Both the Old Testament and New Testament discuss eating of food and how children of God should view such matters.
I will simply mention a few points. Each person can seek the Lord as to what he or she should eat and not eat.
Before the flood God did not give animal and fish meat to humans to eat (Genesis 1:29). Therefore, the concept of clean and unclean meat for eating was not even a discussion. All meat was unclean for human consumption.
In Genesis in giving instructions to Noah concerning what he is to take into the Ark, God said in Genesis 7:2 “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.” Thus, there was knowledge of what constituted clean and unclean beasts. However, since God had not yet told humans they could eat of the beasts this knowledge had no applicability to food.
After the flood God told humans they could eat animal and fish meat. For in Genesis 9:3-4 we have: Every moving thing that lives shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat.
Notice God did not say eat only clean meat. He used the word every. The only restriction was regarding blood; therefore, the implication is whatever is eaten it must be prepared properly to include ensuring it does not affect a person’s health. It was not a sin or against the law or against a commandment to eat of those foods later designated as unclean for food. This observation is similar to the observation that Abraham married his half sister (Genesis 20:12) and that was not counted as sinful until God gave the law to Moses (Leviticus 18:9).
Under Moses God ceremonially said Israelites were restricted to eating clean meat when properly prepared and to not eat unclean meat period.
Under Christ, the instructions seemingly return 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 Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5 apply to Christians though Christians 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.
Let us consider Acts 10 and associated scriptures in more detail.
In Acts 10:9-16 there is the account of Peter’s vision from God. For it says:
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: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 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: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Now, people say that vision is not about whether the dietary laws apply or not. They say it was about God calling people, in particular, Gentiles clean or unclean. Well I am like this. God is all powerful. Now you going to tell me he is not powerful enough to create a vision with people in it instead of animals if the vision was only about people. You going to tell me he could not have had people that looked like and dressed like Romans. You going to tell me God could not have designed a conversation about people instead of about animals.
So I believe that he, as the saying goes, killed two birds with one stone. God taught that under the New Covenant that which was previously designated unclean food was not to be considered sinful to eat.
The rest of Acts 10 deals with Peter application of the principle he learned from that vision to how he would interact with Gentiles thenceforth.
From that vision Peter not only learned it was no longer sinful to partake of those foods previously designated as forbidden by God but also he learned he needed to have a new attitude toward Gentiles. Peter used some good old fashion common sense. Peter observed that since God can cleanse animals and fish, certainly God can cleanse humans, the crown of his creation (Psalm 8:5).
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.
Peter said up to that point he had viewed Gentiles as unclean. For Acts 10:28 says: And he said unto them, You 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.
But really no such law of God existed. That was a belief and practice of Jews. Even the woman at the well mentions that attitude that Jews had towards others in her conversation with Jesus as recorded in John 4:9. It was the traditions of men that had made those things unlawful not God. Peter’s heart needed to be changed and God changed it.
In Acts 11:1-3 we have: And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
They accused Peter of eating with Gentiles knowing full well that Gentiles tended not to follow the laws against eating food called unclean food. Peter responds to them by talking about how the Gentiles received salvation. But he did not say he did not eat with them. Now that does not mean he ate food with them that was previously designated as unclean but it also does not mean he did not. His focus was on salvation and he did not want to get sidetracked on something like what does a person eat. This is the spirit of Colossians 2:16 which essentially says it is a matter of personal choice.
God had convinced him that if God can clean any animals surely he can clean any person. Gentiles were to be considered equal to Jews as for as qualifying for membership in God’s family under Christ. Peter makes this observation in Acts 15:7-11 as he and other apostles and elders discussed whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved.
Note that God is saying it is no longer sinful to choose to eat such foods. God is not saying a person has to eat such formerly unclean foods.
Some people challenge others to eat a rat or dog if they believe it is okay to eat such unclean foods. What they fail to realize is that what one eats is a matter of choice and often related to the culture in which one lives. For example, in America eating cats and dogs is not culturally and may not be legally considered appropriate. However, in countries like China and Vietnam eating cats and dogs is common. In Korea eating cats is for medicinal purposes. Bottom line is just because someone chooses not to eat something does not mean God considers it sinful to eat it.
In 1 Timothy 4:3-5 says: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Those verses in 1 Timothy are not saying we should pray over a plant we know is poison to our body and then eat it and expect it not to harm us. There is no verse in the Bible that says so. Jesus speaks to that in Matthew 4:5-7 where in his encounter with the Devil he teaches us we are not to tempt the Lord our God. Certainly, eating unspoiled catfish and pork properly prepared is not harmful if a person chooses to eat it and does it in moderation.
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.
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 (Genesis 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 is coming 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.
In the final analysis Acts 10 shows it is not sinful to eat foods previously designated as unclean according to God’s standard under the New Covenant. Yet, just as a person may still choose to be physical circumcised though it is not still a commandment of God, a person may choose to still follow the laws regarding not eating those food designated as unclean under the law of Moses. It is a matter of righteous human preference (Colossians 2:16).
Jesus teaching in Matthew 15:10-20 on what comes out of a man defiles him not what goes into his belly also supports my conclusion.
The scriptures says in 1 Corinthians 10:23: All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
God first gave humans only vegetables and later animal and fish meat. It is most likely healthier to avoid animal meat. It is most likely even healthier to avoid food designated as unclean under Moses. However, it is not sinful if one does not avoid any animal meat and does not avoid those foods designated unclean under Moses. Let us be wise in choosing what we eat yet not unrighteously judge others for not choosing what we choose.
