Paul's understanding of Clean and Unclean food

[Lulav]

Many times when a discussion is had about keeping the laws of Kosher it is pointed out that Paul taught that you could eat anything you wanted.

Let's take a look at some quotes by Paul and where he got them from.

Romans 14 the beginning of this chapter tells us what the subject is about. Some at the time were practicing Vegetarianism. It has been passed down that James, the brother of Yeshua/Jesus was a vegetarian as well as some of the other Apostles.

Paul starts off by saying:

1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.
2 For one man has faith to eat all things, while another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him.​

I was about certain congregational members judging on wither or not another member was vegetarian.

Further down in his letter he says:

13 Therefore let us stop judging one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.

So what is this stumbling block?

20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to let his eating be a stumbling block.
21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble.

Many occasions the word translated into English 'meat' means food in general. However in this case above that word actually means the way we use it today, 'flesh' or pieces of flesh, think Steaks, etc.

So this was about eating meat and drinking wine or eating vegetables and nuts, seeds, fruits and not imbibing.

Then you might say, what about this part?

14 I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
15 If your brother is distressed by what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother, for whom Christ died.

The word translated there to unclean is koinon.

This is not 'unclean' as in the Torah, but it means common, as in unholy, not set apart.

When Peter had his vision he responded that in all his life he had not ever eaten anything common or unclean. Koinon or akthartos. He later told Cornelius:

"You know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another nation; but God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean"​

Or a better way to avoid misunderstanding.

but God has showed me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean"
​

akthartos - means unclean, impure even demonic, like the man in the graves was considered unclean.

Paul uses this in 2 Corinthians 6:17

…16 What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.” 17“Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”​

Paul gets this from Isaiah 52:11

11 Depart, depart, go out from there, Touch nothing unclean;
Go out of the midst of her, purify yourselves,
You who carry the vessels of the Lord.

 

[royal priest]

Peter was recognizing that fundamental distinction between the identity of Jews and Gentiles by their diet. However, the Lord's command to Peter directed him to recognize the removal of this distinction by his own dietary practice:
Acts 10:13
And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

 

[Ken Rank]

@Lulav
I would, respectfully, suggest that your title is misleading. There isn't any clean and unclean "food," there are clean and unclean animals. Some were made for food, and some were not. A catfish is unclean... but it also isn't food, it wasn't created to be food, it was created to be a bottom dwelling filter.

 

[Ken Rank]

Peter was recognizing that fundamental distinction between the identity of Jews and Gentiles by their diet. However, the Lord's command to Peter directed him to also recognize the removal of this distinction extended to his own dietary practice:
Acts 10:13
And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

That actually isn't true. But before I begin, I need to share a few observations concerning visions and dreams. We have many plain examples of dreams and visions in the Scriptures. Using for an example, one of my favorite stories in the bible, let’s take a look at the dreams of Joseph. If you haven’t read the story of Joseph’s life, it really is a must read. It starts in Genesis 37 and runs continuously through Genesis 50. During this story, Joseph is in captivity and has bounced in and out of favor with Egypt’s leaders. So as not to ruin the story for those who have yet to read it, or read it in some time, I will cut straight to the point. The Pharaoh of Egypt was plagued by what were essentially nightmares; they were recurring dreams. In one dream, Pharaoh saw 7 well-fed and perhaps pleasantly plump cows and 7 lean cows, sickly and near death. There was a second dream using different imagery, it contained 7 strong and healthy ears of corn, and 7 thin and weak stalks. In each case, the weak or sick devoured the strong and healthy. He was unable to determine what these things meant, so Joseph, who had accurately interpreted dreams of other men, was called before Pharaoh. At this point the Pharaoh relived his dreams for Joseph, who took a moment and interpreted the dreams. The dreams were literal, in that behind the symbology of the cows and corn, a literal meaning stood in the background. In this case, the 7 fat cows and 7 strong stalks of corn were showing Pharaoh what God was about to do, they indicated 7 years of plenty, 7 years of great harvest, much food. The 7 lean cows and weak stalks on the other hand, were indicating 7 years of bad harvests, a scarcity of food, famine! Joseph was able, through this interpretation, to warn Pharaoh and help to create a way that not only Egypt survived the 7 bad years, but his family survived and even prospered as well. My point in using this example is to show that the cows were nothing more than symbols declaring an unrelated (to the symbols) truth. The cows and corn, when you really get down to it, had nothing to do with the story other than they were used as pictures pointing toward something else, they were used to point toward a literal truth. There are other examples, throughout the entire bible, of visions and dreams being filled with symbols that themselves were not the issue, but the meaning behind them were. The book of Revelation is full of this kind of symbolism, all of which came in a vision to John.

So we look at Peter’s vision now, which is written as follows:

Acts 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: (10) And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, (11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: (12) Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. (15)And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (17) Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, (18) And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. (19) While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. (20) Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

For context, you need to read the first 8 verses, which I paraphrase now by simply saying that a man named Cornelius who was a captain in the Italian Army, obviously a Gentile and a believer, was visited by an angel. The angel told Cornelius to send men to Peter and ask him to come to him. What you might not realize, is that anyone who was not a Jew was considered unclean by Jews. To eat with a gentile, to sleep at a gentile’s home, to hang out with gentiles in public places, this was simply not something a Jew did, not even a Messiah believing Jew. Reading all of chapters 10 and 11 will make this clear to you. So, Peter goes with the men, and Cornelius comes out to meet them as they arrive. Now watch closely what Peter says to him:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

How did God show Peter that he shouldn’t call any man common or unclean? Could it have been the vision? Keep in mind, Acts 10:16 says that great sheet with the animals on it descended 3 times before Peter, and when he awoke, 3 gentile men were at his door. Moving on, we see that Peter stays with Cornelius for a time, preaches the Good News to them, and watches God work Spirit filled miracles through them. He baptizes them, and a few days’ later leaves and heads back to Jerusalem. Once there, Peter is approached by the other apostles and brethren in Messiah. (Chapter 11) The Jews then contended with Peter saying:

Acts 11:3 Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Peter, knowing this was coming, retold his entire vision concerning unclean animals. He told them how when he was finished, gentiles were all but waiting at the door, sent by an angel of God to take him to Cornelius. He told them of the works they did, how the Spirit of God fell on those gentiles just as it had the Jews in the beginning. When Peter finished his defense as to why he was “hanging out” with unclean men, did the Jews who contended with him say “Peter, you dupe, that vision said we can eat all foods because they are all clean now?” No, of course not, Peter shared with them how the vision, which used unclean ANIMALS as symbols, was indeed declaring that those MEN whom God had made clean should not be called unclean. So instead, when Peter finishes sharing his experience and vision, those Jews responded in this manner:

Acts 11:18 when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

So like Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream, or like the many other dreams and visions within scripture which used symbols to deliver a literal message, Peter’s vision likewise used symbols, in this case unclean foods, to declare a literal message. What was God’s message to Peter and to us? Clearly, when we come to Messiah despite our racial, cultural, or ethnic background, we are clean through messiah and should not be called anything less. Thus, Peter’s vision cannot be used to declare all foods to be clean. His vision had nothing at all to do with biblical dietary laws. In fact, it should be noted that Peter said "no" directly to God three times without rebuke. He walked with Messiah, and if Messiah’s work made all foods clean, why did he tell God “no” when God told him to eat? This wasn't about food beloved; this dream/vision was about men. Additionally, in the story of Joseph, the sick cows that the Pharaoh saw ultimately ate the healthy cows. So if the symbols of a dream or vision are literal, and all foods are now clean as per Peter’s vision, then should we warn farmers never to place sick cows in the same pen with healthy ones? Clearly the healthy ones will all be eaten by the sick one, IF we were to take the symbols used in dreams as literal.

As a side note, there may be something of a “Jonah connection” to Peter’s vision. Remember when Jonah would not go to the Ninevites and preach because of “who” the Ninevites were, he ran to Joppa in order to run from God and climbed aboard a ship and fled. Peter was staying at a seaside home in Joppa (Acts 10:5-6) when the gentile Cornelius sent his men to find Peter. So there was Peter in the same place Jonah fled the Lord from, and for similar reasons. I wonder if Peter caught the irony of this? Did it act as a second witness to what he just witnessed?

 

[RDKirk]

Yoiu're working too hard to prove your own predetermined point.

For one man has faith to eat all things

"All things" means all things

It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The word kreas used here does, specifically, mean "flesh."

Making the same point to the Corinthians, Paul writes:

Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. -- 1 Corinthians 8

In this single sentence, Paul uses broma to mean food and kreas to mean flesh. Did he mean that he would not eat anything? No food at all? No, he meant he would forebear from eating flesh.

The converted pagans Paul was working with did not come from a Torah background.

They had been eating everything, the flesh of every kind of animal. They had also been attending pagan ceremonies in which they ate animals that had been ritualistically strangled and drank their blood.

Paul did not teach the Greeks to obey the dietary laws Torah and then start giving them fine points about eating vegetables instead of kosher flesh. There is zero indication, absolutely zero, that Paul ever taught the Philippians or the Corinthians to obey the dietary laws of the Torah.

That would have been a major change of their lives that would certainly have appeared somewhere in Acts or in Paul's writings. But it's not there.

 

[Dave-W]

oiu're working too hard to prove your own predetermined point.
For one man has faith to eat all things
"All things" means all things

You are stretching it too.

So poison ivy berries are good food?

 

[Andrewn]

akthartos - means unclean, impure even demonic, like the man in the graves was considered unclean. Paul uses this in 2 Corinthians 6:17 …16 What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.” 17“Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”

You're right in that we should distinguish "akathartos" and "koinos." In the category of "akathartos," the Apostle Paul in 2Co 6:14-18 includes: unbelievers, lawlessness, darkness, belial, idols.

From the Jerusalem Council decisions, we should add to this: food sacrificed to idols, blood, and what has been strangled.

Do you find that something else should be included?

 

[RDKirk]

You are stretching it too.

So poison ivy berries are good food?
View attachment 261794

No, you're stretching it.

 

[Dave-W]

No, you're stretching it.

The fact is the Torah requirements for what is actually "food" have never changed.
Do they apply differently for Jews and Gentiles? Yes.

 

[DamianWarS]

So if the symbols of a dream or vision are literal, and all foods are now clean as per Peter’s vision, then should we warn farmers never to place sick cows in the same pen with healthy ones? Clearly the healthy ones will all be eaten by the sick one, IF we were to take the symbols used in dreams as literal.

one issue with this interpretation is that the vision that Peter receives reveals the deeper meaning regarding the dietary laws and that they are not actually about clean or unclean foods but about being set apart as holy and called by God; they are symbolic by nature and there is no such thing as clean or unclean animals. This parallels a lot of different laws like mixing grains or mixing thread or even seemingly random stuff like not trimming the corners of your beard. The Israelites were called to be set apart as a chosen nation not to mix with other nations and to be different and this system is echoed all throughout the law.

So we can't have it both ways. If the vision reveals to us the deeper meaning of the law then the law mirrors the release of the Spirit of God and if the Spirit of God is released to all peoples then the dietary laws are also released. It's not one and not the other. eating foods that once were unclean proclaims this message just as eating foods that are only clean proclaims a message of segregation, we are not bound by this law but instead bound by our mission, so if our mission is orthodox jews then we are bound by their dietary laws too, but if our mission is the typical American than proclaiming a religious dietary system would be missing the point.

I work and am friends with a lot of Muslims and because of this my home and life is halal meaning I do not keep alcohol or pork in my house and my family children do the same. because of this a Muslim may walk into my home and eat my food because they know it is halal and we can to exchange these intimacy moments only inner circle relationships get to experience; one that would be closed if we were not halal. Why do we do this? As Paul says in 1 Cor 9:23 "I do all this for the sake of the gospel" and these are our new restrictions to food which is when the gospel is limited then we need to adjust so that the gospel is proclaimed without hindrance.

This could be full freedom of foods or it could be like a Jain diet where you eat nothing that is killed not even pick an apple from a tree. The tree must first release the apple before it is eaten, so if our mission was within Jainism then these would be our new dietary laws so long as the gospel may be proclaiming within that system.

 

[Ken Rank]

one issue with this interpretation is that the vision that Peter receives reveals the deeper meaning regarding the dietary laws and that they are not actually about clean or unclean foods but about being set apart as holy and called by God; they are symbolic by nature and there is no such thing as clean or unclean animals. This parallels a lot of different laws like mixing grains or mixing thread or even seemingly random stuff like not trimming the corners of your beard. The Israelites were called to be set apart as a chosen nation not to mix with other nations and to be different and this system is echoed all throughout the law.

So we can't have it both ways. If the vision reveals to us the deeper meaning of the law then the law mirrors the release of the Spirit of God and if the Spirit of God is released to all peoples then the dietary laws are also released. It's not one and not the other. eating foods that once were unclean proclaims this message just as eating foods that are only clean proclaims a message of segregation, we are not bound by this law but instead bound by our mission, so if our mission is orthodox jews then we are bound by their dietary laws too, but if our mission is the typical American than proclaiming a religious dietary system would be missing the point.

I work and am friends with a lot of Muslims and because of this my home and life is halal meaning I do not keep alcohol or pork in my house and my family children do the same. because of this a Muslim may walk into my home and eat my food because they know it is halal and we can to exchange these intimacy moments only inner circle relationships get to experience; one that would be closed if we were not halal. Why do we do this? As Paul says in 1 Cor 9:23 "I do all this for the sake of the gospel" and these are our new restrictions to food which is when the gospel is limited then we need to adjust so that the gospel is proclaimed without hindrance.

This could be full freedom of foods or it could be like a Jain diet where you eat nothing that is killed not even pick an apple from a tree. The tree must first release the apple before it is eaten, so if our mission was within Jainism then these would be our new dietary laws so long as the gospel may be proclaiming within that system.

God was making a point, gentile men.... non-Israelites... seen as unclean by Jews... were made clean by the blood of Christ. To make this point to Peter, he used animals that were unclean, not even created as food. And he told Peter to eat and Peter told God "NO!" Three times Peter told God no and wasn't rebuked? Why? Because it wasn't about food. We THINK it is because our Christian culture thinks God has changed and that things He didn't create as food are now food. A catfish, or a crab... are not food, they are bottom dwelling poop eaters that are there to clean the waters. God doesn't change... and the work of Messiah wasn't geared around making a swine something we can eat. His work was geared around reversing the curse of sin and death introduced into this world by Adam.

Eat whatever you what brother... that is between you and God. But Peter's vision wasn't about food. He explained it when asked by the other Jews and his explanation wasn't centered on food at all, just the people God was working on.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yoiu're working too hard to prove your own predetermined point.

For one man has faith to eat all things

"All things" means all things

It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The word kreas used here does, specifically, mean "flesh."

Making the same point to the Corinthians, Paul writes:

Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. -- 1 Corinthians 8

In this single sentence, Paul uses broma to mean food and kreas to mean flesh. Did he mean that he would not eat anything? No food at all? No, he meant he would forebear from eating flesh.

The converted pagans Paul was working with did not come from a Torah background.

They had been eating everything, the flesh of every kind of animal. They had also been attending pagan ceremonies in which they ate animals that had been ritualistically strangled and drank their blood.

Paul did not teach the Greeks to obey the dietary laws Torah and then start giving them fine points about eating vegetables instead of kosher flesh. There is zero indication, absolutely zero, that Paul ever taught the Philippians or the Corinthians to obey the dietary laws of the Torah.

That would have been a major change of their lives that would certainly have appeared somewhere in Acts or in Paul's writings. But it's not there.

Except this was about fasting. Also Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with food...

 

[DamianWarS]

God was making a point, gentile men.... non-Israelites... seen as unclean by Jews... were made clean by the blood of Christ. To make this point to Peter, he used animals that were unclean, not even created as food. And he told Peter to eat and Peter told God "NO!" Three times Peter told God no and wasn't rebuked? Why? Because it wasn't about food. We THINK it is because our Christian culture thinks God has changed and that things He didn't create as food are now food. A catfish, or a crab... are not food, they are bottom dwelling poop eaters that are there to clean the waters. God doesn't change... and the work of Messiah wasn't geared around making a swine something we can eat. His work was geared around reversing the curse of sin and death introduced into this world by Adam.

Eat whatever you what brother... that is between you and God. But Peter's vision wasn't about food. He explained it when asked by the other Jews and his explanation wasn't centered on food at all, just the people God was working on.

Blessings.
Ken

What you eat is your own choice but I'm talking about the revelation of this vision. What it reveals to us is the system around dietary laws are symbolic from the beginning with clean representing Isreal and unclean non-Isreal. there are abstracts however and there really is no clean or unclean.

This is the great reveal of the dream, not that God has released his spirit to all peoples, which is a product of the dream, but that the law that Peter was so bound by was always about who God has chosen and who he has not.

God doesn't change but what does happen is we are enlightened to the meaning of the law and this meaning was always there and it actually has nothing to do with food.

Sure, there are things that are good for food and things that are not, we don't eat rocks or nails because this would be just foolish. If we are to look at creation as a whole before the fall it would suggest none of the animals were created for food yet humans were called to rule over them so. perhaps we should all stick to the Jain diet just to be safe.

 

[Ken Rank]

What you eat is your own choice but I'm talking about the revelation of this vision. What it reveals to us is the system around dietary laws are symbolic from the beginning with clean representing Isreal and unclean non-Isreal. there are abstracts however and there really is no clean or unclean.

I think you and a lot of mainstream Christians who have been raised in a religious culture that says all animals are food, sees some hidden meaning in Peter's vision. But Peter didn't... he was asked directly what it all meant and he tied it ONLY to people. God is not really a rock, Damian... but He is called a rock. Jesus really isn't a lamb (he has no fur, 4 legs, or a tail) but he is called that. God uses symbols to teach and in this case, Peter got it.....

"What God has called clean do not call unclean" Men... God NEVER called a pig clean! God NEVER did.

But again, eat whatever you want, it's between you and God not you and I.

Be blessed.

 

[RDKirk]

The fact is the Torah requirements for what is actually "food" have never changed.
Do they apply differently for Jews and Gentiles? Yes.

Wasn't I speaking explicitly about Gentiles?

 

[RDKirk]

This could be full freedom of foods or it could be like a Jain diet where you eat nothing that is killed not even pick an apple from a tree. The tree must first release the apple before it is eaten, so if our mission was within Jainism then these would be our new dietary laws so long as the gospel may be proclaiming within that system.

Jain's may pick an apple from a tree or eat any vegetable that does not kill the plant (so no potatoes or carrots).

But I do agree with your post.

 

[Ken Rank]

Except this was about fasting. Also Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with food...

Exactly... @DamianWarS ...

Read the verses I shared in my first post. Watch...

"And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

And here is what Peter received from that....

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

The Jews did not keep company with gentiles and God showed Peter (in the vision) that he should not call ANY >>MAN<< unclean or common. This isn't about food according to the bible unless you have a bias that this needs to support... respectfully.

 

[RDKirk]

Except this was about fasting. Also Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with food...

Fasting would have been about no food, not kinds of foods.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Exactly... @DamianWarS ...

Read the verses I shared in my first post. Watch...

"And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

And here is what Peter received from that....

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

The Jews did not keep company with gentiles and God showed Peter (in the vision) that he should not call ANY >>MAN<< unclean or common. This isn't about food according to the bible unless you have a bias that this needs to support... respectfully.

All are made in the Image of the Almighty

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Fasting would have been about no food, not kinds of foods.

No, some when they fast eat no meat and only vegetables. Some eat nothing at all and only water