Not Only a Matter of Diet article by Scott Ashley

Transcription

1 Not Only a Matter of Diet article by Scott Ashley From cover to cover, from Genesis to Revelation, nowhere in the Bible do we find an example of a servant of God or follower of Jesus Christ eating the flesh of an unclean animal. From cover to cover, from Genesis to Revelation, nowhere in the Bible do we find an example of a servant of God or follower of Jesus Christ eating the flesh of an unclean animal. If at any time the distinctions between clean and unclean meats had ceased to exist, shouldn't that have been made clear in the Bible through the example of God's servants? On the contrary, well into the time of the early Church we find that Christ's followers scrupulously avoided eating animal flesh that God had revealed as being unclean (Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. 11:8). The same distinctions are made in prophecies of the time of the end (Revelation 18:2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. Isaiah 66:15-17 [15] For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. [16] For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. [17] They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. But there is more to the matter than diet. A thorough study of the Bible helps us understand other dimensions to the significance of the distinctions between clean and unclean meats. God's Word describes the flesh of unclean animals as an "abomination" (Leviticus 11:10-13 [10] And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: [11] They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination. [12] Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. [13] And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 20, 23, 41-42) and "detestable" (Deuteronomy 14:3Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. and in that light we are warned against consuming such meat (Leviticus 11:43Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. Strong language, but the lesson is that we need to accept all aspects of God's Word, including the basic food laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

2 In instituting the sacrificial system for ancient Israel, God commanded many specific sacrifices involving various animals. Nowhere, however, does He command or allow the sacrifice of an unclean animal, nor is there record of any of God's servants ever sacrificing such an animal to Him. Such a sacrifice would have been simply unthinkable to a true servant of God and an affront to the Creator Himself. GN Could you help me to understand something please? You mention in the article "Not Only a Matter of Diet" that "From cover to cover, from Genesis to Revelation, nowhere in the Bible do we find an example of a servant of God or follower of Jesus Christ eating the flesh of an unclean animal." and you reference Acts 10:14 in the article. But, in the next chapter (11:1-3) it clearly says that Peter was criticized for "eating" with the "uncircumcised men". They were certainly accusing Peter of eating unclean meats. He never defends himself and says that he didn't eat any unclean meats while with them and only had a Kosher meal. Can you help me to understand how it can be perceived that Peter did not eat "unclean" food with them? Thank you in advance for any clarification. Where do you get the idea that "They were certainly accusing Peter of eating unclean meats"? That is an assumption nowhere mentioned or even hinted at in the texts. The issue, as clearly stated, was Peter was accused of eating with uncircumcised men Cornelius and his family. You can read about it in Acts 10: Nowhere is anything said that Peter ate unclean meats or was accused of that. Why was it an issue that Peter ate with uncircumcised men? As Peter acknowledged in Acts 10:28, it was considered unlawful for a Jew such as Peter "to keep company with or go to one of another nation" i.e., a non-israelite or gentile such as the Roman centurion Cornelius. We see this prohibition also reflected in such passages as John 4:9 ("For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans") and John 18:28, where Christ's accusers would not enter the Roman governor Pilate's dwelling because that would "defile" them. The issue was, as stated, Peter eating with uncircumcised men not eating unclean foods. We must be careful not to read something into the verses that simply isn't there. Also, Cornelius was what is described as a "God-fearer" (Acts 10:2). This was a term of the day for a gentile who lived by all the biblical laws (such as observing the Sabbath and avoiding unclean meats). They had essentially converted to the religion of the Jewish people of the day, with the exception that they had not undergone circumcision to become considered fully Jewish.

3 You can also find reference to these "God-fearers" in Acts 13:16 and 26, where Paul addresses both Israelites AND "you who fear God" a different group which is these gentiles who had essentially converted to the Jewish religion of the day. The point is that since Cornelius was one of these "God-fearers," he wouldn't have been eating unclean meats anyway, nor would he have served unclean meats to Peter. So again, it's an incorrect assumption to think that Peter would've eaten unclean meats. Thank you for your response. I am not sure if what you mentioned in your response takes into account that in Chapter 11 verses 2-3 Peter was not just criticized for entering a circumcised man s home, but also it clearly states that it was for "eating with them". There would be no need for the distinction between the two events of entering the home and eating to be mentioned by the "circumcised believers" if both were not an issue. Peter's response thereafter doesn't say anything like "I did defile myself by entering the home, but I didn't eat anything unclean". He actually goes into an explanation where he mentions how the Lord told him to "Kill and eat" after seeing a vision pertaining to "unclean animals". Clearly Peter thought that the Lord was telling him to eat "unclean animals" based on his response in chap. 11 verse 8. The Lords immediate response was to say "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean". I am not sure that I would be making more of an assumption to say that Peter had eaten unclean meat as it would to be said that Cornelius as a Gentile did not eat unclean meats (as you stated in your response) based on the context of ALL of Chapters 10 and 11. Romans Chapter 14 (especially v ) gives indication that this was an issue amongst the believers and also seems to be clear that the dietary restrictions had been lifted. I would appreciate if you could help me to find where the Lord says that Christians are not to associate with Gentiles in the Old Testament. It was my understanding that the Jews didn't want to associate with Gentiles because they felt that it would make them ceremonially unclean to be around a Gentile since they didn't follow the dietary restrictions and did other things that would potentially make them unclean, but I cannot find a scripture where the Lord says that Jews are not to associate with Gentiles. I would appreciate any further clarity that you might be able to give on the scriptures in Romans and to help me to find where the Lord tells the Jews not to associate with Gentiles. Also if you can give me your understanding of what The Lord meant when he told Peter to "Kill and eat" in the scriptures in Acts I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your help with this. You are not alone people have misread this section of Scripture for years. When I read your first message, I made a wrong assumption. This short article is part of a larger booklet titled What Does the Bible Teach About Clean and Unclean Meats? I had assumed you had read that larger piece. Now, from your comments, I see that isn t the case. I would suggest

4 you read that piece in its entirety, which you can find here: It directly addresses some of your questions, such as the entire context of Acts and what Paul wrote in Romans 14, in great detail. Let s look at a few key points in Acts that many people misunderstand. First, many people assume that Jesus death ended the biblical laws prohibiting eating unclean meats. But if that were true, how can one explain Peter s response to the vision and the voice telling him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat (Acts 10:11-13). Notice Peter s response: Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean (verse 14). This took place years after Jesus Christ s death and resurrection, and yet Peter clearly states, I have never eaten anything common or unclean. Why, if those distinctions between clean and unclean had been abolished, had Peter not eaten any unclean meats years after Jesus has supposedly abolished those distinctions? This alone should tell us that the common view is wrong. After reading about the vision 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. 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, Peter still wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant (verse 17). Peter instinctively understood that there was something about the vision that he did not understand! What was it that he did not understand? It wasn t long until Peter realized the true significance of the vision. And what was that? It was that God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean (verse 28). The point wasn t about animal flesh at all it was about human beings! Read Peter s own explanation of the vision: God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean! Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter then baptized these gentiles whom God had called into the Church (verses 45-48). As we see from reading further in the account, this vision didn t concern unclean meats at all. Rather, it concerned people. Because the Jewish religious leaders at the time of Christ considered gentiles to be unclean, this vision corrected this common misconception that had been carried over into the early Church. It demonstrated that God was now beginning to offer salvation to members of any race, including gentiles. Far from abolishing God s instructions against eating unclean meats, these verses show that, about a decade after Christ's death, Peter had continued to keep the biblical food laws.

5 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 about clean and unclean meats. Peter realized that the puzzling vision could not be annulling God's instructions, which is why he thought about the vision until he understood its true meaning (verses 17-19, 28) that gentiles could become members of the Church upon repentance and faith, too (verses 34-35, 45-48). If you want to learn more about God-fearers, I d suggest you do some research on the Internet. Here are a few comments from some books on my shelf about the first few verses of Acts 10, where Cornelius is introduced: God fearing: The term used of one who was not a full Jewish proselyte but who believed in one God and respected the moral and ethical teachings of the Jews. About three in the afternoon: Another indication that Cornelius followed Jewish religious practices. Three in the afternoon was a Jewish hour of prayer... (New International Version Study Bible). Devout man who feared God identifies Cornelius as a God-fearer (cf. v. 22; 13:16, 26), a Gentile who worshiped Israel s God and was in some way attached to a synagogue but who had not submitted to Jewish conversion rites (esp. circumcision) (English Standard Version Study Bible). God-fearers were non-jews who believed in one God, attended the synagogue and respected the moral and ethical teachings of the Jews but who did not fully embrace all of the Jewish customs, such as the rite of circumcision... (Archaeological Study Bible). God fearers respected Jewish beliefs and customs (including food laws and especially special days). They often associated with the Jews, but they were unwilling to become full-fledged proselytes, since this required that they be circumcised... (Holman Christian Standard Bible Study Bible). As for your question about where God the Father or Jesus Christ told Christians or Jews not to associate with gentiles, I have yet to find any scripture that says that. That was clearly the teaching of the religious authorities of the day, as we see from such verses as John 4:9, 18:28 and Acts 21:28. But that was part of the added rules and regulations they added that Jesus Christ condemned. He ignored this manmade prohibition, as we see from His association with gentiles in John 4:9 (Samaria) and Matthew 15:21 (Tyre and Sidon). The Exodus itself shows that a mixed multitude came with the Israelites when they left Egypt (Exodus 12:38), and God explained that His laws were to apply to the stranger as well as the Israelites (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:16; Deuteronomy 31:12), so I cannot see where the Jewish religious leaders came up with this prohibition against associating with gentiles.

6 Ken Graham Hello: Common or Unclean Acts 10:14-15; 11:8-9 The real problem found in Peter s vision of the sheet descending before him, and him being told to arise, kill and eat is in the English translation of what is occurring. Christians and Jews of that day had certain beliefs regarding words that we translate into English as clean and common. There were distinctly different words requiring different treatment among the Jews and Christians of the time. In Acts 10:14-15 and in Acts 11:8-9 we find that Peter assumes that the vision of the sheet was literal and he was to kill and eat these animals, some of which were unclean and some were common. And so Peter responds by saying he has never eaten either. But the voice from heaven to him only responds with the word common. Realize that the Jews treated foods or meat in particular, that although clean could be common as well. The Greek word for common is koinon or koinou in the Genitive case (possessive) here. Common is something having to do with it s treatment. If an animal was killed in a way where the blood was not drained properly then the animal became common. If an animal died of its own accord, even if it was a clean animal by the standards given in Leviticus 11, it was treated as common. We might say the word common had to do with how the animal was treated or prepared. The word (clean or) unclean comes to us from the Greek word akathartos. We get our English word kathartic from it, or something with health benefits. Of course when an a is put in front of the word in Greek, just like in English it negates the meaning so kathartos in Greek is something good for you, akathrtos is something bad for you. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 contain instructions on meats that are clean and unclean and how to distinguish the difference between them. Notice Peter had never eaten anything of either type. The response of the voice from heaven only suggests to him that what God has identified as having cleansed is not to be referred to as common. But the voice never makes reference to unclean because the food laws given in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 were not being changed at all. The only thing changing here is that God was cleansing (removing their commonness) the Gentiles in a figurative sense and that they were to be allowed full entry into the church which Peter found out very quickly in his dealings with Cornelius in Acts 10. I hope this will help in understanding Acts 10 and 11.