If I may say,
I tend to not think that all things pig-related were ever cursed or condemned in the Torah---and it's amazing considering how researchers have even used pigs to create organs for others and have used pigs for testing a new design of colonoscope as part of the battle to improve screening for colorectal cancer which is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the Western world. For those Jewish men who are pig farmers and helping to save lives around the world, I say thank the Lord for what they do
Wearing a coat made from pig would be within the same category as showering/having soap because soap could conceivably be made from pork fat or porcine glycerine....and glycerine from pigs would be chemically identical to glycerine from any other animal. Fats from pigs would be chemically identical to the same fats from other animals, but the fatty acids would exist in proportions unique to pigs. That is, once the triacylglycerols themselves were extracted from the cell material, raw fat from an animal would still contain cells from that animal....and seeing the main ways in which gelatin is used from soaps to many diverse ways in the medical world, I do wonder on how far others may be willing to go with avoiding all products made from that which they believe is "unclean"....especially if stuck in the emergency room for whatever reason/not really having a say on what kind of soaps or materials are used to save one's life. Again, its rather amazing to see how many aspects of pigs are in products beyond what's mentioned. ..from paint to heart valves and many other things. For more information, one can go online/look up the site of Christien Meindertsma, and her Pig 05049 project--as seen under the title of
"PIG 05049: Christien Meindertsma" ( )
And on her talk on the subject, one can go here/look up under the following title:
COnsuming something from a pig being detrimental isn't the same as saying all contact with pig parts is harmful/an "unclean" matter. It says in the Torah that one should not touch the carcasses of swine....specifically, the prohibition against "touching" a pig or any non-kosher animal for that matter from Leviticus 11:8, where it states: "You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Understanding this verse in its most literal sense leads one to the conclusion that it is forbidden to touch any part of a non-kosher animal's carcass. ..but that would be something that creates a lot of issues. Does this mean that we should not wear Hush Puppy shoes (made of pigskin) or play football or rugby with a ball made of pig skin?
And the same with using leather Bibles, as they're often made from pig skin.
To understand Leviticus 11:8 as being ultimately literal/understood as touching them in any sense would be problematic since that'd mean that it would have been unlawful for a Jew to have rode upon a camel, or to take out and make use of hog's lard in medicine. It seems the context was of touching them in order to kill them, and prepare them for food, and eat them.. and indeed all unnecessary touching of them is forbidden, lest it should bring them to the eating of them. Of course, the text may chiefly respect the touching of them dead for its own sake...as that can lead to diseases and a lot of other issues.
Animal hide does not carry impurities, especially when it is tanned. Even the apostle Peter did not seem to have an issue with it...as he lived with a tanner for sometime.
A tanner was involved in treating the skins of dead animals, thus contacting the unclean according to Jewish law---and an individual involved in such a trade was despised by many. In Acts 10:9-16, the passage addresses but whether Peter was going to recognize Gods cleansing actions in the life of Cornelius---the one who aided in beginning the Gentile Pentecost. Peter was being shown that being cleansed by God made one clean. The unclean beasts were being used because eating them would have naturally repulsed Peterjust as Americans are today when they see what passes for food in some cultures. In the same way Peter would have been repulsed at the idea of going into Cornelius house and preaching the gospel to them. We see the Jewish mindset in this regard when we hear what those of the circumcision said in Acts 11:18: So then, God has granted
even the Gentiles repentance unto life.
[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]
I find it interesting that Peter was staying and eating in the house of a Jewish believer whose livelihood would have made him unclean, but would have still held up his nose at entering the house of a Gentile. Simon was a tanner, which would have made him unclean, because the tanners had constant contact with animal carcasses (Ben Witherington III, New Testament History, (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001), p. 208). The stench from the process would have been unbearable. It was bad enough that tanners had to place their homes outside of the city (notice the passage tells us his house was by the sea). So Peter, who was staying in a stinking hovel would have turned his nose up at entering the house of a gentile. Peter could understand that God could cleanse a Jew doing an unclean occupation, but could not understand God cleansing an unconverted Gentile. This is why God had to command him to eat things that would have disgusted himto get through this ethnic barrier. For it does seem that Peter had some serious issues as it concerns prejudice and racism (more shared here).[/FONT]
__________________
