Faith

Can Christians eat unclean meat?

Keep family and friends informed by sharing this article.

The original diet given to humans was a plant-based diet of seed-bearing plants (Genesis 1:29). Conditions quickly deteriorated after sin entered the world and that ideal could not always be followed.

After the fall of man, God introduced grain into the diet (Genesis 2:5; 3:14) and later permitted meat to be eaten, but only certain types of meat. The meat that God allowed is referred to as “clean” meat. The details of what is “clean” and “unclean” meat are found in passages like Leviticus 11. The designation of clean and unclean meat, however, was first made when God permitted animals to be eaten after the flood (Genesis 7:2, 8; 8:20).

Since this distinction predates Abraham, it cannot be exclusively attributed to Jews. It applied to everyone. Not only did meat need to be clean but it could not contain any blood in it when it was consumed (Genesis 9:4). When Christ’s apostles met to determine what was binding on Gentile Christians, one of the things they affirmed was that Christians should not eat blood (Acts 15:20,29).¹ Clean meat was implicit in this decision because they recognised that Christians were getting acquainted with the writings of Moses during their worship every Sabbath (v21). These writings outlined what was permissible to be eaten and what was not. This is why later Paul was able to tell Timothy that those who believe and know the truth understand which foods were created by God to be received with thanks and which foods were not (1 Timothy 4:3).² Like the other apostles, Paul referred to “the word of God” to define what was sanctified (v5).³

A cursory reading of the gospels has led some to conclude that Jesus did away with the distinction between clean and unclean meat and permitted His followers to eat anything.

Jesus certainly did challenge traditions. He affirmed the Scripture while confronting teachings that were not based on it. One of the traditions He challenged was the concept of “defilement through association”, where a thing that was clean by nature became unclean due to its proximity to something unclean. The Rabbis taught that if food which would otherwise be clean, became defiled if it was touched by a non-Jew.⁴ The Pharisees would wash their hands before they ate their food in case their hands touched something they considered defiled. If they failed to do so, the food they touched would transfer the defilement into them. In Mark 7:15-23, Jesus challenged this idea. He countered the Rabbinic terms: “common” or “defile”/“polluted”⁵ (depending on the translation) but was careful not to negate the biblical term, “unclean”.⁶ This is because He upheld the distinction between clean and unclean meat. Unclean meat is never considered food in the Bible so if Jesus cleansed all food, He was not referring to unclean meat. Jesus declared that food did not lose its purity if it had come into contact with Gentiles or with hands that had touched unholy things. It is important to stress that Jesus did away with the teachings of the Rabbis (“your traditions” v13), not the clean/unclean designations of the Bible. It is not associating with Gentiles that affect one’s internal purity. Rather, it is what one dwells on.

The decision of the apostles in Acts 15, referred to earlier, points out that the followers of Jesus did not understand Jesus to have permitted the eating of unclean meat.

In fact, years after the cross-event⁷ Peter explicitly mentions that he had never eaten anything unclean (Acts 10:14). The context of this statement is a vision that God gave Peter to divest him from the non-biblical idea of “defilement through association” when it came to people. The rabbinical idea that Jews should not associate with non-Jews created barriers to ministry. Peter did not want to mix with Gentiles in the spreading of the gospel. He thought that if he were to associate with a Roman centurion, he would be defiled.

God challenged this concept by showing Peter all kinds of animals gathered together and urged him to eat them.⁸ Instead of eating one of the clean animals, Peter exclaimed that he could not eat any of them (because the clean animals were together with unclean ones). The point of the vision was explained to him and Peter realised that he should not call “defiled’ that which God made clean (v15, 28).⁹

When Jesus sent out His disciples to declare the kingdom of God, He gave them instructions, including telling them to eat whatever they were served (Luke 10:8). Did this mean that Jesus condoned eating unclean meat if it was presented to them? There would obviously be some qualifiers to that as no-one would be expected to eat rocks or faeces should they be presented by someone hostile to the disciples. The areas these disciples were sent to included Jewish and Samaritan homes. Samaritans, like Jews, did not eat unclean meat so these disciples were not going to be served pork. From the context of the passage, Jesus was encouraging His followers not to feel guilty for accepting hospitality even if it goes beyond basic necessities. He provided the reason for His statement and that was “for the worker is worthy of his wage” (v7). Christ’s missionaries should accept hospitality and enjoy the blessings that come with it along with the hardships.

An area where personal choice was promoted was the eating of food offered to idols and on the day chosen to fast (Romans 14:1-6). Some Christians interpreted Exodus 34:15 as a prohibition against eating meat that was sacrificed to a pagan god. Others did not see any issue with eating meat bought at a marketplace that had been sacrificed to an idol. They reasoned that since they were not involved in the worship ceremony during the sacrifice to that pagan god, they were not transgressing God’s law. Nothing was changed to the actual meat so there was no difference between meat from an animal that was sacrificed to a pagan god and meat that was not. There was no need to avoid such meat (Romans 14:1). One thing that needed to be considered was not causing offence to others (1 Corinthians 8:4-13). Paul argued that it would be wrong to eat food offered to idols if one thought that in eating such food they were worshipping that pagan god. It is also wrong to give onlookers such an impression. For Paul, however, he did not consider the meat negatively affected simply because it was offered to an idol before it was sold.

Scientific arguments have been presented to justify the biblical distinction between clean and unclean meat as the animals labelled as unclean tend to be scavengers and accumulate more toxins than the clean animals. Adopting the attitude that we need to understand the reason for God’s directions before we follow them is not biblical and removes the need for faith. In fact, it led to the fall of this world when Adam and Eve chose to follow what made sense to them instead of God’s instruction. We need to acknowledge that our knowledge is limited and that as our Creator, God knows what is best for us (Deuteronomy 5:29). His laws are not arbitrary but are an expression of His character of love (Matthew 22:36-40). One day everything will be clear to us, but we are not there yet (1 Corinthians 13:12).

The New Testament challenges non-biblical traditions including matters relating to food. These challenges counter rabbinical teachings, not divine instruction. Neither Jesus nor His followers removed the distinction between clean and unclean meat that was given to all mankind. The prohibition against the eating of blood is also preserved. Modern Christians would do well to honour the divine order in all matters including food, for in doing so they will be giving God glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).

They affirmed that the Noahide covenant applied to all.
This passage was a warning against sects which thought it necessary to mortify the desires of the body.
The Greek word sanctify/holy is used in Leviticus 11:44-47 which refers to clean and unclean meat. This makes clean meat implicit in 1 Timothy 4:4.
E.g. Mishnah Sheviit 8:10.
The Greek word for “common” or “defiled” is koniow. This term is not used in the Greek translation of the Torah—The Pentateuch. This is why Jesus challenged it.
If Jesus was referring to unclean meats, He would have used the word akathartos in the Greek.
The death of Jesus on the cross could not have made unclean meat clean as there was no mechanism to do that in the model of God’s salvation activity—the sanctuary service. An unclean person could be made clean but not an unclean animal.
FF Bruce notes that “It has been asked at times whether Peter could not have killed and eaten one of the clean animals. But he was scandalised by the unholy mixture of clean animals with unclean.” FF Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids, MI, 1956), 218.
If the point of the vision was to remove the classification of clean and unclean meat, the heavenly voice would have said, “What God has cleansed, you must not call unclean”. Instead, the voice says not to call it “common” (a term used by the Rabbis but not found in the Torah).