Nothing is unclean??

[r035198x]

..

To understand what is being talked about here it's important to know the context and who Paul is talking to. This is about members of the early church that were debating if it was a sin to eat meat from animals that had been sacrificed to idols. Some thought it was OK to eat the vegetables but not the meats so sacrificed and others thought only the meat was not to be eaten, still others believed it was all OK to eat....

Nothing could be further from the truth!!!
Eating food offered to idols is never OK and was never made OK. These types of dangerous assumptions should be shunned.

 

[Adventtruth]

The evidence is in the number of clean animals taken on the ark....

You already know there is no scripture that says he didn't eat unclean animals after the flood just like there is no scripture saying whether or not Noah fell into idol worship before his death either. You can't base your understanding of truth on what the Bible doesn't say...

So its conjecture on your part?

SO you really dont believe what God says?

“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ge 9:3

AT

 

[Alawishis]

So its conjecture on your part?

SO you really dont believe what God says?

“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ge 9:3

AT

Consider that if Noah of his family had eaten one of the unclean animals that would leave only one thereby wiping out that species forever. It seams clear the reason seven of the clean were provided was for food while there was nothing else to eat until the world recovered from the flood. Is there another use for the terminology clean and unclean, why make any distinction at all if there is no distinction?

 

[Alawishis]

Nothing could be further from the truth!!!
Eating food offered to idols is never OK and was never made OK. These types of dangerous assumptions should be shunned.

I'm not saying what is OK and what is not. But this was a big controversy in the time of Paul there was major division in the church on this issue.

 

[r035198x]

I'm not saying what is OK and what is not. But this was a big controversy in the time of Paul there was major division in the church on this issue.

You are mixing issues in the midst of wrong assumptions.

Food sacrificed to idols has nothing to do with clean and unclean meats.

Paul addressed the issues about eating clean and unclean meats for both gentiles and Jews. The very fact that this was becoming an issue that needed to be addressed should get some people thinking.

Food offered to idols was not an issue with the Jews, and was addressed by the council after Paul realized that he needed their help on it and other issues.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

So its conjecture on your part?

SO you really dont believe what God says?

“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ge 9:3

AT

Noah, understanding the premise between clean and unclean already, would not need this distiction made to him.

If you are told to drive to the store to get some bread, do you have to be told not to speed? Or do you already know what is required of you as a driver?

As Alawishis asked, why was the distiction made if it was of none effect?

 

[Alawishis]

You are mixing issues in the midst of wrong assumptions.

Food sacrificed to idols has nothing to do with clean and unclean meats.

Paul addressed the issues about eating clean and unclean meats for both gentiles and Jews. The very fact that this was becoming an issue that needed to be addressed should get some people thinking.

Food offered to idols was not an issue with the Jews, and was addressed by the council after Paul realized that he needed their help on it and other issues.

Read 1 Corinthians 8 , Paul uses the same verbiage as he used here.

Anyway, nowhere here does it say anything about what God thinks is unclean. This is about what the follower believes. "but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." So this is about not judging our brethren for following what, in their own minds, they believe is right. But, this also goes back to the point about righteousness though works. Nothing that we do, be it; keeping the law; eating no meat; keeping Sabbaths; going to church; giving to charities; nothing, none of it will save us. We are only saved by our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Food offered to idols was not an issue with the Jews,

It certainly was as attested by the tractate Avodah Zara in the Mishnah.

Restrictions on eating meat sacrificed to idols is also found in the book of Revelation 2:20

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Read 1 Corinthians 8 , Paul uses the same verbiage as he used here.

If we're looking to understand the context of Romans 14, I'm not sure why we would look to a separate letter written to a very different group of people about very different issues. The concept of meat sacrificed to idols does not appear anywhere in Paul's letter to the Romans. It's quite a leap to assume that Paul was limiting his comments in Romans 14 to include only meat sacrificed to idols. Since Paul mentions vegetables in Romans 14, should we assume that he was referring to vegetables sacrificed to idols?

BFA

 

[Steve Petersen]

Paul is addressing issues of mixed congregations of Jews and non-Jews, possibly also mixed believers and non-believers. In such an environment, food issues would certainly be problematic.

 

[r035198x]

Read 1 Corinthians 8 , Paul uses the same verbiage as he used here.

Anyway, nowhere here does it say anything about what God thinks is unclean. This is about what the follower believes. "but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." So this is about not judging our brethren for following what, in their own minds, they believe is right. But, this also goes back to the point about righteousness though works. Nothing that we do, be it; keeping the law; eating no meat; keeping Sabbaths; going to church; giving to charities; nothing, none of it will save us. We are only saved by our Lord Jesus Christ.

These were Jews in the Church. They did not invent unclean meats. They had law books which told them which meats were clean and which ones were not. Their belief was based on what they heard (from the temple) and what they read.

It certainly was as attested by the tractate Avodah Zara in the Mishnah.

Restrictions on eating meat sacrificed to idols is also found in the book of Revelation 2:20

Sorry, we Christians regard the Avodah Zara as controversial. As for bringing up Revelation 2, it shows you are not following the argument. Paul was not writing to the same Church as that at Thyatira.

 

[r035198x]

Paul is addressing issues of mixed congregations of Jews and non-Jews, possibly also mixed believers and non-believers. In such an environment, food issues would certainly be problematic.

But we know by Acts 15 that the gentiles were not allowed to eat food offered to idols and by (your stretching of) Revelation 2 that Jews were also not allowed to eat food offered to idols, yet in the letter he says if you think it's ok to eat then you can eat. Clearly he is not referring to food offered to idols.

 

[Steve Petersen]

But we know by Acts 15 that the gentiles were not allowed to eat food offered to idols and by (your stretching of) Revelation 2 that Jews were also not allowed to eat food offered to idols, yet in the letter he says if you think it's ok to eat then you can eat. Clearly he is not referring to food offered to idols.

So far, I am with you. But Jewish law gave no such leeway.

If food was from a Gentile, it was to be assumed that it was idol food, even though it may otherwise have been kosher. Same for wine.

If a Jew was to eat Gentile food, to this day in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, it can only be unprepared fruit or vegetables.

 

[r035198x]

So far, I am with you. But Jewish law gave no such leeway.

If food was from a Gentile, it was to be assumed that it was idol food, even though it may otherwise have been kosher. Same for wine.

If a Jew was to eat Gentile food, to this day in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, it can only be unprepared fruit or vegetables.

Are you saying then that Paul contradicted the council's decision and wrote that Jews and Gentiles can eat food offered to idols? Or are you perhaps suggesting that Jews are allowed to eat food that Gentiles offered to idols but the Gentiles themselves are not allowed to eat it? Both assertions not only require arguable assumptions to be made but also arrive at dubious conclusions.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Are you saying then that Paul contradicted the council's decision and wrote that Jews and Gentiles can eat food offered to idols? Or are you perhaps suggesting that Jews are allowed to eat food that Gentiles offered to idols but the Gentiles themselves are not allowed to eat it? Both assertions not only require arguable assumptions to be made but also arrive at dubious conclusions.

Neither really. I think Paul is addressing the ASSUMPTION that all Gentile meat and drink was offered to idols. He seems to be discarding that particular rabbinic 'fence' with regard to Jewish and Gentile believers and their fellowship.

Sort of a 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy in that regard.

Am I making sense?

 

[r035198x]

Neither really. I think Paul is addressing the ASSUMPTION that all Gentile meat and drink was offered to idols. He seems to be discarding that particular rabbinic 'fence' with regard to Jewish and Gentile believers and their fellowship.

Sort of a 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy in that regard.

Am I making sense?

While that angle is supportable by vs 20 "For meat destroy not the work of God", it is still only a narrow angle. I would not throw it away just for being narrow though, but because it narrows the application of the letter. There is nothing to suggest that he is not in fact, simply addressing the clean and unclean meats issue that had been hanging on their heads since the law was given to them.
More likely though (to me at least), mentioning meat was just an example and the real issue in Rom 14 is simply about being careful that your liberty does not stumble weaker believers.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Would you agree that Paul was addressing mixed congregations of Jewish and Gentile believers in Romans?

It seem clear (to me at least) that such congregations existed. Josephus attests to the popularity of Judaism across the empire in his day, particularly in Asia Minor (where Paul, his contemporary, operated.)

Paul's address in Acts 13 supports that history. He speaks to two, possibly three groups at a synagogue: Brethren, sons of the race of Abraham, and god-fearers. 'Brethren' and possibly 'sons of the race of Abraham' refer to Jews by birth, though the phrase 'son of Abraham' has been and currently is used to refer to formal converts to Judaism. 'God fearers were Gentiles who, to varying degrees, were in between paganism and Judaism but had not made a formal conversion to Judaism.

Now try to imagine that among these two or three different groups, some had become believers in Jesus. If, for a time, they all came together at the same synagogue, there certainly would have been MANY problematic situations.

Whether or not the addressees of Paul's letter to Romans were still participants in traditional Jewish synagogues is, to me, unclear.

 

[r035198x]

Would you agree that Paul was addressing mixed congregations of Jewish and Gentile believers in Romans?

It seem clear (to me at least) that such congregations existed. Josephus attests to the popularity of Judaism across the empire in his day, particularly in Asia Minor (where Paul, his contemporary, operated.)

Paul's address in Acts 13 supports that history. He speaks to two, possibly three groups at a synagogue: Brethren, sons of the race of Abraham, and god-fearers. 'Brethren' and possibly 'sons of the race of Abraham' refer to Jews by birth, though the phrase 'son of Abraham' has been and currently is used to refer to formal converts to Judaism. 'God fearers were Gentiles who, to varying degrees, were in between paganism and Judaism but had not made a formal conversion to Judaism.

Now try to imagine that among these two or three different groups, some had become believers in Jesus. If, for a time, they all came together at the same synagogue, there certainly would have been MANY problematic situations.

Whether or not the addressees of Paul's letter to Romans were still participants in traditional Jewish synagogues is, to me, unclear.

I'm almost certain the congregation was mixed, the greetings in Romans 16 from vs 5 suggests that some met at houses and also suggests a mixed audience. This is why to me the main point was about how the weak can live with the strong. The Jews with the Gentiles. In this light it's still more likely that the meat 'example' was still referring to Jewish law on unclean meats, as in Gentiles should not judge Jews for abstaining and Jews should not judge Gentiles for eating.

 

[SHINeePinee94]

Joe
You're missing Paul's point. If there is another brother in the Lord who eats BLTs and you are a vegetarian, you have no right to judge him for eating meat, because he is your brother IN THE LORD. Joe, it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out of a man

A brother in the Lord shouldn't eat a BLT. God identified swine as a non food. It amazes me that people use the scripture in Acts 10 to justify eating what isn't considered by God to even be a food. Peter sums up the vision that God had given him with, "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." (Acts 10:28)
The vision wasn't to tell Peter that it's okay to eat unclean animals. It was to tell Peter he wasn't to call any MAN common or unclean.

Leviticus 11:7
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Deuteronomy 14:8
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

In the scriptures referenced by the OP, it is talking about whether someone is a vegetarian or someone who chooses to eat clean meat. It's also talking about not partaking in things that are sacrificed to idols.
God never considered pork or horses or catfish or shrimp to even be a food in the first place. Do you consider rat to be a meat to be feasted on? I doubt it. That's because it's not a food! God didn't change His mind about what is clean to eat and what is unclean when Jesus rose from the dead.
I know I'm about to get blasted with the whole, " That's legalistic!" thing. So, I'll just quote Paul...
Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Corinthians 6:17
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

 

[Alawishis]

If you take a look at the whole issue with clean and unclean in an extra-biblical light the distinction between the two seems to be parasites. Pork is teaming with parasites, shellfish the same, rats/mice and bats also have this issue. I know a lot of people believe that if you cook your meat thoroughly it kills all the parasites. Unfortunately this is not true, some of the time you may kill all of the parasites if you cook your food like crazy. These parasites often encase themselves in cysts within the meat. It is possible for many of them to survive the extremes heat of cooking.

Pork has the distinction of being biologically similar to man so many of the diseases pigs get man can also. Pigs are considered to be one of the conduits for disease between animal and man because of this. Pork has viruses and parasites as part of the way God created them similar to rats in that way. You cannot have a pig that is not "unclean" in this way, it's part of their genetic makeup, it's the way God made them.

Form Wikipedia (though I loathed to use them as a source):
Pigs can harbour a range of parasites and diseases that can be transmitted to humans. These include trichinosis,Taenia solium, cysticercosis, and brucellosis. Pigs are also known to host large concentrations of parasitic ascarid worms in their digestive tract.

Now I know someone is going to say, "yeah but even clean meats can have parasites". Yes, this is true especially in today's western food supply. I should also point out the difference between, may have parasites and always has parasites. A lot of this has to do with modern farming practices. As with anything know the source of the food you eat.