-level similarities and differences, not micro-level anatomical precision. So the focus is on noticeable qualities and behaviors that set rabbits and ruminants apart as approved sources of food.
Discussion of key biblical principles
While questions can arise over specific details in the biblical text, it is important not to lose sight of the bigger principles being taught. The dietary and purity laws emphasized moral responsibility, self-restraint, and reverence for life. Rules were given to shape the Israelites into a holy community set apart for God’s purposes. So even if we do not fully understand every provision, we can still appreciate the values being instilled and called to reflect those values in our own lives. Ultimately, the heart motives behind obedient actions were more important than precise adherence to every regulation.
Significance for interpretation and application
This example illustrates some wise principles for biblical interpretation and application. We should consider the original audience, genres, historical context, and authorial intent when reading Scripture. The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, so we should not impose modern standards of technical precision upon it. Scripture emphasizes timeless theological truths rather than details of animal physiology. Additionally, we must avoid reading the text anachronistically through the lens of contemporary science. Our task is to humbly extract authorial intent rather than demand answers to modern questions foreign to the original context. This allows Scripture to shape our worldview rather than forcing the text to align with extra-biblical assumptions.
In summary, the Bible’s reference to rabbits chewing the cud likely stems from visible characteristics resembling ruminants, rather than a claim they digest food identically. The text employs descriptive terminology suitable to the ancient context, rather than scientific precision for modern readers. Our application should focus on overarching biblical principles concerning holiness, ethics, right worship, and care for creation. While secondary details may prove difficult to interpret, the heart transforming message of Scripture remains relevant across all cultures. So we must avoid majoring on minors and being distracted from a passage’s spiritual significance by peripheral issues. The Word of God endures, and when approached humbly, will continue speaking to us afresh generation after generation.
Verses mentioning rabbits chewing the cud
Here are the two verses that specifically mention rabbits chewing the cud:
Leviticus 11:6 – The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:7 – Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you.
In both verses, rabbits/hares are given as an example of an animal that chews the cud but does not have split hooves, and is therefore declared ceremonially unclean and not permitted for food under biblical law.
The purpose of the Mosaic dietary laws
The dietary restrictions given in the Law of Moses served both theological and practical purposes:
- They taught reverence for life by setting guidelines on which animals could be consumed.
- They instilled a sense of self-discipline and restraint.
- They emphasized moral purity and holiness by prohibiting certain animals.
- They distinguished Israel from neighboring peoples with different diets.
- They prevented health risks from consuming certain animals in the ancient world.
So the focus was on cultivating spiritual virtues and setting Israel apart as God’s holy nation, more so than establishing zoological classification systems. The regulations concerning cud-chewing animals must be understood in this context.
Clean and unclean animals in biblical law
The Pentateuchal food laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 divide animals into three categories:
- Clean animals permitted for food (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats, deer, fish with fins and scales).
- Unclean animals prohibited from eating (e.g., pigs, rabbits, shellfish).
- Clean animals prohibited from eating (e.g., horses, camels).
Laypeople could readily identify clean/unclean status by visible features like having split hooves and chewing cud for land animals. Rabbits were unclean because they chewed the cud but did not have split hooves. Again, the focus was on outward characteristics easily recognized by common observers.
Cud chewing as a biblical categorization
Chewing the cud was one of the main visible characteristics used in the Mosaic law to categorize approved land animals. Along with split hooves, cud chewing differentiated clean ruminants like cattle, sheep, and goats from unclean animals like pigs and rabbits. Some key points:
- Cattle were considered clean despite only partially chewing the cud (ruminating).
- The Hebrew phrase for “chew the cud” likely referred to motions resembling rumination.
- Rabbits were classified with ruminants based on similar observable traits.
- The laws focused on apparent features readily evident to ancient observers.
So cud chewing was an observable trait used to group animals according to the purposes of the dietary regulations, which were primarily spiritual in nature.
Implications of the biblical classification
Some implications from the biblical categories:
- The lines between clean/unclean animals were not absolute but somewhat fluid.
- External characteristics and general traits were used rather than strict anatomical accuracy.
- There was some flexibility in classifying animals based on their habitual nature.
- The biblical authors were not intending to write as modern zoologists.
- We should not judge Scripture by standards foreign to its original context.
In other words, the mention of rabbits chewing the cud reflects general observable characteristics and typical behavior, not rigorously precise anatomical definitions.
Principles for interpretation and application
This passage gives us some helpful principles for interpreting and applying biblical texts:
- Consider the original audience, context, genre and intent.
- Avoid reading Scripture through anachronistic lenses.
- Focus on authorial meaning rather than demanding answers to modern questions.
- Scripture was written for theological and moral purposes, not as a scientific text.
- Look for the heart message being conveyed rather than get distracted by minor details.
If we keep these wise principles in mind, we can gain insight from even difficult passages rather than stumbling over peripheral issues.
Significance for biblical authority
At first glance, the Bible’s statement about rabbits chewing the cud may seem like a scientific error that undermines biblical authority. But upon closer inspection, this conclusion would be mistaken:
- The Bible uses phenomenological language suitable for its context, not intending scientific precision.
- Biblical authority pertains to matters of theological truth, not details of animal digestion.
- Scripture’s main purpose is conveying transcendent spiritual truths, not teaching science.
- Apparent conflicts with science often stem from false expectations of Scripture.
- Proper interpretation resolves many supposed biblical “errors.”
So perceived scientific problems based on isolated texts fail to grasp the nature of inspiration or appreciate Scripture’s theological purpose and literary characteristics. Biblical authority remains sound when the text is handled with care and humility.
Conclusion
The Bible’s statement about rabbits chewing the cud has puzzled many readers. But when interpreted in light of its original context, we see it refers to observable behaviors that were used to categorize animals based on their acceptability for food. The biblical authors were not intending to make scientifically precise zoological claims. Rather, they were highlighting qualities of holiness and purity. This passage illustrates wise principles for biblical interpretation and application. Most importantly, it reinforces that the authority of Scripture rests on its ability to transform hearts and minds through revealed truth about God and His purposes. While peripheral details may remain difficult to fully grasp, the life-giving message of the Bible continues to speak powerfully across all cultures. When approached carefully and reverently, God’s Word remains a sure foundation for faith and practice.
