Are All Foods Really Clean?
A student of mine once said that he was persuaded that not all foods are clean. We had a good discussion on the topic, and after doing some digging around, I discovered that indeed there are some who are throwing people into confusion over what is permissible for Christians to eat. The first article I found was written by Lex Meyer at http://www.unlearnthelies.com/are-all-foods-clean.html. The article is well-written (an oddity on the Web anymore), and fairly persuasive. Have a read and carefully consider what the author is saying, then come back here and we’ll talk about it. Go ahead...I’ll wait.
Ready? Let’s dig in.
Mark 7:19
Meyer compares Mark 7:19 in the 1984 NIV against the KJV and notes that the parenthetical “in saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean” is not present in the KJV because it is
...a translator’s note that was added by the translators of the NIV (and a few other modern translations). If you look at the Greek text, you will not find that phrase anywhere. It is not present in any of the Greek manuscripts, it is an addition that was made by the translators.
Since I’m a Christian skeptic, the first thing I did was to look up the verses he cited. The 1984 NIV I have before me reads exactly as he quoted it, but when he cited the KJV, he said:
Screenshot taken on 10 September 2019
As it turns out, Meyer linked to the KJV but the actual text that appears in his article is from the NKJV. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I think this highlights why it’s important not to take for granted anything that anyone says about the Bible. Anytime anyone (including me) says “the Bible says,” you should immediately turn to that passage and see if what that person is saying lines up with Scripture. Be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and look it up for yourself.
Enough about misquoting versions. The real problem here is that that parenthetical actually is in the Greek. Again, be a Berean and see for yourself:
Καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα
Purifying all the food
Meyer’s exegesis of the KJV’s translation of this phrase as “purging all meats” is conspicuously absent. I’ll refrain from speculation as to why he chose to omit any discussion of that phrase lest I be accused of fabricating a straw man argument.
What is food?
Meyer then goes on to say:
However, even if that phrase was [sic] in the original text, it still would not mean that Yeshua declared all animals to be food. It simply says that all foods are clean. If you go by the Biblical definition of food, you will see that pig, shrimp, crab, and rabbit (among many other things) are all listed as unclean for food. This means they are not even considered to be food.
I find it interesting that Meyer does not point his readers to a “biblical definition of food,” but if he’s referring to Leviticus 11, God never says “they are not food.” Rather, He repeatedly states “they are unclean for you.” In other words, they were prohibited from eating them. If Meyer’s logic were taken to its logical conclusion, the fruit on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil wasn’t food either, which is clearly contradicted by Genesis 3:6. Furthermore, if unclean animals were not food, then God would have had no need to tell the Israelites not to eat them–rather like how He didn’t have to tell the Israelites not to eat rocks or soil.
When Man was created, God made him at least a vegetarian, possibly even vegan (Genesis 1:29, 30; 2:16). After the flood, however, God changed the rules of the game:
“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”
Nothing is excluded from “every.” God did not say “most of” or “every...except,” He said “every” or “all.” The last time I checked, pigs, rats, dogs, cats, vultures, bats, and skunks all move (at least the live ones do). So, when Noah and family stepped off the ark, God opened the whole smorgasbord and said, in essence, “Go for it. It’s all yours. Yes, even roasted rats wrapped in bacon.”
Meyer’s assertion that unclean animals were not food is particularly curious considering Acts 9 wherein Peter gets hungry, falls into a trance, and God shows him all manner of beasts, both clean and unclean, telling him “Get up, kill, and eat.” Peter pushes back on God and says he doesn’t eat unclean things (Acts 9:11-14). So, if unclean animals are “not even considered to be food” as Meyer asserts, why is God telling Peter to eat them? Why doesn’t Peter say, “Half of those critters aren’t even food!”
Meyer’s point about the filthiness of rats, pigs, etc., commits the fallacy of the irrelevant thesis—what he says about these creatures may be true, but it’s completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are considered “food.”
He continues by saying that “the entire context of Mark 7 is about eating bread with unwashed hands.” This is more eisegesis—reading into the text that which is not there. The point Jesus is making is that the Pharisees were concerned about appearances, rituals, and the things that go into the body, but God is concerned about what’s on the inside—and that the things we do and say are a direct overflow of what is in our respective hearts (verse 21). Jesus then goes on to reinforce this teaching with two object lessons: the Syrophonecian woman (an “unclean” gentile dog), and a deaf and mute man (who would have been considered unclean because of the sin that was presupposed to have made him deaf and mute). This really has nothing to do at all with bread being clean or unclean and whether anything needs to be done to make it clean. Meyer’s analysis is nothing short of what one apologist would call “scriptorture.”
Law vs. Grace
In Acts 15, some from Judea arrived in Antioch and began teaching that the Law of Moses (specifically circumcision) had to be followed before one could be saved. After much discussion, the council sent a letter to Antioch with Paul and Barnabus that ended with “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” (15:29, KJV) Note that the mandate to eat only clean foods is conspicuously absent in their admonition. Those in Antioch were only given guidelines to help distinguish themselves from the pagan religious practices of their cultural context, and to prevent them from wounding a weaker brother’s conscience (1 Corinthians 10).
Conclusion
The teaching that Christians should not eat some foods because they are “unclean” is patently unbiblical and is based upon a backwards approach to scripture—making it say what you want it to rather than letting it teach you. The law was fulfilled in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:3, 4) and we are no longer under it; as a matter of fact, all who live under the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10), and if you put yourself under the law, you are obligated to obey all of it (James 2:10, 11), not just the parts that make you feel sanctified. Whether you eat bacon, lobster, bats, or rats is of little concern to God, so long as they are eaten with a thankful heart (1 Corinthians 10:30-33), and so long as you are not doing it to flaunt your freedom in Christ before a weaker brother.