There is a lot of discussion about the eating of meats in the Bible, both the old and new covenants. Are there some meats that Christians should not eat? Why were the Jews given a list of clean and unclean animals?

Are some meats unclean for human consumption today? Why is this such an important topic for some religions? Other religions basically ignore the subject altogether and know very little about the matter. We have not taught much about it in the churches of Christ, except to say that such matters went away with the Law of Moses. It is quite an involved and an important subject.

One religious person said to me, If pigs, vultures, rodents and the like were unclean before the cross, how did they clean themselves up after the cross? They are still unclean and unfit for human consumption. I was putting water in the radiator of the church van when they walked up. He illustrated the point by saying that if water and oil do not mix today, they will not mix tomorrow. Nothing will change that fact. His point, of course, was that these unclean animals were so called, unclean, because they were inherently unclean or unclean of itself. But there are other ways of being unclean. He had illustrated only one way.

We have all heard the expression, Cleanliness is next to godliness. Even though this statement is not found in Scripture, the concept is certainly taught in the Jewish Scriptures and the spiritual meaning that "cleanliness is godliness" is taught in the New Testament. Paul wrote,

"Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord and touch not the unclean (thing), and I will receive you. And I will be Father unto you and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 6:17-18.)

There were two basic ways under Jewish Scripture that one could become unclean: by what he ate and by what he touched. Touching unclean things is closely conjoined with eating unclean things. If a Gentile touched a Jew, he was considered unclean. If a Jew touched a dead body, he was unclean. There were rituals necessary for cleansing one who became unclean. A Jew therefore watched what he ate and what he touched. Paul used that kind of language to the Corinthians. (2 Cor. 6:17-18.)

"Or if any soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him, he also shall be unclean and guilty." (Lev. 5:2.)

You will remember that many people touched Jesus during his ministry, and He touched sick, dying and diseased people. He touched a leper. A woman with a sickness touched the hem of his garment. Jesus ate a meal in the presence of Pharisees without washing his hands. This was unthinkable for a Jew. They related physical uncleanness with spiritual uncleanness. We do not have any clear statements that Jesus ate "unclean" meats, but we do have some important teachings of Jesus about what constitutes uncleanness or impurity. Jesus and his disciples also ate with unwashed hands.

A basic question must be answered about the teaching of unclean meats in Jewish Law. How did such teaching arise? Why were certain animals and birds classified as unclean. You will recall that long before the Law, Noah was told to bring on the Ark animals and birds that were both clean and unclean. The unclean were numbered by pairs; the clean by sevens. The clean animals were for sacrifices and human consumption; therefore, more of the clean were taken on board. (Gen. 7:1-9, 8:20.) The distinction, therefore, predated the Law of Moses.

It is interesting to note that before the Flood it seems that man ate only herbs. At the creation: "I have given you every green herb for meat." (Gen. 1:30.) After the Flood, we have this statement: "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen. 9:3.) There is no reason given for the change. It signified a great difference between man and the beasts. Plants and animals were under the dominion of man. Those promoting evolution (even among the pagans of that day) probably exalted the animals too highly. Man also needed the protein in his new world. Man could eat the meat of any of the animals; he could also reject what he did not desire. (The Genesis Record, Henry Morris, 222-23.)

In every society, there is a general acceptance of what is suitable for human consumption and what should not be served on the table. For example, we do not eat dogs or cats. Other cultures do. How did the distinction between clean and unclean animals arise? Who decided it? Was it merely a cultural or societal selection? In some societies, the reason is to establish boundaries between one class of society and another. This certainly applies to the Hindu castes, who protect themselves against contamination of lower castes by elaborate purity rules applied to the preparation and consumption of food.

Here are four explanations for the distinction among animals and birds.

1. Hygienic or health reasons. The Jewish scholar, Maimonides, wrote "that food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome." (Guide for the Perplexed, quoted in Purity and Monotheism, Walter Houston, 69.) It is true, of course, that some plants (like mushrooms) will kill humans and some animals are not beneficial for our health. The dangers of eating pork are often pointed out, but all animals have their parasites which may be dangerous to human consumers if the meat is not cooked properly. Most diseases, like trichinosis and anthrax, can be avoided by thorough cooking. Eating any meats rare or only partially cooked poses dangers. Diseases of the animal may be transmitted to humans through the blood.

2. Aesthetic reasons. The very appearance of unclean animals like pigs, dogs, and mice are offered as reasons for classifying them unclean. But most animals are fairly unappealing if you think about eating their flesh while they are alive. Birds eat insects and worms. Then we eat the fowls. After the creation, God declared "good" all that he had created. He did not declare it all clean or suitable for food.

3. Sacrificial or cult reasons. Some argue that God forbade certain animals to be used in sacrifice because those animals were important in pagan, particularly Canaanite, worship. But remember that the clean and unclean distinctions predated the worship of Israel under Moses. As far back as Noah, these distinctions existed. It is difficult to establish that this is the reason for all the birds and animals named as unclean.

Because God declared some unclean, those animals and fowls could not be used in sacrifices.

4. Moral-symbolic reasons. Some Jewish scholars have argued that God made the distinction in order to curb the appetite. As Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of all the fruit of the trees of the garden, so man is forbidden from eating all that is available. There is a moral test; Moses may have forbidden certain animals to restrain gluttony.

Jewish scholars saw all the commandments of God as ethical in nature. It was a test of man’s obedience. "Everyone of the six hundred and thirteen precepts serves to inculcate some truth, to remove some erroneous opinion, to establish proper relations in society, to diminish evil, to train in good manners, or to warn against bad habits." (Guide for the Perplexed, Maimomides, 3.31, 322.) The prohibition against eating unclean meats and touching unclean things is found in the same context as sexual immorality and idolatry. All these were ethical or moral issues to the Jews.

We should note the strong symbolic connection as well. Here is an explicit statement in Scripture showing the symbolism involved.

"Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean; and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me, for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine." (Lev. 20:25-26.) This sounds very similar to Paul’s statement in 2 Cor. 6:17-18. We should come out to be separate from others and He will be our Father. Under the Law, this was symbolized by the separation of clean and unclean animals/birds.

Earlier I said that some religious teachers pressed the point with me that things do not change. Unclean animals remain unclean. That means that their very nature does not change. Of course, not. But that may not be the reason that the animal was classified as unclean. It could have been for sacrificial and symbolic reasons. We know that the New Testament makes clear this latter point.

Acts 10 & 11. When Peter saw a vision with all manner of animals and fowls in a great sheet, he was told to arise, kill and eat. He immediately refused. Jews were taught not to eat just any animal. Three times Peter was commanded to kill and eat. While he was considering the meaning of the vision, some men from Cornelius’ house arrived at his house. The Spirit of God instructed Peter to arise and go with the men to Cornelius’ house. Here was a Jewish apostle being told to go into the house of a Gentile and teach him the Gospel. Some Jewish believers in Jerusalem rebuked Peter for eating with the Gentiles. (Acts 11:2-3.) Peter rehearsed what had happened to him in the vision. God told Peter not to call what He had cleansed common or unclean. How did God cleanse the unclean? How did he make the distinction go away? He did so by removing the distinction between the Jews and Gentiles in the Gospel.

A pig was not unclean just because of his filthy habits. All the unclean animals and fowls were unclean because they represented the Gentile world temporarily. When God removed the Jew-Gentile distinction in the Gospel, He also removed the distinction among the animals.

Christians do not observe them because they are Jewish distinctions. Leviticus especially gave the reasons for the distinctions between clean and unclean as follows: "For I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people that ye should be mine." (Lev. 20:26.) Deuteronomy said, "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us alive this day." (Deut. 5:3.) The Sabbaths were said to be "a sign between me and you throughout your generations that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." (Exodus 31:13.) The dietary laws, the Sabbath, and the whole old covenant was given to Israel.

Those distinctions separated Israel from other nations throughout their generations. It does not apply to us under the new covenant.

A further consideration is the hygienic or health reason. But we have already rejected this as the major reason for the distinction under the Law of Moses. Christians should be careful about eating anything, plant, fruit or animal, that harms or destroys the body. Our society does reject some foods as unsuitable for human consumption. However, we should not reject them because we think that we should follow the Jewish distinctions between clean and unclean meats. One could eat "clean" meats and not prepare them properly and even the so-called clean meats can harm the body. An example is salmonella poisoning which results from bacteria entering meats during the preparation process.

It is important to note that modern religious bodies who promote the clean/unclean distinctions in meats do not do so because 1) it distinguishes Israel from Gentiles, as the Bible proclaims, or 2) due to the right sacrifices at the altar of God. Their primary focus is the hygienic or health concerns, which is not specifically stated in Scripture. After the Flood, God gave man "every moving thing" for meat. There is no statement about which meats are not healthy for man.

The change from one small nation representing the faith of God to a world-wide Kingdom which crosses all territorial boundaries and languages presented some special issues related to table fellowship, one’s own conscience and purity before God.

Table fellowship. How can Jewish and Gentile Christians share table fellowship? What would you serve? Only "clean animals" according to the Law? Or food that Gentiles were accustomed to eating. It is interesting that Paul does not mentioned it as a specific problem at the Corinthian church. But there were other problems with table fellowship and the Lord’s Supper.

Paul advised them: "Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." (1 Cor. 10:32.)

Note the three groups mentioned: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God. Culturally, the Jews and Gentiles had different customs of eating. The church of God was a mixture of people from all nations. We should not offend one another, but we should also consider the church. Many Jews kept up their habits of eating only kosher (Hebrew word for clean or acceptable) meats; the Gentiles did not have such distinctions. Both groups should have kept in mind the effect of their actions upon the whole church.

Paul said that he was convinced (and he was a Jewish heritage) that "nothing was unclean of itself." (Romans 14:14.) He added, "The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof." (1 Cor. 10:28.) But Jews could not be expected to immediately change their culture and conscience. It would take time for them to understand. Jews to this day still prepare special meat without blood and refuse to eat "unclean" meats. By so doing, they are giving offense to the church of God. They are not considering God’s will for the Gentiles and the new body of Christ. Both groups are now eating at the table of the Lord. This should have changed things for both Jew and Gentile.

Conscience. The important matter of the conscience also comes into play. Neither Jew nor Gentile should violate his conscience concerning eating of meats. If they esteemed it unclean, to them it was unclean. If an unbeliever invited a Christian to a feast, he could go if he wanted to do so. If eating meats which were offered to false gods offended you, it would be best not to ask about the meat. (1 Cor. 10:25-28.) We should be careful not to force things upon people who are not ready to accept them. Teaching must occur first to instruct the conscience.

Purity. One of the most important matters in relation to clean and unclean meats is purity. The Jews knew how they maintained their separation from the Gentiles. Every time they ate a meal, they were reminded of their separation from the world to God. The problem with symbols of purity is that man tends to keep the symbol instead of remembering what the symbol meant. The Jews exalted circumcision, washing hands, and eating clean meats above inward purity of heart. But when those distinctions were removed, would they understand the concept of purity?

Jesus taught, "Hearken unto me everyone of you and understand. There is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him, but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. . . For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile the man." (Mark 7:14-15, 21-23.) "These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matt. 15:20.)

There are many symbols of purity in the Bible. The danger of such symbols is that they will substitute for real purity of heart. Just because someone washes one’s hands, eats only the clean meats of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, does not touch sinners, or is circumcised---these things alone do not mean that one is pure. Purity is a condition of the heart. Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart." (Matt. 5:8.)

"Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Titus 1:15.) Paul just referred to Jewish concepts and teachings in verse 14. He surely had in mind those things among Jews which were styled as unclean. But now as Christians, who are pure in heart, all such things are pure. If your heart and mind is defiled, everything is unclean.

Often religious people who want to find proof for one practice or another will appeal to the biblical period before the Law of Moses. The force of the argument is that if something was practiced before the Law (which is now removed), then that practice should be carefully considered by Christians before they reject the practice.

I have read several such religious arguments based upon this reasoning. 1) Tithing was practiced before the Law; therefore, it should be continued today. 2) A distinction between clean and unclean meats is made in Scripture before the Law; therefore, unclean meats should not be eaten today. 3) God sanctified the seventh day at the creation; therefore, it was not removed with the Law of Moses.

This is an extremely weak and dangerous argument. We have not spent much time investigating and considering this position. Should we do religiously today what people before the Law did??

1) There are some things even in the New Testament period that we do not practice today. We do not have apostles in the church because it is impossible to have appointed eyewitnesses. We do not speak in tongues today. We do not have people guided by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel. We must study to show ourselves approved of God.

To argue that whatever is before or after the Law of Moses is approved for Christian practice and faith is a false argument. Whatever proves too much proves nothing at all.

2) We should not follow everything that was practiced by the patriarchs. God spoke to the patriarchs directly. He does not so deal with fathers today. They offered animal sacrifices before the Law; we do not. They practiced parental selection of mates for their children. Should we adopt that practice? Why should we do some things and not others. What principle should guide us in determining the answer?

3) Some things before the Law do have powerful implications for us today. Paul argued that justification was not by keeping the Law. He used Abraham (who lived before the Law) as an example of how all people are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. Paul had to answer the question by the Jews, Why was the Law given then? He replied, Due to transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. (Gal. 3:19.) The basic principle of justification by faith has never changed from the beginning of time until now. It will remain the same. Covenants have changed; but how men are redeemed will never change.

Christians make a serious mistake if they think that they can ignore all the material from Genesis to Malachi. Even though the covenant with Israel has been fulfilled, we cannot put aside all that history and information so crucial to understanding New Testament Christianity. Some have even argued that the Gospels are not a part of our covenant with God because they address the period before Pentecost. It is true that Jesus was born and lived under the Law, but we should not for a moment classify the Gospels as a part of the first covenant and reject their teaching.

4) If there are some practices before the Law that we follow and others that we do not, then what principle of interpretation should guide us? Instead of making some sweeping generalization, we should instead take each practice and belief, compare it with the overall message of the Bible and then decide if we should embrace it. Just the simple fact that something was done before the Law does not mean that such is an eternal practice or principle to follow.