Both the Old Testament and New Testament discuss eating of food and how children of God should view such matters.
In some ways this is a complex matter. I will simply mention a few points and the reader can seek the Lord as to what he/she should eat and not eat.
Before the flood God did not give animal/fish meat to humans to eat (Gen 1:29). Therefore the concept of clean and unclean meat for eating was not even a discussion. All meat was unclean for human consumption.
After the flood God told humans they could eat animal/fish meat (Gen 9:3-4). God did not say eat only clean meat. He said eat meat when properly prepared such as without blood.
Under Moses God ceremonially said Israelites were restricted to eating clean meat when properly preparedand to not eat unclean meat period.
Under Christ the instructions returns to as given to Noah as decreed by God to Peter in Acts 10. That is the only thing that makes sense to me. For if Acts 10 was only about humans then God could have easily used humans not animals in the vision. In using animals in connection with the visit concerning Cornelius God as the saying goes “killed two birds with one stone”. That is, he took care of two moral matters.
So Col 2:16 and Rom 14:5 apply to you and your family member though you may reach different choices based on God given human preference. I use the following concerning such matters: I might like the color red, you blue. God made them both so he likes both.
There are scriptures that speak about God not changing. Those scripture have to do with God’s nature and who he is and what he is as well as God declaring there are some things in which he does not change. Those scripture do not say there are not things in which God does change. Indeed, God has changed in how he deals with and interacts with and what he requires of humankind regarding some matters. The above scriptures as well as others clearly shows God has changed overtime as to what he requires of humankind.
Leviticus 11:1-42 provides an extensive list of clean and unclean land life, air life, and water life.
Leviticus 11:43-47 tells why God gave such commandment for it says:
(Lev 11:43) Ye shall not make yourselves abominable (filthy, polluted, unclean, H8262) with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
(Lev 11:44) For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Lev 11:45) For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
(Lev 11:46) This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
(Lev 11:47) To make a difference between the unclean (religiously, ritually, H2931) and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
So then the purpose was to define what made the Israelites ritually unclean. Things were forbidden to be eaten that God declared made the people ritually unclean not so much the things were unclean in and or themselves. This principle seems applicable to Acts 10:9-16 concerning Peter’s vision involving clean and unclean animals. God says unto Peter per Acts 10:13-15:
(Act 10:13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
(Act 10:14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common (G2839) or unclean (G169).
(Act 10:15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed (G2511, purify), that call not thou common (G2840)
.In other words God is saying I am no longer declaring those animals unclean. I now declare them clean and you may eat them and eating them will not make you unclean. The Greek word used for common in Acts 10:15 is a derivative of the one used in Acts 10:15 both having the sense of profane so they are essentially saying the same thing.
From that Peter also as revealed in Acts 10:28 concluded that God has declared Gentiles clean through faith in Jesus Christ:
(Act 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 (G2839)or unclean (G169).
Notice how Peter used the same or similar words common and unclean for the person in Acts 10:28 that was ascribed to the animals by God in Acts 10:15.
The Greek word G169 used for unclean in Acts 10:28 is also used for birds in Rev 18:2, and for persons in Eph 5:5. Thus, animals are no more inherently clean or unclean than persons. It is even said to potentially apply to children in 1 Cor 7:14 if God did not ordain for the believing husband to sanctify the unbelieving wife and vice versa.
So then the animals were no longer considered by God to be ritually or ceremonially unclean and the Gentile persons were not either. Conversely, in concluding that the person is not unclean it follows that the animals are not unclean. For as one is so is the other.
Paul in Romans 14:14 concludes the same thing that Peter concludes for it says:
(Rom 14:14) I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean (G2839) of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
For both Leviticus 11 and Acts 10 it was/is all about ritual uncleanness not the animals or Gentiles being unclean in and of themselves any less or any more than Israelites. For as it was said on creation days 5 and day 6, all that God made was good.
I suppose those who claim the vision is only about people unintentionally accuse God of:
(1) telling a lie when he said he can clean unclean food
(2) telling Peter to eat that which is unclean which God really can’t and didn’t clean
(3) being unable to devise a vision not involving unclean animals but rarher people who clearly looked like Roman soldiers or other Gentiles
Clearly God accomplished two cleansing in one vision: Food and people.
This shows that the food laws were at least partly ceremonial and ceremonial laws are not mandated under Christ.
Yet I do believe one should consider healthy eating.
Too much ice cream is also unhealthy just as being a glutton is unhealthy and sinful.
Now let us turn to a question raised by some: Does Paul 1 Cor 8:1-13 contradict Jesus in Rev 2:14, 20 (Numbers 25:2)
A related scripture is 1 Cor 10:14-33
Paul says even though we know an idol is nothing (1 Cor 8:4; 10:19) do not go into the idol temple to eat (1 Cor 8:10; 10:20-21) less yoube a stumbling block to one who doesn’t know such think you are honoring idol and therefore think it is okay to honor idols (1 Cor 8:10-13, 16, 19);.
He says when you go to the meat market ask no question and be not concerned about where the meat comes from (1 Cor 10:25-27) but if the butcher says unto you that the meat came from the sacrifice of idlos do not eat such meat (1 Cor 10:28-31).
In Rev 2:14 Jesus speaks of not being a stumbling block regarding eating of food sacrificed to idols.
No Contradiction. Both Paul in 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 and Jesus in Rev 2 speak of not being a stumbling block regarding the eating of food KNOWN to be sacrificed to idols. 1 Cor 10:28 makes this clear.
Paul was a true apostle of Jesus Christ for even Peter attests to this in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Paul certainly would not contradict Jesus.
In Romans 14:1-23 and Romans 15:1-3 Paul speaks of not judging others as to food and days. Romans 14:14-16, 20 specifically addresses unclean food saying nothing is unclean of itself but rather the person that eats it in evil is who/what is unclean.
However, some say that in Romans regarding meats/food Paul is speaking of those things that are ceremonially unclean but not inherently unclean.
Demonic spirits are inherently unclean but those animals listed in the OT (Lev 11) as unclean are not inherently unclean; they are/were ritually unclean because God declared them so.
Those animals listed in the OT as clean are ritually clean but may be made ritually/ceremonially unclean when sacrificed to idols.
Also, some say Paul in Romans 14 may have wrote it from Corinth having the issue of idol eating fresh on his mind that he had written to Corinthians about (though not from Corinth since some time had passed) was speaking of meat that had been sacrificed to idols. If this was the case I would think he would have specifically mentioned the word idol in Romans 14 which he did not.
In general, food laws are given for ceremonial purposes (e.g., Leviticus 11:45); but in general, they do have some health implications. This is because in general those foods designated as unclean under the Old Covenant seem to tend to cause health issues more so than those designated as clean. Consider Leviticus 3:17 where God commands avoidance of eating fat. But certainly this does not include all fat. Now the health dangers of too much fat in one’s diet is well established in modern times. Of course, all food can cause health issue if prepared or eaten improperly and if eaten too much, that is out of balance.
In the Old Testament, God gives a number of instructions concerning what humans can and cannot eat. These are called dietary or Kosher laws. The word kosher derives from this law idea as a food is said to be kosher if it is allowed by Jewish law.
God’s instructions on food begin in Genesis 1:29 where God speaks about giving man vegetables/herbs and fruit to eat. Then in Genesis 9 after the great flood God expands that food supply to include meat from land, air, and water with certain preparation restrictions (Genesis 9:2-4). Certainly God expected man to properly handle and prepare meats before eating them. In Exodus 12:9 God even gives Israel instructions to roast the Passover Lamb with fire, perhaps both for ceremonial and health reasons. So we know that Israel did cook their meats with fire as early as their latter days in Egypt but probably even before that point.
Later in giving of the Mosaic Law, God once again restricts the diet by disallowing certain meats (Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:1-21).
Note that in Leviticus if an animal designated unclean comes into contact with an oven then that oven becomes unclean. So then if one goes to a restaurant and eats food prepared in the same oven used to cook both clean and unclean food then the oven is contaminated and biblically unclean. Therefore, if one eats clean food one has still violated the commandment because one has eaten contaminated food that has become unclean (Leviticus 11:35). Being unaware that he has eaten from such a contaminated oven does not render him guiltless (Leviticus 5:2, 14-19).
Still later under Christ and the New Covenant, God once again allows all meats to be used (Mark 7:14-23; Acts 10:9-16, 28; 15:29; Rom 14:1-23; 1 Corinthians 8:1-13; 10:25-31; Colossians 2:16; 1 Tim 4:1-4). This allowance demonstrates a change similar to the God made change in allowing meat to be eaten after the flood (Gen 9:3) whereas it was disallowed before the change as only vegetable and fruit life was given to man and animals to eat before the flood (Gen 1:29-30).
Those who claim Old Testament dietary laws are yet in effect still have the veil on and have not completely put on Christ regarding such matters for the New Covenant is more glorious than the Old Covenant (2 Cor 3:1-18). Christ is superior to the angels and therefore to Moses (Hebrews 1:1-4).
Nowhere does the bible explicitly say the dietary laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were given for health purposes.
Yet the mentioning of the contamination of the oven suggests such caution and protection. Perhaps God does not mention health matters since he is able to render any unclean thing clean as he later declares regarding all animals (human and unhuman), other land life, sea life, and air life in Acts 10.
In Deuteronomy 14:21 God says the Israelites are not to eat food that died naturally but they may give it or sell it to a non-Israelite for the Israelites are holy unto the Lord. This would logically be food that could normally be eaten if it had not died naturally. Hence, at least one dietary law was a mechanism to consecrate or set apart the Israelites unto the Lord as different from the other people not specified being for health reasons. For surely, God would not say they could give or sell to the foreigners if it was a matter of being unhealthy to eat such food. Leviticus 22:8 also+ speaks to this matter of eating such food.
Yet, each food should be examined for its affect on one’s health. It is well established that for some people both some clean and unclean foods negatively affect their health at various stages of life.
In Acts 10:9-16 God gives Peter a vision concerning God’s willingness and capacity to clean that which men believe to be unclean including that which God had designated unclean in the Mosaic Law. God prepares a vessel of food at least some of which Peter recognizes (Acts 10:14) as included in the meats designated as common or unclean in the Law of Moses. But God tells Peter to rise, kill, and eat that which Peter considered common or unclean. For God says to Peter “What God has cleansed do not call common”.
Peter later applies this principle of not calling that which God has cleansed common in Peter’s encounter with the Italian Centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:1-8, 28) in which Peter accepts a Gentile (previous believed to be common or unworthy to associate with) as a disciple of Christ.
The fundamental question is would God create an illustration or vision rooted in unrighteousness such as telling Peter to violate the Mosaic Law by eating food that was unclean? Clearly God could have devised an illustration or vision involving Israelites and non-Israelites if all God wanted to address was cleansing humans Peter believed to be unclean. For example, God could have used elements of Jacob’s vision with both Israelites and non-Israelites on the ladder to heaven (Gen 28:12) along with elements of Paul’s vision (Acts 9:1-6) where God could have told Peter to rise for some men from a Gentile named Cornelius house comes to see you. So since God used animals it is reasonable to conclude that God wanted to cover both animals and humans as that which God cleanses.
So then the following observations are instructive:
1. God gave us vegetables and fruits first. So they should be our first and main choice for food at every meal.
2. God gave us clean foods second to eat when prepared properly. So they should be our secondary choice at every meal such that we eat more of the first than the second.
3. God gave us previously designated unclean food to eat when handled and prepared properly such that God cleanses them and they are no longer forbidden. So they should be our third choice eaten only if the first and second are not sufficiently available. Proper handling and preparation is extremely important for the third choice since those in the third group contain germs (bacteria and viruses) that are dangerous to the body. Those in the second group may also be dangerous if not properly handled and prepared but seemingly not as dangerous in effect and abundance as those in the third group.
4. Eating from those in the third group will not cause one to lose his or her salvation; but, one ought to be careful less one loses his physical life or become gravely ill and even infect others through transmission of a virus or other germ.
5. Food should not be eaten just because it tastes good though God has created food that taste good. Food should be eaten for its nutritional value to body health in contrast to body harm. Thus those in group three should not be chosen over those in group one and two because of tasting better. Those in group three should be eaten only when that is all that is available due to their potential to harm the body and cause others harm due to transmission of germs through unprotected contact or improper preparation even though some think they have handled and prepared it properly but sometimes don’t for whatever reason. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak and the 2020 SARS COVID-19 outbreak are said to be caused by coronaviruses usually carried by entities (cats, bats, camels, etc.) designated unclean in the Mosaic Law though the source of the outbreak is uncertain.
For more information on biblical laws in general click here.
References:
- The Dietary Laws in the Bible
- A Matter of Health
- Billy Graham Association Article
- Are All Animals Good Food?
- Coronavirus
