PDA

View Full Version : Is all animals clean to be eat?



Maxell
March 13th 2003, 12:35 PM
Clean Animals

Did Noah Eat Kosher too?

Yes.


"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:3
"Everything" is defined by the change from a plant-only diet to a new diet consisting of plants *and* animals -- that is, "everything." But that doesn't mean one could eat *every* animal anymore than one could eat *every* plant. Let's look at the passage concerning the original vegetable diet:


"....I have given every green herb for food, and it was so." Genesis 1:30
Now "every green herb" above doesn't mean "every single existing green herb." It means "every green herb that is appropriate for food." Clearly neither Adam or Noah were eating poison ivy salads or snacking on poisonous berries! Does Scripture support limiting green herbs this way? Sure, let's look at Genesis 6:21: "And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.'" Note that Noah is commanded to take all the edible foods into the ark. So then, not 'every green herb' was edible, only 'every green herb given for food' was edible. If you come to my house to spend a week, I will encourage you to raid my refrigerator and eat anything in it. Does that mean I'm encouraging you to eat the box of baking soda and the kitty antibiotics that are also in my fridge? *Every* and *all* need to be defined within proper context of what G-d deems suitable for human consumption. We know G-d made known to Noah the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Genesis 7:2,8); it is clear from earlier texts that G-d had instructed man on which green things were suitable for human consumption; it is only logical that G-d also revealed which animals were fit for human consumption when he broadened man's diet to include animals ... clean animals. Basically, the clean animals that could be sacrificed were also the animals which could be eaten; later confirmed by reiteration in the Torah given at Sinai.

Brit Chadasha Verses Used to "Prove" kosher laws are no longer in effect


"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," Romans 14:16
"All food is clean," Romans 14:20

If you'll start at verse 14:2 the issue in question is those turning to vegetarianism. The issue here wasn't about clean vs unclean meats but about those who are refusing to eat meat and are eating only vegetables. If my brother will only eat vegetables because he considers meat a sin, then I am to respect his weakness and not be a stumbling block to him. Even though I know G-d gave us meat to eat I shouldn't judge someone less mature in the faith.

Further, in 14:14, the word unclean comes from the Greek word "koinos" meaning common; it's not the Greek word "akathartos" which is used elsewhere to mean ritually or ceremonially unclean. No surprise, since ritual cleanliness wasn't the issue in the passage, vegetarianism was.


"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him `unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him `unclean.'" Matthew 15:11
The issue here concerned hand-washing -- you need to read whole passages, this one begins in 15:1. Yeshua was asked why his disciples didn't wash their hands before eating. Since their argument against his disciples came from manmade traditions, Yeshua asked them why they broke Torah but not tradition --- showing they put tradition higher. He concludes by calling a crowd and declaring that true uncleanliness comes from within man, not from the food he eats. Does that make all meats clean? I don't see how. The issue wasn't about abrogating G-d's kosher laws but about the traditions concerning hand-washing/eating with un-washed hands. One should be careful when making applications with verses.


Mark 7:19 "Because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach, and goes out with the waste? (He said this, making all food clean)."
Same story as in Matthew above, but with gospel author's footnote: "(He said this, making all food clean)." What is food to Jewish people? G-d only sanctioned *clean meats* as food for man. Do you really think pork is considered a food in a debate among observant Jews? NO! Unclean meats aren't even up for debate here since unclean meats aren't even considered *food* by the observant Jews in this discussion! The issue again in this passage is eating with unclean hands! Can unclean hands change a clean food into a unclean food? Yeshua's answer is clear --- NO! What makes a food ritually clean is G-d's sanctioning -- not washing your hands! Read in context, we see clearly that unclean meats are not up for discussion here --- the handwashing rituals of the Pharisaic tradition are. Yet some Christians read this passage as if everyone went out and ate pork after this speech! Oy!


"Then I heard a voice telling me, `Get up, Kefa. 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.'" Acts 11:7-8
Funny Kefa said that to G-d --- why didn't he quote Mark 7:19 or Matthew 15:11 to G-d? Did Kefa forget Yeshua made the unclean meats clean??? This passage also proves Yeshua never declared unclean meat "clean" or Kefa wouldn't have questioned his vision. Meats were not cleansed here either. This is a vision --- the unclean meats were symbolic (perhaps because Kefa was hungry he dreamed of food). But at no point does G-d tell Kefa that unclean meats were cleansed. In Acts 10:28 Kefa explains what the vision meant -- that G-d had declared no *man* should be considered unclean. Unclean men are being declared clean here -- not unclean meats. With this revelation, Kefa took the gospel to the gentiles, starting at the house of Cornelius.


"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; Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim 4:2-5
A few problems using this passage to support eating unclean foods --- *G-d* is the one who forbade the eating of unclean meats but this passage shows in verse 1 that it is dealing with teachings that come from seducing spirits and the doctrines of devils. This isn't abrogating the kosher laws of G-d's Torah but serves instead as a warning of evil spirits that teach abstaining from certain foods. The text doesn't tell us what foods were being forbidden, only that we should not heed such the restrictions because they come from an evil source. Be very wary: To say that G-d's kosher laws regarding 'clean' and 'unclean' fall under the heading of "doctrines of devils" or "seducing spirits" is attributing G-d's Holy Torah to hasatan. May it never be! Furthermore, this passage is coupled with the teaching of forbidding marriage -- the Torah teaches marriage is good for man and strongly encourages marriage. So we know this passage has nothing to do with Torah teachings. This passage serves as a warning against following evil teachings -- it does not teach to disregard the kosher laws of Torah.

The distinctions between clean and unclean animals always existed, from Genesis 7:2's "Of every clean beast thou shalt take...." to Revelation 18:2's "...of every unclean spirit, and a hole for every unclean and hated bird." In 96CE when Revelation was written, 'unclean' animals were still distinguished from 'clean' animals; G-d *never* revoked His kosher laws.

Socrates
March 17th 2003, 12:59 AM
Maxell:
Mark 7:19 "Because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach, and goes out with the waste? (He said this, making all food clean)."
Same story as in Matthew above, but with gospel author's footnote: "(He said this, making all food clean)." What is food to Jewish people? G-d only sanctioned *clean meats* as food for man. Do you really think pork is considered a food in a debate among observant Jews? NO! Unclean meats aren't even up for debate here since unclean meats aren't even considered *food* by the observant Jews in this discussion!This is very forced. Why even say this if pork wasn't considered a "food"? Of course it was, just one Jews weren't allowed to eat in the Mosiac dispensation. But Jesus said that now it wasn't an issue. His words made it clear -- what goes in your mouth cannot defile you. Maxell seems desperate to justify legalistic food laws for today and has to claim that "all foods" really means "all manner of eating them".
Yet some Christians read this passage as if everyone went out and ate pork after this speech! Oy! And it is, because the Apostles James and Paul reinforced that people should not be judged on the basis of food or drink (Acts 15:20, Romans 14:2-3, Col. 2:16).
"Then I heard a voice telling me, `Get up, Kefa. 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.'" Acts 11:7-8.

Funny Kefa said that to G-d --- why didn't he quote Mark 7:19 or Matthew 15:11 to G-d? Did Kefa forget Yeshua made the unclean meats clean??? Yes, most likely. It was hardly the first time Peter was "slow to learn". I suspect that this is why Mark put this note in -- because Mark basically wrote down Peter's sayings according to tradition, and Peter wanted to make sure that others got what he missed. Mark has a number of other parts critical of Peter, which reflect the fact that Peter wanted to make sure that others would learn from his mistakes.
This is a vision --- the unclean meats were symbolic (perhaps because Kefa was hungry he dreamed of food). But at no point does G-d tell Kefa that unclean meats were cleansed. In Acts 10:28 Kefa explains what the vision meant -- that G-d had declared no *man* should be considered unclean. Unclean men are being declared clean here -- not unclean meats. With this revelation, Kefa took the gospel to the gentiles, starting at the house of Cornelius. Indeed, the previously unclean meats were symbolic of the previously unclean gentiles. But now God declared all meats clean, as a symbolic way of declaring the gentiles clean. It is incredibly forced to claim that the declaration of cleanliness applied to what was symbolized, but not the symbol itself.
The distinctions between clean and unclean animals always existed, from Genesis 7:2's "Of every clean beast thou shalt take...." to Revelation 18:2's "...of every unclean spirit, and a hole for every unclean and hated bird." In 96CE when Revelation was written, 'unclean' animals were still distinguished from 'clean' animals; G-d *never* revoked His kosher laws.All this proves is that God distinguishes them, NOT that we aren't allowed to eat them. After all, Noah was told he could eat ANY animal (Genesis 9:3), despite the egregious way Maxell tries to impose his legalism on this passage too.

Fact is, Maxell's argument can be summarised in this logical schema:

1. The Bible would never advocate something contrary to God's wishes
2. God would never change his food laws.
Therefore: Therefore the Bible would never advocate any change in the food laws.
Corollary: Therefore, whenever the Bible seems to talk about a change in food laws, in reality it does not and must be interpreted with this in mind.

But this argument presupposes that Premise 2 is correct, and is using this to govern our hermeneutics. But the correct evangelical approach is to see what the Bible really does say about food laws, and use this to decide whether Premise 2 is correct.

tiedyekitty
March 22nd 2003, 02:06 AM
Maxwell,
Why do you put a dash where the 'o' should be in God's name? I don't understand this. I don't intend to sound mean, I am just honestly wondering why you typed it that way.

AcousticJS
March 22nd 2003, 08:07 AM
tiedyekitty:

Maxwell,
Why do you put a dash where the 'o' should be in God's name? I don't understand this. I don't intend to sound mean, I am just honestly wondering why you typed it that way.

I may be totally misreading him, but I'm guessing Maxwell has either been influenced by or is himself a Messianic Jew - that is someone who is Jewish and has come to believe (rightly) that Jesus is the promised Messiah. If so, writing 'G-d' is a hangover from when Jewish scholars omitted the vowels from the divine name 'YHWH' as a sign of respect and reverence. It's fair enough, but I don't believe obligatory.

Blessings in Christ
Jon

Socrates
March 23rd 2003, 11:13 AM
Yes, it's a Rabbinic hangover, being so afraid that the written word "God" could be used in vain, or the paper with the name mutilated, that they put the hyphen in.

But the leading Messianic Jewish / Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum of Ariel Ministries http://www.ariel.org/ carefully distinguishes between the word of God and traditions of men. So he always uses "God", and usually refers to "Jesus" although he sees nothing wrong with using His Hebrew name "Yeshua".

He has a good article about the role of the Law of Moses today www.ariel.org/ff00006f.html, which totally cuts the ground from under the legalistic type like Maxell.

Woman
March 23rd 2003, 05:47 PM
I always thought the fact Genesis refers to "clean" and "unclean" animals made a case for it having been written by people who had already formulated their own food laws. It hardly makes sense that God would have a hang-up about his own creations.

Isn't it more or less accepted in scholarly circles that food laws were evolved from oral tradition regarding foods that had been known to cause illness? And that improper preparation, sanitation or cooking was responsible rather than the nature of the meat in question? Then, when caution became tradition became "law" the original reason might not even be remembered.

Otherwise, why would God deem some meats unclean when clearly they are not? I just assume it's because the current traditions/laws of the people who wrote the Bible put the words in God's mouth.

Socrates
March 23rd 2003, 09:46 PM
Woman wrote:
I always thought the fact Genesis refers to "clean" and "unclean" animals made a case for it having been written by people who had already formulated their own food laws.Or else for having been inspired by the same God who inspired the other books of Moses.It hardly makes sense that God would have a hang-up about his own creations. But it's more understandable when once considers the importance of ancient ritual purity. Boundaries of ritual purity were very important to the ancients, western provincialism notwithstanding --- see the Tekton article about ritual cleanness http://www.tektonics.org/cleanman.html.

Isn't it more or less accepted in scholarly circles that food laws were evolved from oral tradition regarding foods that had been known to cause illness? A "most scholars say" type argument is probably not the best way to argue.And that improper preparation, sanitation or cooking was responsible rather than the nature of the meat in question? Then, when caution became tradition became "law" the original reason might not even be remembered.The health benefits of the food laws in those conditions were a useful side benefit, but it wasn't the main issue, as I'll show below.

Otherwise, why would God deem some meats unclean when clearly they are not? I just assume it's because the current traditions/laws of the people who wrote the Bible put the words in God's mouth.No, the food laws were a reflection of the fact that the Jews were supposed to be the people set apart from the nations, because the Messiah would come through them. Many of the OT laws were designed to reinforce this separation, or symbolize it.

To apply this to the food laws, the unclean foods crossed some sort of boundary. E.g. the lobster lives in the sea but has legs for walking, sort of crossing the land-sea boundary. The Mosaic Law likewise forbade wearing garments of mixed textiles (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 22:11).

Now that the Messiah has come, Since the coming of Christ, the barrier between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Ephesians 2:14). Now both Jews and Gentiles can become one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, Col. 3:11). Therefore Maxell's legalism has no basis in the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).

Woman
March 24th 2003, 01:50 AM
Socrates - sheesh! Be nice!

Okay, I admit to being very ignorant on the subject of Jewish culture. So, I'm going to ask what may be to you dumb questions.

At what point did the people begin to be separate? When did the Jews become Jews? How did that happen?

Socrates
March 24th 2003, 09:54 AM
Woman:

Socrates - sheesh! Be nice!Sorry :bow: I've edited it. Please tell me if it's OK, and we can do another trade-off if you want.

Anyway, to answer your question:

People were first separated into different people groups when God confused the languages at Babel. The genetic drift prevalent in small isolated populations allowed certain parts of the initial created gene pool to be lost by chance. Also, natural and sexual selection would have elimitated certain genes that were not right for the climates people groups found themselves in. E.g. in equatorial Africa, genes for making small amounts of melanin would be lost, because they would offer less protection against UV and infection -- natural selection. Also, parents might advise against marrying someone with white skin, because that person is likely to get skin cancer early in life -- sexual selection. So this way, people groups with different degrees of skin pigmentation could arise. This by separating the genetic variation that was already present in Noah's family. For further explanation, see www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c002.html

Because Noah's descendants disobeyed God by following Nimrod's rebellion at Babel, God worked with only one people group. This was after God chose Abraham by grace, and made a number of promises to him. The Jews are the descendants of Abraham, via his son Isaac and his son Jacob. God kept them separate from the other nations, because through Abraham's Seed, the Messiah, all nations would be blessed. For more information, see this article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4304news5-16-2000.asp, which covers the history of the Jews, genetic evidence, and the relevance today.

Theolog
March 25th 2003, 10:01 AM
For whatever reasons God gave the food laws to Israel is now irrelevant to anyone under the New Covenant. With the New Covenant the old Law is abolished by the new law, which has no provision for food rules.

The idea that God gave the food rules because certain things were unhealthy is inane and unbiblical. After the flood God gave mankind all animals for man to eat, so you have to ask yourself; “would a good God give bad food for people to eat?

DBoone
April 24th 2003, 11:33 AM
One very valid point that was mentioned in Ariel.org is that the choice to abstain must still be respected by the believer in Christ.

nomad
April 24th 2003, 11:40 AM
what i want to know is: who here has eaten a locust? (a clean food according to leviticus 11:22 :)

simchat_torah
April 24th 2003, 12:11 PM
Shalom Maxwell, and welcome.

I'm afraid that you will find it to be very lonely here in the Theology forums as a Jewish Believer.

I hope to be back later today to address much of what has been said in this thread.

shalom and shalom 2 all.
-Yafet.