Clean and Unclean Food?

Did God's Food Laws Change?

“Come now,” says ADONAI, “let’s talk this over together.” (Isaiah 1:18, CJB)

As we continue to dive deeper into the Book of Leviticus, we’re inevitably presented with God’s dietary regulations. This is a highly debated topic within Christianity, so let’s examine the arguments.

“‘Such, then, is the law concerning animals, flying creatures, all living creatures that move about in the water, and all creatures that swarm on the ground. Its purpose is to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.’” (Leviticus 11:46–47, CJB)

God’s decree is clear in Leviticus, this isn’t a matter of interpretation. The debate over dietary restrictions surfaces in several New Testament passages. Let’s examine one of the most often cited passages used to justify the abolishment of God’s rules concerning food.

“The next day about noon, while they were still on their way and approaching the city, Kefa went up onto the roof of the house to pray. He began to feel hungry and wanted something to eat; but while they were preparing the meal, he fell into a trance in which he saw heaven opened, and something that looked like a large sheet being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals, crawling creatures and wild birds. Then a voice came to him, “Get up, Kefa, slaughter and eat!” But Kefa said, “No, sir! Absolutely not! I have never eaten food that was unclean or treif.” The voice spoke to him a second time: “Stop treating as unclean what God has made clean.” This happened three times, and then the sheet was immediately taken back up into heaven.” (Acts 10:9–16, CJB)

Without the surrounding context, this passage does seem to indicate that God is telling Kefa (Peter) that the unclean foods outlined in Leviticus, He has now made clean. That raises some fundamental questions. Did God change His mind?

There seems to be a more reasonable explanation which becomes clearer when we read this in context. Let’s broaden that context.

“There was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a Roman army officer in what was called the Italian Regiment. He was a devout man, a “God-fearer,” as was his whole household; he gave generously to help the Jewish poor and prayed regularly to God.” (Acts 10:1–2, CJB)

What’s happening here is that Cornelius, a gentile, has a vision from an angel of God. The angel tells him that, because of his charitable spirit, God has shown him favor. The angel instructs Cornelius to send men to retrieve Shim’on (Simon) a.k.a. Kefa or Peter.

“Cornelius stared at the angel, terrified. “What is it, sir?” he asked. “Your prayers,” replied the angel, “and your acts of charity have gone up into God’s presence, so that he has you on his mind. Now send some men to Yafo to bring back a man named Shim‘on, also called Kefa.” (Acts 10:4–5, CJB)

Meanwhile, the narrative switches to Peter’s vision (the passages in question). The vision narrative ends at verse sixteen and the focus returns to the story of Cornelius. At this point, Kefa (Peter) is admittedly confused as to the meaning of the vision.

“Kefa was still puzzling over the meaning of the vision he had seen, when the men Cornelius had sent, having inquired for Shim‘on’s house, stood at the gate and called out to ask if the Shim‘on known as Kefa was staying there. While Kefa’s mind was still on the vision, the Spirit said, “Three men are looking for you. Get up, go downstairs, and have no misgivings about going with them, because I myself have sent them.” (Acts 10:17–20, CJB)

The next several verses tell us about how these men locate Peter and inform him of Cornelius and request that Peter meet with him. Peter agrees to meet with Cornelius, so the next day Peter and the men travel together to Caesarea. It’s in these following passages where Peter finally interprets his vision involving the sheet filled with unclean animals.

“As he talked with him, Kefa went inside and found many people gathered. He said to them, “You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit him, is something that just isn’t done. But God has shown me not to call any person common or unclean;” (Acts 10:27–28, CJB)

Nowhere in the Torah does God state that Israel and the Jewish people are to disassociate with gentiles. In fact, the Torah clearly states that Israel is to be a light to the nations. How can they be a light to the nations if they’re unable to associate with gentiles? God’s vision for Peter does not imply that there is no boundary between clean and unclean but rather to “stop treating as unclean, what God has made clean” (through His spirit). Peter expounds on this revelation a few verses later.

“Then Kefa addressed them: “I now understand that God does not play favorites, but that whoever fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him, no matter what people he belongs to.” (Acts 10:34–35, CJB)

When we consider the full context here, I question whether we should use this story to justify the abolition of the dietary restrictions in Leviticus. Peter clearly interprets the vision to mean, gentiles who have received the spirit are acceptable to God.

Let’s consider another passage often cited as evidence that dietary restrictions have been abolished.

“Then he called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand this! What makes a person unclean is not what goes into his mouth; rather, what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean!” (Matthew 15:10–11, CJB)

These passages clearly state that it’s not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, rather what comes out. Considering these words from Jesus Himself, are we to regard all the animals God once declared unclean, to now be clean? Many would agree with that position, but does it really align with God’s character? Did God change His mind?

I’ll make my counter-argument short for the sake of brevity. Of course, once again, context matters. Let’s bring in the context of where this debate originated.

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” (Matthew 15:1–2, ESV)

The context that Jesus is speaking into involves ceremonial hand washing. Keep in mind that this n’tilat-yadayim (hand washing) is not found in the Torah, it’s a rabbinical tradition (tradition of the elders). When Jesus exclaims that what goes into a person’s mouth doesn’t make them unclean, He’s speaking to a first-century Jewish audience who would have clearly understood the context.

One can disagree with these perspectives, and many do, but consider these interpretations from a canonical approach. That is, from the perspective of the overall narrative of the Bible, the final form, the story as a cohesive and unified message. Does our own interpretation form a coherent understanding of God and His character?

Ask yourself, does God change His mind? Does our interpretation of Peter’s vision align with Peter’s conclusion? Does it align with Peter’s behavior? Do we read of occasions where Peter or any of the other apostles break the dietary laws? Does Jesus ever break these commandments? What does Jesus mean when He says…

“Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah—not until everything that must happen has happened.” (Matthew 5:17–18, CJB)

If our own interpretation raises more questions than it answers, we should seek a better understanding. It’s quite possible we’ve misinterpreted things. There’s no shame in that, we need to be humble and wholehearted.

“When you seek me, you will find me, provided you seek for me wholeheartedly;” (Jeremiah 29:13, CJB)

So, what are we to make of all this? Here is how it has been conveyed to me. God is most interested in our attitude. Israel was given these restrictions to set them apart from other nations. They are the only people group to ever be dispersed among the nations for millennia and return to a nation state. What kept them unified was their Jewish identity which is deeply rooted in God’s word and His ways.

Christians are not obligated to follow the dietary laws. We’re grafted into Israel through the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant.

“Now ADONAI said to Avram, “Get yourself out of your country, away from your kinsmen and away from your father’s house, and go to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you, and I will make your name great; and you are to be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse anyone who curses you; and by you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1–3, CJB)

Paul, using a Jewish canonical interpretation (midrash), expounds on this in his letter to the Romans.

“Now if the hallah offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole loaf. And if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you—a wild olive—were grafted in among them and have become equal sharers in the rich root of the olive tree, then don’t boast as if you were better than the branches! However, if you do boast, remember that you are not supporting the root, the root is supporting you.” (Romans 11:16–18, CJB)

Does that mean Christians should ignore the Mosaic laws, including dietary restrictions? This is a debate that has been ongoing since the time of Jesus. We see Paul and the other apostles wrestle with this very same issue throughout the epistles. What does it mean to be grafted into Israel?

Let me ask a question, why would any God-fearing person (Jew or gentile) want to eat animals that God clearly defines as unclean for consumption? You can make the argument that these laws apply only to Israel because they’re God’s chosen people. It’s a valid argument, but why have we become so stubborn in our position? Is there something deeper going on?

Understand that striving to live by God’s standards is part of the sanctification process. Sanctified means to be set apart for God’s use. Gentiles tend to stumble over this because our focus is often limited to salvation alone. We may not be obligated in the same way as Israel, but isn’t our obedience still pleasing to God? If God is pleased with Israel for obeying their obligation, how much more pleased is He when we, who are not obligated, obey Him?

“Just as my Father has loved me, I too have loved you; so stay in my love. If you keep my commands, you will stay in my love—just as I have kept my Father’s commands and stay in his love. I have said this to you so that my joy may be in you, and your joy be complete.” (John 15:9–11, CJB)

I’ll end with this thought. The very first words spoken by God, to man, are a commandment specifying what can and can’t be eaten. We fail to understand the significance food plays in our relationship to God.

“ADONAI, God, took the person and put him in the garden of ‘Eden to cultivate and care for it. ADONAI, God, gave the person this order: “You may freely eat from every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You are not to eat from it, because on the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die.” (Genesis 2:15–17, CJB)

Food for thought.