“Cockroach Meal?”
Are all food clean?
Are all animals fit to eat?
Did Christ abolish the food law in Leviticus 11?
[This is Part 12 of the series Did Jesus Christ Abolish the Law?]
It is simply because these animals are not fit to be eaten! And I guess no one would even argue that.
Which means that not all animals are clean. Which means that it is not true that the law on clean and unclean animals had been abolished!
Well, this misunderstanding about clean and unclean is a result of misreading of certain scriptures, which we will examine closely in this post.
But first, it should be noted that the law regarding clean and unclean animals is neither ceremonial nor did it originate with Moses or the Jews. This distinction between clean and unclean animals is known at least as early as the time of Noah. Notice:
This was almost a thousand years before the giving of the law at Sinai!
This simply means that this law on clean and unclean animals is not part of the temporary law “that was added because of transgression” in Galatians 3 [see The Much Misunderstood Law in Galatians].
Some animals are never meant to be eaten by man, but are a vital part of an intricate and delicate ecological balance. Some animals actually play important role in cleaning up the environment.
Let’s discuss now some misunderstood passages.
Misunderstood Verses
1. Jesus declared all foods “clean.”
This statement is found in Mark 7:19 in the NIV version. The problem with NIV here is that the translators interpreted this passage rather than simply translating it. So we have to compare it with the KJV translation. NIV is generally loosely and freely “translated” which can sometimes make for easy reading. But this style of translation can oftentimes lead to a totally different meaning and conclusion. By contrast KJV is translated almost word for word, which makes it ideal for studying the original Greek or Hebrew words.
Also, one important point to bear in mind when studying a difficult verse is to get the context in which a statement is made by whoever spoke or wrote it.
In this particular case, we need to go all the way back to verse 1 to get the whole story:
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft [in a special way - NKJV], eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
What is the issue here? Were the Pharisees arguing about clean and unclean meats or animals?
Nope, they were not even discussing meat, but bread or loaf [see Strong's Greek Lexicon]. Rather the Pharisees were taking exception to Christ’s disciples eating with “unwashen hands”. The Pharisees were insisting on the “tradition of the elders” of washing their hands in a special way before eating.
What was Christ’s response to this?
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Why? What’s wrong with washing hands before eating? Isn’t it good and hygienic practice to wash hands before eating?
Well, this is no ordinary washing of hands. It is actually ritualistic washing of hands before eating [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism.] This practice, as Christ himself said came from traditions of men. It is a doctrine or commandment originated by men rather than by God (v.7)
But what really made Christ so upset?
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
It is obvious from Christ’s comment that the Pharisees were hiding behind the outward show of “righteousness” of washing their hands to deflect attention from their disobedience to God’s law – in this case the duty to honor their parents. This, Christ said, is what defiles a man [v.20] — not the eating with unwashed hands.
In all this account there is no discussion of clean and unclean animals. Hence, we cannot use this passage to make conclusions regarding clean and unclean animals.
2. Peter’s vision (Acts 10)
This is a classic example of how God directly dealt with humans – to reveal something. Let’s read the first few verses:
Act 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
Act 10:3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
Act 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
Act 10:5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
Act 10:6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
Act 10:7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;
Here God directly communicated with Cornelius [a devout, God-fearing Gentile] in a vision. In that vision God told Cornelius to send men to call for [the apostle] Peter. So Cornelius sent three men to look for Peter. While these three men were on their way, God was simultaneously communicating something to Peter. Notice:
Act 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
Act 10:11 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:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner [all, every,any] of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
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 or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
This passage is often used to prove that God had cleansed all animals. But Peter himself never made that kind of conclusion. In v.12 we see that Peter was shown a large sheet that contained “all manner of four footed beasts, wild beasts, creeping things and fowls”. The phrase “all manner” clearly included the repulsive creatures that I mentioned at the start of this post. Peter reacted by saying he had never eaten anything that is common or unclean. Of course what Peter saw was only a vision [v.17].
Act 10:18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
Notice how God is revealing things. Peter never came to a conclusion that it was now okay to eat unclean animals. And as Peter doubted what his vision meant, the three men that Cornelius sent arrived – and the Spirit told him to arise and meet them, doubting nothing. So Peter did as the Spirit told him and the men of Cornelius explained the purpose of their visit. So the next day Peter went with them and met Cornelius.
Act 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
Act 10:23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
Act 10:24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
What does Peter’s vision mean? Did find Peter conclude that it is now okay for him to eat unclean animals?
You can read the rest of Acts 10 or even the whole of Acts and you will not find Peter ever arriving at that kind of conclusion. Instead Peter realized that God was revealing to him that he should not call Gentiles or any man “common or unclean”. Notice:
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 or unclean.
So clearly the vision was merely symbolic of the fact that God had opened salvation to the Gentiles – and therefore the Gentiles should no longer be regarded as “common” or unclean. Again, this passage has nothing to do with clean and unclean animals.
3. Romans 14
I will not take space here to explain Romans 14 in depth. But suffice it to say, the whole context of Romans 14 has nothing to do with clean or unclean animals. Rather it has to do with eating herbs only or eating “all things”, that is, both herbs and meat [v.2]. In other words it discusses vegetarianism – that vegetarianism [or otherwise] is a personal choice that God’s law allows and should not be made a spiritual issue. Romans 14 says nothing about the law on clean and unclean animals and it proves nothing on the subject.
[...] Related posts: Did Jesus Christ Cleanse All Meats? [...]