Which Animals Does the Bible Designate as 'Clean' and 'Unclean'? God reveals which animals - including fish and birds - are suitable and unsuitable for human consumption in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Although the lists aren't exhaustive, He reveals guidelines for recognizing animals that are acceptable for food. God states that cud-chewing animals with split hooves can be eaten (Leviticus 11:3
; Deuteronomy 14:6
). These specifically include the cattle, sheep, goat, deer and gazelle families (Deuteronomy 14:4-5
). He also lists such animals as camels, rabbits and pigs as being unclean, or unfit to eat (Leviticus 11:4-8
). He later lists such "creeping things" as moles, mice and lizards as unfit to eat (Leviticus 11:29-31
), as well as four-footed animals with paws (cats, dogs, bears, lions, tigers, etc.) as unclean (Leviticus 11:27
).
He tells us that salt and freshwater fish with fins and scales may be eaten (Leviticus 11:9-12
), but water creatures without those characteristics (catfish, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, mussels, clams, oysters, squid, octopi, etc.) should not be eaten.
God also lists birds and other flying creatures that are unclean for consumption (Leviticus 11:13-19
). He identifies carrion eaters and birds of prey as unclean, plus ostriches, storks, herons and bats.
Birds such as chickens, turkeys and pheasants are not on the unclean list and therefore can be eaten. Insects, with the exception of locusts, crickets and grasshoppers, are listed as unclean (Leviticus 11:20-23
).
Why does God identify some animals as suitable for human consumption and others as unsuitable? God didn't give laws to arbitrarily assert control over people. He gave His laws (including those of which meats are clean or unclean) "that it might be well" with those who seek to obey Him (Deuteronomy 5:29
).
Although God did not reveal the specific reasons some animals may be eaten and others must be avoided, we can make generalized conclusions based on the animals included in the two categories.
In listing the animals that should not be eaten, God forbids the consumption of scavengers and carrion eaters, which devour other animals for their food.
Animals such as pigs, bears, vultures and raptors can eat (and thrive) on decaying flesh. Predatory animals such as wolves, lions, leopards and cheetahs most often prey on the weakest (and at times the diseased) in animal herds.
When it comes to sea creatures, bottom dwellers such as lobsters and crabs scavenge for dead animals on the sea floor. Shellfish such as oysters, clams and mussels similarly consume decaying organic matter that sinks to the sea floor, including sewage.
A common denominator of many of the animals God designates as unclean is that they routinely eat flesh that would sicken or kill human beings. When we eat such animals we partake of a food chain that includes things harmful to people.
As nutritionist David Meinz observes: "Could it be that God, in His wisdom, created certain creatures whose sole purpose is to clean up after the others? Their entire 'calling' may be to act exclusively as the sanitation workers of our ecology. God may simply be telling us that it's better for us believers not to consume the meat of these trash collectors" ( Eating by the Book, 1999, p. 225).
The following list, based on Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, identifies many of the animals God designates as clean and unclean. The list uses their common names.
Clean Animals Mammals That Chew the Cud and Part the Hoof
Antelope, Bison (buffalo), Caribou, Cattle (beef, veal), Deer (venison), Elk, Gazelle, Giraffe, Goat, Hart, Ibex, Moose, Ox, Reindeer, Sheep (lamb, mutton) Fish With Fins and Scales
Anchovy, Barracuda, Bass, Black pomfret (or monchong), Bluefish, Bluegill, Carp, Cod, Crappie, Drum, Flounder, Grouper, Grunt, Haddock, Hake, Halibut, Hardhead, Herring (or alewife), Kingfish, Mackerel (or corbia), Mahimahi (or dorado, dolphinfish [not to be confused with the mammal dolphin]), Minnow, Mullet, Perch (or bream), Pike (or pickerel or jack), Pollack (or pollock or Boston bluefish), Rockfish, Salmon, Sardine (or pilchard), Shad, Silver hake (or whiting), Smelt (or frost fish or ice fish), Snapper (or ebu, jobfish, lehi, onaga, opakapaka or uku), Sole, Steelhead, Sucker, Sunfish, Tarpon, Trout (or weakfish), Tuna (or ahi, aku, albacore, bonito, or tombo), Turbot (except European turbot), Whitefish Birds With Clean Characteristics
Chicken, Dove, Duck, Goose, Grouse, Guinea fowl, Partridge, Peafowl, Pheasant, Pigeon, Prairie chicken, Ptarmigan, Quail, Sagehen, Sparrow (and other songbirds), Swan*, Teal, Turkey
* In the King James Version, Leviticus 11:18
and Deuteronomy 14:16
list "swan" among unclean birds. However, this seems to be a mistranslation. The original word apparently refers to a kind of owl and is so translated in most modern Bible versions. Insects
Types of locusts that may include crickets and grasshoppers
Unclean Animals Animals With Unclean Characteristics Swine
Boar, Peccary, Pig (hog, bacon, ham, lard, pork, most sausage and pepperoni) Canines
Coyote, Dog, Fox, Hyena, Jackal, Wolf Felines
Cat, Cheetah, Leopard, Lion, Panther, Tiger Equines
Donkey (ass), Horse, Mule, Onager, Zebra (quagga) Other Animals
Armadillo, Badger, Bat, Bear, Beaver, Camel, Elephant, Gorilla Groundhog, Hippopotamus, Kangaroo, Llama (alpaca, vicuña), Mole, Monkey, Mouse, Muskrat, Opossum, Porcupine, Rabbit (hare), Raccoon, Rat, Rhinoceros, Skunk, Slug, Snail (escargot), Squirrel, Wallaby, Weasel, Wolverine, Worm, All insects except some in the locust family Marine Animals Without Fins and Scales Fish
Bullhead, Catfish, Eel, European Turbot, Marlin, Paddlefish, Shark, Stickleback, Squid, Sturgeon (includes most caviar), Swordfish Shellfish
Abalone, Clam, Conch, Crab, Crayfish (crawfish, crawdad), Lobster, Mussel, Oyster, Scallop, Shrimp (prawn) Soft body
Cuttlefish, Jellyfish, Limpet, Octopus, Squid (calamari) Sea mammals
Dolphin, Otter, Porpoise, Seal, Walrus, Whale Birds of Prey, Scavengers and Others
Albatross, Bittern, Buzzard, Condor, Coot, Cormorant, Crane, Crow, Cuckoo, Eagle, Flamingo Grebe, Grosbeak, Gull, Hawk, Heron, Kite, Lapwing, Loon, Magpie, Osprey, Ostrich, Owl, Parrot, Pelican, Penguin, Plover, Rail, Raven, Roadrunner, Sandpiper, Seagull, Stork, Swallow, Swift, Vulture, Water hen, Woodpecker Reptiles
Alligator, Caiman, Crocodile, Lizard, Snake, Turtle Amphibians
Blindworm, Frog, Newt, Salamander, Toad
The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6 I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. 7 Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’
“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
“Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with[d] the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
bobkee posted on 16-11-2013 10:25 AM
The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word o ...
Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6 I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. 7 Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’
“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
Peter's vision: Did God cleanse all meats? Does the New Testament Abolish Meat Distinctions? Some people believe that certain New Testament scriptures remove all distinctions between clean and unclean meats. But what do these passages really say? Most theologians assume that God's laws regarding clean and unclean meats ended at Christ's crucifixion. They suppose that the New Covenant removes the need for Christians to keep such laws. But is that what the Bible says?
The administrative change from the Levitical priesthood to the ministry of Jesus Christ did not void God's expectations that His people obey His law of clean and unclean meats (or any other law) as part of their sanctification, or separation, as people of God (see Leviticus 11:44-47 ; 19:2; 20:7, 22-26; 21:8). Peter and Paul both speak of the continuing need for God's people to be holy (Ephesians 1:4
; 1 Peter 1:14-16 ).
Some Bible scholars acknowledge that members of the early Church continued to observe the distinctions between clean and unclean meats. However, because of the common misconception that the New Covenant abolishes much of God's law, many assume these food requirements were simply Jewish cultural practices that continued until the Church became more gentile in composition and outlook. Such preconceived ideas have influenced inter-pretations of many New Testament passages. In theological circles this is known as eisegesis, or reading one's own ideas into Scripture.
Let's examine the New Testament passages dealing with food. As we do that let's practice exegesis— drawing meaning out of Scripture by seeking a thorough understanding of the background of a passage as we seek to apply it.
One often-misunderstood section of the Bible concerns Peter's vision in which he "saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth." In this sheet "were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air." Peter heard a voice tell him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat" (Acts 10:11-13 ).
Assuming the vision meant he should eat unclean animals, Peter spontaneously responded: "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (verse 14). The same vision came to Peter three times (verse 16).
At this point many readers, without finishing the account, assume they know the meaning of the vision—that God told Peter we are now free to eat any kind of animal flesh we desire. In context, however, these scriptures show that this is not at all what Peter understood. On the contrary, even after seeing the vision three times he still "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant" (verse 17).
Later Peter realized the significance of the revelation. It was that "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse 28). Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles (non-Israelites) God called into the Church who were not initially Jewish proselytes (verses 45-48).
This divine disclosure, we see from reading further in the account, did not concern food at all. Rather, it concerned people. Because the Jewish religious leaders at the time of Christ had erroneously considered gentiles to be unclean, this dramatic vision righted a common misconception that had come to affect Peter and other members of the Church. It demonstrated that God was beginning to offer salvation to members of any race. Gentiles whom God was calling were now welcomed into the Church. Far from abolishing God's instructions against eating unclean meats, these verses show that, about a decade after Christ's death, Peter had "never eaten anything common or unclean."
Peter obviously had not assumed that God had annulled His own food laws or that Christ's death and resurrection rendered them obsolete. From Peter's own words we see that he continued to faithfully follow those laws.
Nor do we find any evidence that he ate unclean meats after this experience. He obviously continued to obey God's laws delineating meats that could and could not be eaten and saw no reason to change his practice. He realized that the puzzling vision could not be annulling God's instructions, which is why he "thought about the vision" until he understood its meaning (verses 17-19, 28)—that gentiles could become members of the Church upon repentance and faith, too (verses 34-35, 45-48). Last edited by Truth.8 on 16-11-2013 11:14 AM
When reading through the New Testament, we do find references to a controversy in the early Church involving food. However, an examination of the Scriptures reveals the issue to be different from what many assume.
In 1 Corinthians 8 the apostle Paul discussed "the eating of things offered to idols" (verse 4). Why was this an issue?
"Meat was often sacrificed on pagan altars and dedicated to pagan gods in Paul's day. Later this meat was offered for sale in the public meat markets. Some Christians wondered if it were morally right for Christians to eat such meat that had previously been sacrificed to pagan gods" ( Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1995, "Meat").
It is interesting, though not conclusive, to note that in Acts 14:13
, the only passage in which the type of animal sacrificed to idols is mentioned, it was oxen—clean animals—that were about to be offered.
This controversy was not over the kinds of meat that should be eaten. Obedient Jews of the day, in accordance with God's instruction, did not consider unclean meat even to be a possible source of food. Instead, the controversy dealt with the conscience of each believer when it came to eating meat— clean meat—that may have been sacrificed to idols.
Paul explained that "an idol is nothing" (1 Corinthians 8:4), clarifying that it was not intrinsically harmful to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol. That an animal had been sacrificed to a pagan god had no bearing on whether the meat was suitable for food.
Paul continued: "However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse" (verses 7-8).
When a believer bought meat in the market or was invited to a meal at which meat was served, it was not necessary to determine whether anyone had offered it to an idol, said Paul (1 Corinthians 10:25-27). His concern was that the brethren be considerate of others who believed differently. He taught that in such cases it was better for them not to eat meat than to risk causing offense (1 Corinthians 8:13
; 10:28).
The question of meat sacrificed to idols was a considerable controversy in New Testament times. It is the foundation of many of Paul's discussions of Christian liberty and conscience. Unlike God's law of clean and unclean animals, which was straightforwardly recorded in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures are not explicit about the matter of food offered to idols. But, in the first-century world of the New Testament, this issue varied in significance and importance to members according to their conscience and understanding.
The chronological relationship between Paul's letters to the members in Corinth and his correspondence with those in Rome is another important piece of background information people often overlook.
Many believe Romans 14 supports the idea that Christians are free from all former restrictions regarding the meats they may eat. Verse 14, in which Paul wrote, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean," is often cited as a proof text for this view.
This approach, however, fails to consider Paul's perspective and the context of his letter to the Roman church. Many Bible resources agree that Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians around A.D. 55 and that he wrote his epistle to the Romans from Corinth in 56 or 57. As demonstrated above, the food controversy in Corinth was over meat sacrificed to idols. Since Paul was writing to the Romans from Corinth, where this had been a significant issue, the subject was fresh on Paul's mind and is the logical, biblically supported basis for his comments in Romans 14.
Understanding Paul's intent
Those who assume the subject of Romans 14 is a retraction of God's law regarding clean and unclean animals must force this interpretation into the text because it has no biblical foundation. The historical basis for the discussion appears, from evidence in the chapter itself, to have been meat sacrificed to idols.
Verse 2 contrasts the one who "eats only vegetables" with the one who believes "he may eat all things"—meat as well as vegetables. Verse 6 discusses eating vs. not eating and is variously interpreted as referring to fasting (not eating or drinking), vegetarianism (consuming only vegetables) or eating or not eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Verse 21 shows that meat offered to idols was the dominant issue of this chapter: "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." Romans of the day commonly offered both meat and wine to idols, with portions of the offerings later sold in the marketplace.
The Life Application Bible comments on verse 2: "The ancient system of sacrifice was at the center of the religious, social, and domestic life of the Roman world. After a sacrifice was presented to a god in a pagan temple, only part of it was burned. The remainder was often sent to the market to be sold. Thus a Christian might easily—even unknowingly—buy such meat in the marketplace or eat it at the home of a friend.
"Should a Christian question the source of his meat? Some thought there was nothing wrong with eating meat that had been offered to idols because idols were worthless and phony. Others carefully checked the source of their meat or gave up meat altogether, in order to avoid a guilty conscience. The problem was especially acute for Christians who had once been idol worshipers. For them, such a strong reminder of their pagan days might weaken their newfound faith. Paul also deals with this problem in 1 Corinthians 8."
What is the point of Paul's instruction in Romans 14? Depending upon their consciences, early believers had several choices they could make while traveling or residing in their communities. If they did not want to eat meat that possibly had been sacrificed to idols, they could choose to fast or eat only vegetables to make sure they did not consume any meat of suspicious background that might offend their consciences. If their consciences were not bothered by eating meat that might have been sacrificed to idols, they could choose that option too. Within this context, said Paul, "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (verse 5) because "whatever is not from faith is sin" (verse 23).
Romans 14 is, in part, a chapter on Christian liberty—acting according to one's conscience within the framework of God's laws as they pertained to meat sacrificed to idols. Understood in its context, Romans 14 does not convey permission to eat pork or any other unclean meat. When one understands that the food controversy of the New Testament era dealt with meat sacrificed to idols and not which meats were clean, other scriptures become clear.
Some people believe that certain New Testament scriptures remove all distinctions between clean and unclean meats. But what do these passages really say?
Most theologians assume that God's laws regarding clean and unclean meats ended at Christ's crucifixion. They suppose that the New Covenant removes the need for Christians to keep such laws. But is that what the Bible says?
The administrative change from the Levitical priesthood to the ministry of Jesus Christ did not void God's expectations that His people obey His law of clean and unclean meats (or any other law) as part of their sanctification, or separation, as people of God (see Leviticus 11:44-47; 19:2; 20:7, 22-26; 21:8). Peter and Paul both speak of the continuing need for God's people to be holy (Ephesians 1:4
; 1 Peter 1:14-16).
Some Bible scholars acknowledge that members of the early Church continued to observe the distinctions between clean and unclean meats. However, because of the common misconception that the New Covenant abolishes much of God's law, many assume these food requirements were simply Jewish cultural practices that continued until the Church became more gentile in composition and outlook. Such preconceived ideas have influenced inter-pretations of many New Testament passages. In theological circles this is known as eisegesis, or reading one's own ideas into Scripture.
Let's examine the New Testament passages dealing with food. As we do that let's practice exegesis— drawing meaning out of Scripture by seeking a thorough understanding of the background of a passage as we seek to apply it.
Peter's vision: Did God cleanse all meats?
One often-misunderstood section of the Bible concerns Peter's vision in which he "saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth." In this sheet "were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air." Peter heard a voice tell him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat" (Acts 10:11-13).
Assuming the vision meant he should eat unclean animals, Peter spontaneously responded: "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (verse 14). The same vision came to Peter three times (verse 16).
At this point many readers, without finishing the account, assume they know the meaning of the vision—that God told Peter we are now free to eat any kind of animal flesh we desire. In context, however, these scriptures show that this is not at all what Peter understood. On the contrary, even after seeing the vision three times he still "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant" (verse 17).
Later Peter realized the significance of the revelation. It was that "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse 28). Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles (non-Israelites) God called into the Church who were not initially Jewish proselytes (verses 45-48).
This divine disclosure, we see from reading further in the account, did not concern food at all. Rather, it concerned people. Because the Jewish religious leaders at the time of Christ had erroneously considered gentiles to be unclean, this dramatic vision righted a common misconception that had come to affect Peter and other members of the Church. It demonstrated that God was beginning to offer salvation to members of any race. Gentiles whom God was calling were now welcomed into the Church.
Far from abolishing God's instructions against eating unclean meats, these verses show that, about a decade after Christ's death, Peter had "never eaten anything common or unclean."
Peter obviously had not assumed that God had annulled His own food laws or that Christ's death and resurrection rendered them obsolete. From Peter's own words we see that he continued to faithfully follow those laws.
Nor do we find any evidence that he ate unclean meats after this experience. He obviously continued to obey God's laws delineating meats that could and could not be eaten and saw no reason to change his practice. He realized that the puzzling vision could not be annulling God's instructions, which is why he "thought about the vision" until he understood its meaning (verses 17-19, 28)—that gentiles could become members of the Church upon repentance and faith, too (verses 34-35, 45-48).
Food controversy in the Church
When reading through the New Testament, we do find references to a controversy in the early Church involving food. However, an examination of the Scriptures reveals the issue to be different from what many assume.
In 1 Corinthians 8 the apostle Paul discussed "the eating of things offered to idols" (verse 4). Why was this an issue?
"Meat was often sacrificed on pagan altars and dedicated to pagan gods in Paul's day. Later this meat was offered for sale in the public meat markets. Some Christians wondered if it were morally right for Christians to eat such meat that had previously been sacrificed to pagan gods" ( Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1995, "Meat").
It is interesting, though not conclusive, to note that in Acts 14:13
, the only passage in which the type of animal sacrificed to idols is mentioned, it was oxen—clean animals—that were about to be offered.
This controversy was not over the kinds of meat that should be eaten. Obedient Jews of the day, in accordance with God's instruction, did not consider unclean meat even to be a possible source of food. Instead, the controversy dealt with the conscience of each believer when it came to eating meat— clean meat—that may have been sacrificed to idols.
Paul explained that "an idol is nothing" (1 Corinthians 8:4), clarifying that it was not intrinsically harmful to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol. That an animal had been sacrificed to a pagan god had no bearing on whether the meat was suitable for food.
Paul continued: "However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse" (verses 7-8).
When a believer bought meat in the market or was invited to a meal at which meat was served, it was not necessary to determine whether anyone had offered it to an idol, said Paul (1 Corinthians 10:25-27). His concern was that the brethren be considerate of others who believed differently. He taught that in such cases it was better for them not to eat meat than to risk causing offense (1 Corinthians 8:13
; 10:28).
The question of meat sacrificed to idols was a considerable controversy in New Testament times. It is the foundation of many of Paul's discussions of Christian liberty and conscience. Unlike God's law of clean and unclean animals, which was straightforwardly recorded in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures are not explicit about the matter of food offered to idols. But, in the first-century world of the New Testament, this issue varied in significance and importance to members according to their conscience and understanding.
The timing of Paul's letters
The chronological relationship between Paul's letters to the members in Corinth and his correspondence with those in Rome is another important piece of background information people often overlook.
Many believe Romans 14 supports the idea that Christians are free from all former restrictions regarding the meats they may eat. Verse 14, in which Paul wrote, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean," is often cited as a proof text for this view.
This approach, however, fails to consider Paul's perspective and the context of his letter to the Roman church. Many Bible resources agree that Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians around A.D. 55 and that he wrote his epistle to the Romans from Corinth in 56 or 57. As demonstrated above, the food controversy in Corinth was over meat sacrificed to idols. Since Paul was writing to the Romans from Corinth, where this had been a significant issue, the subject was fresh on Paul's mind and is the logical, biblically supported basis for his comments in Romans 14.
Understanding Paul's intent
Those who assume the subject of Romans 14 is a retraction of God's law regarding clean and unclean animals must force this interpretation into the text because it has no biblical foundation. The historical basis for the discussion appears, from evidence in the chapter itself, to have been meat sacrificed to idols.
Verse 2 contrasts the one who "eats only vegetables" with the one who believes "he may eat all things"—meat as well as vegetables. Verse 6 discusses eating vs. not eating and is variously interpreted as referring to fasting (not eating or drinking), vegetarianism (consuming only vegetables) or eating or not eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Verse 21 shows that meat offered to idols was the dominant issue of this chapter: "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." Romans of the day commonly offered both meat and wine to idols, with portions of the offerings later sold in the marketplace.
The Life Application Bible comments on verse 2: "The ancient system of sacrifice was at the center of the religious, social, and domestic life of the Roman world. After a sacrifice was presented to a god in a pagan temple, only part of it was burned. The remainder was often sent to the market to be sold. Thus a Christian might easily—even unknowingly—buy such meat in the marketplace or eat it at the home of a friend.
"Should a Christian question the source of his meat? Some thought there was nothing wrong with eating meat that had been offered to idols because idols were worthless and phony. Others carefully checked the source of their meat or gave up meat altogether, in order to avoid a guilty conscience. The problem was especially acute for Christians who had once been idol worshipers. For them, such a strong reminder of their pagan days might weaken their newfound faith. Paul also deals with this problem in 1 Corinthians 8."
What is the point of Paul's instruction in Romans 14? Depending upon their consciences, early believers had several choices they could make while traveling or residing in their communities. If they did not want to eat meat that possibly had been sacrificed to idols, they could choose to fast or eat only vegetables to make sure they did not consume any meat of suspicious background that might offend their consciences. If their consciences were not bothered by eating meat that might have been sacrificed to idols, they could choose that option too. Within this context, said Paul, "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (verse 5) because "whatever is not from faith is sin" (verse 23).
Romans 14 is, in part, a chapter on Christian liberty—acting according to one's conscience within the framework of God's laws as they pertained to meat sacrificed to idols. Understood in its context, Romans 14 does not convey permission to eat pork or any other unclean meat. When one understands that the food controversy of the New Testament era dealt with meat sacrificed to idols and not which meats were clean, other scriptures become clear.
Debate over ceremonial cleansing
Another often-misunderstood passage is Mark 7:18-19
. Here Jesus said, "Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" The subject here—made obvious from verses 2-5—was unwashed hands, not which meats could be eaten. The purification of food referred to the way the body's digestive process eliminates minor impurities such as those that might be present from eating with unwashed hands.
The Pharisees, like Jesus and His disciples, ate only meat the Scriptures specified as clean. They objected, however, when Jesus and His disciples did not go through the Pharisees' customary ritual of meticulously washing their hands before eating.
Jesus, whose hands were sufficiently clean for eating, even if not clean enough to meet the Pharisees' humanly devised standards—explained that the human body was designed to handle any small particles of dust or dirt that might enter it due to handling food with hands that hadn't been ritually washed. He further suggested that, if the Pharisees were serious about wanting to obey God, they needed to revise their priorities. Cleansing one's thoughts, He said, is eminently more spiritually important than washing one's hands (verses 20-23).
Questionable interpretations
The New International Version of the Bible renders the latter part of verse 19 this way: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean')." The New American Standard Bible similarly offers: "(Thus He declared all foods clean.)" These translations stand in stark contrast to the King James and New King James versions, which indicate that the bodily digestive process purifies food as opposed to Jesus making a pronouncement reversing God's laws on which meats to eat. Which interpretation is correct?
The King James and New King James renditions best fit the context, which concerns eating with ceremonially unwashed hands rather than deciding which kind of flesh is suitable to be eaten. They also best fit the New Testament culture wherein Jews and Christians ate only clean meats.
Notice that in both the NIV and NASB the latter part of verse 19 is in parentheses, as though Mark is explaining Christ's words. This is obviously an interpretation of the original wording of Mark's Gospel. In the original Greek the words "In saying this, Jesus declared" (NIV) and "Thus He declared" (NASB) are not present; translators have added them to explain what they think Mark intended, thereby placing their own preconceived and mistaken interpretations on Jesus' words.
Putting together all the scriptures on the subject helps us properly understand the biblical perspective. When we see from passages such as Acts 10, discussed earlier, that Peter states he had eaten no unclean meat about a decade after Christ's death, it becomes obvious that the apostles did not believe He had abolished the commands against eating unclean meats. Such a view simply cannot be sustained in the light of plain scriptures to the contrary.
No New Testament passages describe Christians eating meats that had been considered unclean; such a view is glaringly absent in the Bible. On the contrary, we find many scriptures in which the apostle Paul vigorously and repeatedly upholds adherence to God's laws (Acts 24:14
; 25:8; Romans 3:31; 7:12, 22), as did James, the half brother of Christ (James 2:8-12; 4:11), and John (1 John 3:4
). Violating God's laws regarding clean and unclean meat would have been unthinkable to them.
Colossian controversy clarified
When Paul wrote that Christians should "let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths" (Colossians 2:16), some assume the believers he was addressing were eating pork and other meats previously considered unclean. Again, the Bible nowhere supports this assumption.
In reality, the issue of clean and unclean meats is nowhere addressed in this passage. Paul doesn't discuss which foods the Colossians were consuming; the Greek word brosis, translated "food," refers not to food itself but rather to "the act of eating" ( Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, p. 245, emphasis added).
Some other translations make this clear. The Twentieth Century New Testament, for example, translates this as "Do not, then, allow any one to take you to task on questions of eating and drinking ..."
Although many assume that Paul's criticism is directed at teachers who advocated Old Testament practices (such as following the law and practicing circumcision), no biblical evidence supports this view. However, we should recognize that perversions of proper biblical practice abounded at the time, both in Judaism and the emerging early Church. As The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia explains: "There is more than Judaism in this false teaching. Its teachers look to intermediary spirits, angels whom they worship; and insist on a very strict asceticism" (1939 edition, "Epistle to the Colossians").
The false teaching Paul condemned contained many elements of asceticism—avoidance of anything enjoyable—which was intended to make its followers more spiritual. Notice his instructions to the Colossians: "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—'Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,' which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh" (Colossians 2:20-23.
From this we see the ascetic nature of the error Paul was combating. The false teachers' deluded attempt to attain greater spirituality included "neglect of the body" (verse 23). Paul characterized their misguided rules as "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" (verse 21). Their efforts created only a "false humility" (verse 23) and were destined to fail because they were based on "the commandments and doctrines of men" (verse 22) rather than God's instruction.
Paul admonished the church at Colosse not to listen to the ascetics. Rather than abrogating God's laws concerning unclean meats—which some people incorrectly read into this passage—Paul is instructing the Colossian members not to concern themselves with ascetic teachers who criticized the manner in which the Colossians enjoyed God's festivals and Sabbaths in pleasant fellowship with eating and drinking. Such enjoyment, although condemned by these false teachers, is perfectly acceptable to God. (For further understanding, please request the two free booklets God's Holy Day Plan: The Promise of Hope for All Mankind and Sunset to Sunset: God's Sabbath Rest .) Last edited by Truth.8 on 16-11-2013 11:18 AM
In this section of Colossians Paul encourages the Church to hold fast to its teachings and proper understanding; it is not a treatise on which foods to eat or on which days to worship God. We must be careful not to read preconceived notions into these or any other scriptures.
Interesting hermeneutics. I guess the Church must have misunderstood and misinterpreted Pauline epistles for centuries until William Miller rediscovered the truth in 1833. So much for God's faithfulness?
bobkee posted on 16-11-2013 02:24 PM
Interesting hermeneutics. I guess the Church must have misunderstood and misinterpreted Pauline epis ...
Interesting hermeneutics. I guess the Church must have misunderstood and misinterpreted Pauline epistles for centuries until William Miller rediscovered the truth in 1833. So much for God's faithfulness?
willam miller ?who is he? author of the Bible?
why one need to depend on someone when we have complete book Bible.
When God list out the food that unfit to eat....it has reason. one example:
when humans consume seafood which some of the seafood are unfit ...God not going tell "hey if u eat prawn , u can have rashes and etc....
when the Creators says do not eat...dont reason with HIM...
The root of modern Sabbatarian theology can be found in Millerite theology. Worth checking out to understand the context in which one's teachings evolved out of.
bobkee posted on 19-11-2013 12:15 AM
The root of modern Sabbatarian theology can be found in Millerite theology. Worth checking out to un ...
The root of modern Sabbatarian theology can be found in Millerite theology. Worth checking out to understand the context in which one's teachings evolved out of.
the ten commandements made it clear Sabbath . why sabbath? God created 6 days and 1 day rested. God not tired for HIS creations rather HE want us to remind HIS creations by working 6 days and 1 day fully off by praying and etc during the Sabbath.
Morever , Jesus says sabbath was made for men. Men meaning all nations and races....
The problem with many peoples which christians....they want choose and pick for their own comfort .....so they eat anything from pork, seafood and etc...
now, eating those meats is not sin rather is for health purpose....God care for HIS creations to sustain good healty lifestyle rather eathing rubbish and making our body unhealty....one example pork...consuming pork take long to digest....pork eat anything.....from dead carcass and etc....I have seen peoples who eat pork have sturbone behaviours similar to pigs
like i said, God not going give reason this and that rather we just followed what HE said in the Bible...when HE said unclean...just follow it rather than aruging ...
Not arguing, just encouraging you to delve deeper into the hermeneutics and history of the development of Sabbatarian theology within the Christian context.
Interpretation of Scriptures do not occur in a vacuum. Even Torah interpretation has its own development and branches, some of which evolved into the observances most commonly described in the New Testament period while others less so, ie. the Essenic tradition. Last edited by bobkee on 19-11-2013 11:27 AM
I'm not convinced (and incidentally neither am I convinced that the OT law is abrograted, but I do believe that it has been fulfilled) due to an appreciation of the context in which such teachings develop.
1 Original Health plan
2 Defiling the Body
3 Science Proves the Point
4 Sin's of Sodom
Everyone always wants to get healthier right? I have a close friend who had a weight problem, digestive problems, and bowel problems. When he accepted the truth of this simple Biblical diet (which is not a diet as we would think of a diet for losing weight), his digestive issues are gone, his bowels are back to normal, he lost over 11 pounds quickly, and he says he feels better all around.
DISEASES CAUSED BY PORK IN DETAIL
The following lists show germs or parasites that are found in pork and some diseases caused by them. Many of these diseases are contagious while some are proven fatal.
PARASITIC DISEASES
a) TRICHINELLA SPIRATIS ( Trichina worms )
It is the most dangerous parasite to man ( Rheumatism and muscular pain). The infected persons shown no symptoms, recover very slowly some die, some reduced to permanent invalids. No one is immune from this disease and there is no cure.
b) TAENIA SOLIUM ( Pork tape worm )
The worm causes malnourishment of the person leading to anemia, diarrhea, extreme depression melancholia and digestive disturbances. Cysticercosis means that larva enter the blood stream then settle down in one or more of the vital organs of the body, for example: brain, liver, lungs or spinal cord. They grow and encapsulate, inducing pressure to the
system around, resulting in dangerous diseases (diarrhea,digestive disorder, anemia, chronic invalidation).
c) ROUND WORMS
Examples: Ascaris, which may lead to digestive disturbances, appendicitis, obstructive jaundice.
d) HOOK WORMS
Examples:Ancylostomiasis, which may lead to anemia, oedema, heart failure or retarded growth ( mental and physical), tuberculosis,
diarrhea and typhoid.
e) SCHITOSOMA JAPONICUM
Bleeding, anemia and other syndromes. If ova are settled in the brain or spinal cord, paralysis and death may occur.
f) PARAGOMINES WESTERMAINI
Infestation leading to bleeding of the lungs ( endenve haemoptysis)
g) PACIOLEPSIS BUSKI
Digestive disturbances leading to persistent diarrhea; generalized oedema.
BACTERIAL DISEASES
Tuberculosis
Fusiformis necrofurus: causing foot-rot which is very difficult to heal.
Salmonella Cholera suis: causing cholera
Paratyphoid
Bruceellosis: Acute, sub acute and chronic. It may lead to permanent disabilities.
Swine Erysipelas: causing Erypelas in man.
Viral Diseases
Small pox: is was a source of infection to man.
Japanese B-encepphalitis: It is the source of infection
Influenza, foot mouth disease, gas tro-enteritis of the new born babies.
Protozoal Diseases:
Toxo plasma goundii- It is a very dangerous diseases.A new born baby of an infected woman may die within few days or weeks after delivery. But if he survives he may develop blindness or deafness.In adult chronic exhaustive fever with enlarged liver and spleen may occur. Pneumonia, or celebro- spinal meninggitis which may lead to death or madness. The patient may become blind and deaf too.
Other Diseases:
Flesh of the pork is hard to digest and may lead to chronic digestive disturbances. Pimples, boils, cysts are common in pork eaters. These are some of the parasites and diseases found in pork and/ or the skin of pigs and certainly there are many more. There is still no means of killing these parasites, in the tissues, neither has anyone found a method of expelling them, even produced any specific treatment for the diseases.
Truth.8 posted on 20-11-2013 12:04 PM
BACTERIAL DISEASES
Tuberculosis
Fusiformis necrofurus: causing foot-rot which is very difficult to ...
What about Jesus speaking in Mark 7
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
This text plainly says in verse 19 that all meats are purged i.e. purified. This was Jesus speaking here. Any Comments?
Steven Britt
Hi Robert,
If this is indeed the point that Jesus was making in Mark 7, then surely His disciples would have taken it to heart. Why, then, did Peter refuse the unclean animals that God spread before him in a vision in Acts 10:13-14? Even after Christ's death we find that Peter was obviously still under the impression that he was obligated to uphold the clear commandment of Leviticus 11, which says, "These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth." The conclusion must be that Peter did not understand Christ to mean that we can now eat unclean animals; therefore, neither should we understand it that way!
Additionally, I don't know of anyone who teaches that Christ abolished the law BEFORE His death; rather, anyone who teaches that Christ did away with the law teaches that it was BY His death. While this is also wrong, since Christ said Himself that the law would not pass away until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:18), attempting to say that He did away with the law before He had died has even less support to argue from.
Post time 15-11-2013 04:09 PM
变色卡
Author
![[Edisi pungpakkepung] Azri Iskandar dan kekasih baru?](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/62/62a9916c86939915da4c31ecede21a19.jpg)
