All foods are clean

rstrats said:

Clare73,
re: "The clean animals were for sacrifice."

Not the "distinction" between seven and two, but as to why the animals were categorized as clean and unclean?

Click to expand...

See mine above. . .

The unclean animals could not be used in sacrifice.

Freth said:

• Peter does not come to the conclusion that all foods are good to eat, despite the symbols in the vision.
• Peter interprets the vision as God showing him that he should not call any man common or unclean; it was unlawful for a man that was a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation.
• Peter perceives a truth, that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that fears Him, and works righteousness, is accepted to him.
• One would have to ignore the context to come to the conclusion that God is declaring all foods as clean to eat. Peter gives the interpretation which has nothing to do with food.

Click to expand...

Peter's vision reveals to us clean/unclean dietary laws are actually not about food at all as a primary focus, it's about God's outpouring of his spirit, first to the Jews, then to all.

The two are inseparable and mirror each other. if unclean foods of the old covenant continue to be forbidden then God's outpouring is still limited as it was in the old covenant. If God's outpouring has been released to all, then there are no unclean foods. But you can't have it both ways declaring a system of clean/unclean foods still upon us while its symbolic meaning is released. The two are intrinsically bound together

To arguments that x food is unhealthy and since God has foreknowledge of this then it continues to be unhealthy thus forbidden is not a scriptural revealed motivation. The motivated is unpacked in Peter's dream so that's the one we should use. Certainly abstain from an unhealthy lifestyle (I myself haven't had pork in years) this is natural law that we should all abide by and it can be used to give glory to God but don't use dietary laws as your motivation to abstain since they are explicitly released. Again Peter's dream is inseparable with the dietary law, whatever one means so too does the other. We know the conclusion of Peter's dream so the dietary law must mirror it.

DamianWarS said:

Peter's vision reveals to us clean/unclean dietary laws are actually not about food at all as a primary focus, it's about God's outpouring of his spirit, first to the Jews, then to all.

Click to expand...

That's not what it reveals.

DamianWarS said:

The two are inseparable and mirror each other.

Click to expand...

That is false.

DamianWarS said:

if unclean foods of the old covenant continue to be forbidden then God's outpouring is still limited as it was in the old covenant. If God's outpouring has been released to all, then there are no unclean foods. But you can't have it both ways declaring a system of clean/unclean foods still upon us while its symbolic meaning is released. The two are intrinsically bound together

Click to expand...

That doesn't follow.

DamianWarS said:

To arguments that x food is unhealthy and since God has foreknowledge of this then it continues to be unhealthy thus forbidden is not a scriptural revealed motivation. The motivated is unpacked in Peter's dream so that's the one we should use. Certainly abstain from an unhealthy lifestyle (I myself haven't had pork in years) this is natural law that we should all abide by and it can be used to give glory to God but don't use dietary laws as your motivation to abstain since they are explicitly released. Again Peter's dream is inseparable with the dietary law, whatever one means so too does the other. We know the conclusion of Peter's dream so the dietary law must mirror it.

Click to expand...

While there are night and day differences between how healthy it is to eat clean or unclean animals, God associated to His instructions for how to be holy as He is is holy (1 Peter 1:16, Leviticus 11:44-45), so there is more to it than that, and the only way that we should cease to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would be if He were to cease to be holy.

It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common and that God did not rebuke Peter for referring to what He has made clean as being unclean, but only rebuked him for referring to what He has made clean as being common. So Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that God's law prohibits eating them, but he incorrect identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declared to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had absolutely nothing to do with changing God's dietary laws.

Soyeong said:

his vision had absolutely nothing to do with changing God's dietary laws.

Click to expand...

Dietary laws are not really changed; they mean the same thing as they always have. However you wish to word it, the meaning of Peter's dream is intrinsically connected to the meaning of the dietary laws by revelation. Once we know this connection is established the two mirror each other; otherwise, one cannot be the meaning of the other. The verb Peter uses what you've identified as "unclean" is most frequently in the context of unclean spirits; and what Peter is identifying is the thing that is unclean. Where the word you've identified as "common" is more about making something impure, often translated as "to defile" for example, when Christ speaks of if what goes into your mouth defiles you or not, this is the same word used. In context, Peter identifies the unclean thing as well as its defiling characteristic (since he was also commanded to eat, thus the unclean thing would defile him). He does not, however, identify two groups, one unclean the other common. if he did, then the unclean animals represented in the dream are there arbitrarily and since your interpretation only puts them in a background focus with no explanation for their presence, they would have no role. What is clear God has made animals in the dream clean, which Peter naturally protested and there is no other focus other than its conclusion. The greater point I'm making is that the law and the dream share the same fate; whatever God does in the dream, the law follows.

Soyeong said:

While there are night and day differences between how healthy it is to eat clean or unclean animals, God associated to His instructions for how to be holy as He is is holy (1 Peter 1:16, Leviticus 11:44-45), so there is more to it than that, and the only way that we should cease to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would be if He were to cease to be holy.

Click to expand...

Your understanding of the issue is not in agreement with NT (Ro 14:14). . .

timothyu said:

Is it not common sense that garbage eaters, carrion eaters and filters could pose a problem to human health when eaten?

Click to expand...

I think so. And I think that's what God had intended as well. Some animals were created to eat the garbage, poison, etc that humans should not be consuming.

With, I think, 2 acceptions.
It's sin if believer thinks it's sin and when the believer knows the meat was sacrificed to a pagan god.
But all things are Lawful, but not all things edify.