Deuteronomy 14 gives a closely parallel clean/unclean food law with overlapping animal criteria; the literary relationship and direction of dependence are debated in scholarship. The shared criteria show one Torah food-purity system expressed in parallel legal collections.

Leviticus 20 explicitly reconnects clean/unclean animal distinctions with YHWH separating Israel from the peoples and commanding holiness, strengthening the identity/holiness rationale.

Mark 7's purity/food discussion is central to later Christian interpretation of biblical food laws. Many translations render 7:19 as an editorial conclusion that Jesus declared all foods clean, but the Greek syntax and scope remain debated.

Peter's vision uses clean/unclean animals and a command to eat, but Peter explicitly interprets the vision as God teaching him not to call any person common or unclean. Whether the vision additionally abrogates dietary law is debated and must not be assumed without labeling the interpretation.

Chapter 22 applies established carcass/impurity categories to priestly access to holy food, showing ritual impurity as temporary status rather than loss of priesthood. The same priest can remain within the covenant office while temporarily barred from holy food, which helps distinguish ritual status from moral guilt or permanent disqualification.

Genesis 7 already distinguishes clean from unclean animals before Sinai; Leviticus 11 later systematizes those categories in detailed food and carcass laws. The later legislation develops an earlier purity distinction rather than introducing the vocabulary for the first time.

1 Peter quotes the Levitical holiness formula 'Be holy, for I am holy.' The wording occurs in Leviticus 11:44–45 and related Holiness texts; exact single-source assignment should remain cautious because the formula recurs.

Jesus’ picture of straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel uses two creatures that fall within Jewish clean/unclean food categories, making Torah purity knowledge part of the image’s force. Yet Matthew’s point is moral hyperbole about meticulous minor observance alongside neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness, not a technical dispute over Leviticus 11.

Jesus’ images of cleansing the outside of a cup and of whitewashed tombs draw on a Jewish purity vocabulary familiar from Torah, including distinctions between clean and unclean. In Matthew 23, however, that language is used as moral metaphor: outward religious appearance can coexist with greed, self-indulgence, hypocrisy, and inward corruption. The connection is thematic, not a technical application of Leviticus 11.