Forbidden foods

We go by the guidelines given in Leviticus 11.

If a mammal does not have split hoof and does not chew cud, it is considered unclean. This eliminates most mammals. Leviticus lists several unclean mammals; camel, hare, badger and pig.

Fish that does not have scales or fins is considered unclean.

Leviticus lists a number of unclean birds that are predators and scavengers. Included in the unclean list are water fowl with webbed feet (swan, pelican; verse 18), and so most Adventists do not eat duck or geese because these are the same species as the unclean birds mentioned, and because Genesis says they were created according to their kind (Genesis 1:24-25).

Insects listed include locust, cricket and grasshopper, but all others are unclean.

The easiest way to break it down at the grocery store is this:

Yes:

• Beef, venison, lamb and goat
• Chicken, turkey
• Tuna, salmon, mackerel, cod, halibut, sardines, perch, trout, etc.
• Imitation crab that doesn't have actual crab in it but uses whitefish or the like.

No:

• No pork in any product (they put pork in so many things). Includes lard, which is found in various products, like Jiffy mixes.
• No duck or geese.
• No catfish, crab, shrimp, lobster, crayfish, oysters, shark, swordfish or sturgeon.

Adventist diet varies from one person to the next. Some do not eat dairy or eggs, others do. Some are strict vegan, some are not. Some eat meat, some do not.

RileyG said:

Thanks for the response!

I wasn’t aware shark is still being consumed?

I know whale/dolphin is allowed to be consumed by some native tribes a few times per year!

Peace!

Click to expand...

My local grocery store sold shark back in the 90's. I bought sword fish and shark a couple years in a row with my Thanksgiving/Christmas gift certificate for something different than the usual turkey. At the time I didn't consider myself Christian, and so I was eating anything and everything.

I don't think the local store sells it anymore, but you can still get swordfish occasionally. Both are considered unclean to eat.

RileyG said:

Thanks for the response!

I wasn’t aware shark is still being consumed?

I know whale/dolphin is allowed to be consumed by some native tribes a few times per year!

Peace!

Click to expand...

My brother used to live in the Marshall Islands. Shark was being consumed by the natives.

I think the government in that area is trying to stop that practice.

Clean vs unclean distinction is seen in Gen 7 and 8 ... long before the time of Moses.

It was a distinction known to mankind from before the flood.

RileyG said:

(posting in fellowship)

What foods are forbidden in Adventism or are avoided?

Meat? (Pork, Chicken, Beef, other poultry)
Seafood? Shrimp? Crab? Lobster?
Coffee or Tea?
Alcohol? Beer and Wine permitted? Hard liquor forbidden?
Eggs?

I'm only asking out of curiosity.

Peace

Click to expand...

Your questions, comments observations welcome. Thanks for joining us here for discussion

RileyG said:

What foods are forbidden in Adventism or are avoided?
...
I'm only asking out of curiosity.

Peace

Click to expand...

I understand your question, but would point out that "forbidden" is a bit of a strong word. I think most (hopefully!) Adventists would acknowledge that Jesus told his disciples to eat whatever was given to them if they went into someone's home. I think the idea is that Adventists understand that the body is the temple of God, and that God warned that some foods were not the best for maintaining health. So if all other things are equal, then choose health foods. But if your eating would harm a brother, then put the concern for your brother first.

Best wishes,
Kevin T

KevinT said:

I understand your question, but would point out that "forbidden" is a bit of a strong word. I think most (hopefully!) Adventists would acknowledge that Jesus told his disciples to eat whatever was given to them if they went into someone's home.

Click to expand...

Paul said to eat whatever is set before you without asking questions about whether the food was offered to idols. He adds that if they tell you it was offered to idols don't eat it, as a witness to them.

1 Cor 10:27-31
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

That is not the same thing as saying "if someone hands you a rat sandwich , go ahead and eat it"

BobRyan said:

That is not the same thing as saying "if someone hands you a rat sandwich , go ahead and eat it"

Click to expand...

They way I read the gospels is that Christ, if he was reaching out to a family, and was sharing a meal with them, and they were all eating rat sandwiches, then for their sakes, he would have eaten one with them.

Not to say that the idea of it doesn’t turn my stomach.

God has given us a certain amount of health and life on this earth. Paul was greviously injured by stoning in his gospel work. A general rule would be to avoid getting one’s head injured by others throwing rocks. But in Paul’s case, the gospel came first. Likewise, we should guard our health by doing everything in our power to enhance it. But it should always take second place to the work of God.

KT

KevinT said:

They way I read the gospels is that Christ, if he was reaching out to a family, and was sharing a meal with them, and they were all eating rat sandwiches, then for their sakes, he would have eaten one with them.

Click to expand...

Matt 5:
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Heb 4; 5 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

2 Cor 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 John 3:4 sin is transgression of the Law

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

Heb 8 says it is Jesus giving His Commandments at Sinai

1 Cor 7:19 what matters is keeping the Commandments of God

Eph 6:1-2 "honor your father and mother, is the first commandment with a promise" in that distinct unit

Jesus speaks of a judgment , long after the cross, for all mankind that goes this way

Is 66:
14 Then you will see this, and your heart will be glad,
And your bones will flourish like the new grass;
And the hand of the Lord will be made known to His servants,
But He will be indignant toward His enemies.
15 For behold, the Lord will come in fire
And His chariots like the whirlwind,
To render His anger with fury,
And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For the Lord will execute judgment by fire
And by His sword on all flesh,
And those slain by the Lord will be many.
17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens,
Following one in the center,
Who eat swine’s flesh, detestable things and mice,
Will come to an end altogether,” declares the Lord.

that kind of warning in scripture about a future coming and judgment by fire, where God declares bad things will happen in certain cases, makes me not want to cross lines that God is drawing.


Jesus did not teach "keep the commandments of God unless someone who is not a Christian says they would feel better if you broke one or two"

BobRyan said:

Jesus did not teach "keep the commandments of God unless someone who is not a Christian says they would feel better if you broke one or two"

Click to expand...

The law of Moses forbids eating unclean foods. Jesus told his disciples to eat whatever was put in front of them. How do you reconcile these apparent contradictions?

KT

KevinT said:

The law of Moses forbids eating unclean foods.

Click to expand...

Heb 8 says Jesus is the one speaking the Law at Sinai

KevinT said:

Jesus told his disciples to eat whatever was put in front of them

Click to expand...

Jesus said that in Luke 10 when sending out the disciples, Luke 10 is where you find the statement above

In Matt 10, He sends them out saying
5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

If your argument is that the Jews that Christ was sending His disciples out to when He said "eat what is set before you", where in any way eating rats, cats, dogs, bats etc.. I think that idea should not simply be "assumed" you would need to prove it.

KevinT said:

. How do you reconcile these apparent contradictions?

KT

Click to expand...

I think noticing the context removes the difficulty in that case

By contrast Paul is explicitly dealing with Christians going into the homes of gentiles and Paul said that in that case the instruction deals with the situation where food has been offered to idols

It is not until Acts 1 that Jesus expands the commission to Samaritans

And in Acts 10,11 you see them finally going to gentiles

BobRyan said:

Heb 8 says Jesus is the one speaking the Law at Sinai

Click to expand...

Yes, but ...
the Almighty (later incarnated as Jesus) also put Moses in a position of authority to make decisions as he saw fit. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce, an interesting distinction is seen:

Matt 19: 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Click to expand...

Is this Mosaic law about divorce from Moses or from God? Notice that Jesus doesn't fault Moses for this regulation -- though he clearly states that this law originated from Moses. And He points out that it is not consistent with the higher ideals Jesus was calling His followers to. Thus we have an example of at least one (1) regulation that is found in the "Mosaic" law that Jesus later felt need to counter.

As an aside, below one can see again Jesus supporting the authority of human law-makers sitting in the seat of Moses -- even when they were doing a reprehensible job of it.

Matthew 23: 1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to drive a wedge between God and Moses. Moses was clearly filled with the Holy Spirit, and was doing the very best that he could under the circumstances of dealing with troublesome Israelites. But my point is that not every single thing that is in the Mosaic law actually came from the Almighty.

BobRyan said:

Jesus said that in Luke 10 when sending out the disciples, Luke 10 is where you find the statement above

In Matt 10, He sends them out saying
5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

If your argument is that the Jews that Christ was sending His disciples out to when He said "eat what is set before you", where in any way eating rats, cats, dogs, bats etc.. I think that idea should not simply be "assumed" you would need to prove it.

Click to expand...

What I am hearing you say, and correct me if I am wrong, is that when Jesus told his disciples to eat whatever was put before them, that this was under the assumption that they would only be going into Jewish homes, and thus the issue of clean vs unclean wasn't a factor.

Hmmm..... I just put the crux of our conversation into ChatGPT and it largely agrees with you -- much to my chagrin!
(I encourage you to expand and read what it said. It's pretty good.)

1. Who Were They Sent To? (Critical Context)​

Jesus explicitly limits this mission:

“Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,
but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
— Matthew 10:5–6

So the initial mission was:

• Jewish disciples
• Sent to Jewish towns
• Staying in Jewish homes
• Operating within Torah-observant communities

That fact alone strongly constrains how “eat what is set before you” can be understood.

2. What Would Be “Set Before You” in Jewish Homes?​

In first-century Jewish households:

• Dietary laws (kashrut) were assumed, not debated
• Serving unclean food to a Jewish teacher would have been unthinkable
• Hosts were obligated to hospitality within the Law

So the phrase cannot plausibly mean “eat pork or forbidden food,” because such food would not be offered in the first place.

3. What Jesus Is Actually Addressing​

The instruction is about hospitality, not holiness laws.
Specifically:

• Do not be picky, status-conscious, or demanding
• Do not move houses seeking better food or comfort
• Accept what is given without making your mission about personal preference

This aligns with the earlier line:
“The laborer deserves his wages.”
The concern is humility and contentment, not ritual boundaries.

4. Why This Is Not the Clean/Unclean Debate​

If Jesus were overturning food laws here, it would be:

• Theologically explosive
• Immediately controversial
• Repeated and clarified elsewhere

But instead:

• No one reacts
• No disputes arise
• No accusations follow (unlike Sabbath controversies)

That silence is telling.

5. When the Food Laws Actually Become the Issue​

The real turning point comes later, after Jesus’ resurrection:

• Peter’s vision in Acts 10
• The Gentile mission
• The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

Notably:

• Peter himself says he had never eaten anything unclean up to that point
• That includes years after this Luke 10 mission

That alone rules out your original interpretation as Jesus’ intent at the time.

Bottom Line​

Your conversation partner is essentially correct.

Jesus’ instruction:

• Does not address clean vs. unclean foods
• Does address humility, hospitality, and mission focus
• Occurs entirely within a Jewish context where dietary laws were assumed

Your instinct touches on a later Christian development—but this particular passage is not where that shift occurs.

Click to expand...

So I next asked about Mark 7

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Click to expand...

Here is ChatGPT's reply. Again, I encourage you to expand and read it. I like how it sets this out.

The Text and Its Setting​

You are quoting Mark 7:17–19.

The controversy that triggers the teaching is explicit earlier in the chapter:


“Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
— Mark 7:5

So the issue on the table is ritual handwashing, not pork, shellfish, or Torah food categories.

---

1. What Jesus Is Directly Teaching​

Jesus’ argument is narrowly framed:

• Input (food eaten with unwashed hands)
• Path (mouth → stomach → latrine)
• Conclusion: It does not reach the heart, therefore it does not cause moral defilement

He then contrasts this with sins that do come from the heart (vv. 20–23).

In other words:

• Jesus is redefining defilement
• He is not listing foods or abrogating Leviticus
• He is dismantling a Pharisaic category error

---

2. The Parenthetical Statement (“Thus he declared all foods clean”)​

This is the crux.

In Greek, this clause is editorial, not spoken dialogue. Most scholars agree it is Mark’s explanatory comment, not a verbatim quote from Jesus.

Two key points:

A. “All foods” in Jewish speech already assumes kosher food​

A Jew did not call pork “food” (βρῶμα) in the first place. “Food” meant permitted food.

So “all foods clean” most naturally means:

All foods that are eaten are clean with respect to handwashing
That fits the argument perfectly.

B. Matthew’s Parallel Is Telling​

Matthew records the same teaching (Matthew 15) but omits this editorial line entirely.

That silence matters:

• Matthew is more Torah-conscious
• Writing to a Jewish audience
• If Jesus had openly nullified food laws, Matthew is the last person who would suppress it

---

3. Why This Still Does Not Settle the Question at That Time​

Three decisive observations:

1. The disciples did not understand it that way​

Peter later says:

“I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
— Acts 10:14
That is after years of following Jesus.

2. Jesus is not accused of violating food laws​

He is accused of:

• Sabbath violations
• Blasphemy
• Lawbreaking traditions

But never of eating unclean food.

3. The early church still debates food laws explicitly​

Acts 10–15 would make no sense if Mark 7 had already settled the issue plainly.

---

4. So What Is Mark Doing?​

Mark is writing:

• Later
• To a mixed or Gentile audience
• Interpreting Jesus’ teaching retrospectively

He is saying, in effect:

“What Jesus taught here ultimately leads to the conclusion that food does not defile.”
That is a theological trajectory, not a moment-by-moment repeal.

---

Bottom Line​

You are right to see real theological weight here—but not quite in the way it is often used.

• Jesus redefines defilement (heart > ritual)
• He undercuts the foundation that made food laws a boundary marker
• But he does not explicitly abolish kosher law in this moment
• Mark later clarifies where that logic leads

So this passage is a seed, not the full harvest.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess I stand corrected.

KT

KevinT said:

Here is ChatGPT's reply. Again, I encourage you to expand and read it. I like how it sets this out.

Click to expand...

Agree, This is my understanding of this passage as well.

Jesus was never speaking of food in this passage, it was about eating without unwashed hands Mat15:1

And than He uses it as an illustration or parable which Jesus explained

Mat15:15 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.”

16 So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Peter never interpreted this parable that he can now eat whatever he wanted.

30 years later he still never ate anything unclean

Acts 10: 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

And this vision was also later explained and was never about food but about the gospel being spread to the Gentiles.

KevinT said:

Well, I guess I stand corrected.

KT

Click to expand...

Its good to see an open mind.

God bless!