In the text by the disjunctive particle "or".
"or" can be disjunctive or comparable:
[BDAG] ἤ
• ἤ particle (Hom.+).
1. marker of an alternative, or, disjunctive particle (B-D-F §446; Rob. 1188f)
a. separating
α. opposites, which are mutually exclusive
β.
related and similar terms, where one can take the place of the other or one supplements the other.
There is also a textual variant here: The manuscript evidence is mixed between "or" & "kai-and".
Here's a note from the NET Bible translators:
NET Notes (
Act 10:14)
38 tn Possibly there is a subtle distinction in meaning between κοινός (koinos) and ἀκάθαρτος (akathartos) here, but according to L&N 53.39 it is difficult to determine precise differences in meaning based on existing contexts.
sn Peter insisted he would not violate the law by eating anything defiled and ritually unclean. These food laws were one of the practices that distinguished Jews from their Gentile neighbors. The practice made table fellowship with Gentiles awkward. For an example of Jewish attitudes to this, see
Dan 1:8–16;
1 Macc 1:41–64; Letter of Aristeas 142; Tacitus, History 5.5.
I'm in agreement with this and adding the other factors above, disagree that "or" - if the correct wording even is "or" & not "and" - is strictly separating. I also think the logic I laid out is something that should be addressed and not passed over. I don't see how the strict disjunctive works with the logic or the context.
In the vision Peter only seen two kinds, common and unclean; though there were all manner of four footed beasts. They were not to eat anything that touch something that was unclean. If something did it was ceremonial defiled, common.
Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Acts 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Lev 7:21 Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Again, what about the logic I laid out? Is Peter supposed to be watching out for unclean men and bypass them because God did not cleanse them?
YLT (since you use this translation)
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, 'Ye know how it is
unlawful forbidden/not allowed for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come unto, one of another race, but to me God did shew to call no man common or unclean;
- Peter's conclusion was that God was cleansing the common & the unclean, not just the common.
See below re: Lev.
God said call not what he had cleansed common. Never mentioning the unclean being cleansed only that which was defiled by that which is unclean.
Doesn't fit the logic or the range of the language.
Why did you not address or correct the rest of the logic I presented?
If something touched an unclean thing, then it became unclean, not common. As I said, this word kainos is not even used in the LXX.
NKJ
Leviticus 5:1 `If a person sins in hearing the utterance of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter-- if he does not tell it, he bears guilt. 2 `Or if a person touches any
unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an
unclean beast, or the carcass of
unclean livestock, or the carcass of
unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it,
he also shall be unclean and
guilty. 3 `Or if he touches
human uncleanness--
whatever uncleanness with which a man may be
miano-defiled, and he is unaware of it-- when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty. 4 `Or if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it-- when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters. 5 `And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that
he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing; 6 `and he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats as a sin offering. So the priest shall make
atonement for him concerning his sin. (
Lev. 5:6 NKJ)
Apparently, God was also in the business of forgiving uncleanness.
The word for unclean is not in those text.
Agreed. Yet if we don't set ourselves on the disjunctive in Acts10, then common and unclean become closely related. And the in-context relationship between kainos-common in Rom14:14 to the clear statement in Rom14:20 in the continuing context of foods that "all things [are] katharos-clean" seems to wrap this up nicely.
You seem to have set aside the reference I made to kainos in Heb9, which I see is vital to this entire discussion. This is, for lack of clearer wording, spiritual now and the old order which was a parable for the new order in Christ is a bygone era.
I noted before how "unclean" is such a big concept in the old era and much of this was having to do with physical things. Now "unclean" is mostly stated re: spirits - unclean spirits - and sinfulness.
Now statements about not touching unclean things such as that in Isaiah52:11 are being connected with idolatry and not being yoked together with unbelievers 2Cor6:17. And in Eph5:3-5 unclean(ness) is correlated to being sinful & idolatrous. This really is not about food anymore.
You previously directed me to do a study of common and unclean. I went back and dug up my old work and reviewed and even added to some of it. Why don't you reciprocate and just look at "unclean(ness)" in the NC and see if it ever refers to food making us unclean. The word is referring to spiritual matters now - unbelievers and sin.
No not like you appear to be implying. What is the NC? How does Deut 30;10-14 and
Romans 10:6-8 compare to
Heb. 8:10.
Would you please take the time and explain yourself. The issue as I see it is faith-righteousness - faith in Jesus Christ - Christ.
Awesome! Hence why God said not to eat.
Fine and agreed to a point. But the KOG is not eating and drinking. If anything, now, food is a be careful what you eat, or you'll get sick matter - immediately or over time - and you may even die immediately. And in this way, it can, and IMO should be a matter of faith - I believe God the Creator has His Creation structured in a certain way and that man is not as smart as he thinks he is. So, I'll trust God to guide me. The same thing goes for Creation itself. I know and believe God is the Creator. I don't need to be taught this as the children of Israel apparently needed to have it ingrained into them in such a way that they were forced under penalty of death to rest & contemplate it every 7th day and to do so as a sign of their covenant with God. I think He knows that we in Christ get this or should get this by now.
I'm not seeing anything that says we need to revert to childhood practices to please Him or be in His Kingdom. This is one of those many tensions in Scripture. God wants adult sons who have put away childish things but seemingly retain in a sense a childlike faith. I trust Him completely and know that He will always and forever know more than I no matter my stage of development as His son and brother of His first-born Son - our Lord.
I have a question for you if you'd be so kind to answer: Are you or do you congregate with SDA or Messianics?
