Did Jesus adjust God’s ancient laws of clean and unclean sandwich?

sandwich? Jesus said nothing will defile you. What about

God’s Diet Plan meats? The answer shouldn’t be hard to find. It should be
right there in the four gospels.

Everyone is concerned about health these days. Hundreds of

cockroaches and snakes? Jesus said nothing will defile you.
Well, what about a dish of poisonous mushrooms or tainted
shellfish? Jesus said nothing from without a man entering into
him can defile him. So even though you might be dead in a

for
books have been written on the subject, and yet people often few hours, at least you would not be defiled. Jesus is not
neglect to consider what the best selling book of all time has saying that you will not be harmed, only that you will not be
to say about healthful eating habits. defiled.

In Leviticus chapter 11 God detailed exactly which animals There are several important things to notice about this verse.

Healthful
were edible and which were not. He did so, not as an First, Jesus is speaking in the present tense and is talking
arbitrary test of obedience, but for the benefit of His creation. about the way things are. He is not offering new legislation or
God knew long before modern science that pork is bad for abrogating the old. The statement was true when Leviticus
your heart. He knew that shellfish are the garbage disposals was written and it is true today. The dietary laws of Leviticus
of the sea and have their own unique place in the food chain, 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are laws of health and cleanliness,
separate from human consumption. not laws of spiritual holiness. Eating unclean meats will not

Living
defile you spiritually, but it can harm you physically. These
Jesus knew these health laws and obeyed them. Of course, laws were given to protect health and are not annulled.
He often came into conflict with the Pharisees over the
traditions which they had added to God’s law over the years, Additionally, the statement was made under the Old
but that is altogether different than doing away with the laws Covenant. Some will argue that God’s laws were nailed to the
themselves. cross--abolished at Christ’s death. Yet this statement was
made well before that time.
Nevertheless, it is a widely held view that Jesus set aside the
laws of God, including those delineating what was good to eat Finally, there are two very different Greek words that have to
and what was not. Some people believe this belief is do with defilement or uncleanness. The words are koinos and
supported by an incident recorded in the seventh chapter of akthartos. They mean, respectively, “common” and “unclean.”
Mark’s gospel. Koinos in the usage of the day simply meant the opposite of
“holy.” That which was koinos was “unhallowed,” or “unholy.”
Jesus’ disciples were being criticized for eating without first Akthartos, on the other hand, is the opposite of “clean.” It has
washing their hands (Mark 7:5). Jesus condemned the more to do with moral or physical uncleanness or corruption.
Pharisees for their arbitrary administration of the law. Drawing
a sharp distinction between the tradition of the elders on the The word “defile” as Jesus uses it in this passage is from the
one hand, and the commandment of God on the other, Jesus root of the Greek word koinos. It has to do with the spiritual
accused them of invalidating the word of God by their defilement of the heart, not the physical defilement of the
tradition. flesh. Jesus explains what He means by pointing out the
obvious: “Do you not perceive, that whatsoever thing from
Notice that Jesus firmly supports the law. Having made that without enters into the man, it cannot make him unholy;
point, He offers an answer to the question of eating with because it enters not into his heart” (verses 18, 19).
unwashed hands: “There is nothing without a man, that
entering into him can defile him: but the things which come Jesus is not talking about eating dangerous or unlawful things
out of him, those are they that defile the man” (Mark 7:15). which could ruin your health or take your life. He is talking
By Ronald L. Dart about eating with unwashed hands. His point is that a little bit
That is a mighty comprehensive statement. Plainly, dirt on of dirt on your hands cannot defile your heart--cannot make
your hands that gets on your food will not defile you. But what you unholy. The unholiness of which He speaks is caused by
about those foods prohibited by the law? What about a ham
things like theft, covetousness, and fornication which proceed a thing as a command which is figurative, given for effect or demonstrates conclusively that Peter knew nothing of any
out of the heart of a man (verses 21, 22). emphasis? Certainly such commands do exist. Notable is supposed change.
Jesus’ statement: “If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out
Note well, the question of clean and unclean meats is and cast it from thee.” No one believes that he should literally The idea that Jesus annulled the Old Testament dietary laws
nowhere discussed. The subject under discussion is eating pluck out an eye merely because he stole something. After is a late interpretation. No one at the time seems to have
with unwashed hands. Jesus says that food does not enter all, the impetus to steal did not arise from the eye. Jesus’ understood Jesus that way at all. Not even Paul. In writing to
into the heart, “but into the belly, and goes out into the commandment is phrased in the most imperative of terms, the Romans, he opines, “I know and am persuaded by the
draught (literally: the latrine), purging all meats” (verse 19). but yet we all understand it to be figurative, given for effect Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him
This last phrase simply means that all foods are purged from and emphasis. that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean”
the body and has nothing to do with a change in the law. (Romans 14:14). But Paul uses the word koinos or “common”
Unaccountably, some translations add a phrase to this verse Consider also God’s commandment to Abraham regarding here, not the word akthartos or “unclean.” And he is talking
which is in no ancient Greek text. It reads, “This He said, the sacrifice of Isaac. Can we infer from this illustration that about vegetarianism versus meat eating, not unclean meats
making all meats clean.” This is pure interpretation on the human sacrifice must be lawful or God would not have used as such (Romans 14:2).
part of the translators and is totally unwarranted by the that as a test of Abraham’s obedience?
original text. How does Paul understand akthartos? Writing to the
Plainly the commandment in Peter’s vision is a rhetorical Corinthians about their involvement with the world, he exhorts
If Jesus had intended to do away with the law of unclean commandment and Peter drew no inferences from it other them, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye
meats, His listeners could not have missed the point. If He than the one stated. Furthermore, the stronger case you separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and
had made a statement that all foods are now clean, it would make that this is a direct commandment from God, the more I will receive you” (I Corinthians 6:17 from Isaiah 52:11). The
have created one of the biggest controversies of His ministry. significant becomes Peter’s refusal to eat. word for “unclean” here is akthartos and is the same word
Did His listeners understand Jesus to be abrogating the Old applied to unclean animals, their flesh, and their carcasses. It
Testament dietary laws? There were Pharisees present when On what basis did Peter refuse? Obviously on the basis of the is strange that Paul would exhort a gentile church to avoid the
Jesus made the statement. How would we expect them to law, because it was the law which defined what was common unclean if he believed that Jesus had abolished the law of the
respond if Jesus had plainly said that swine’s flesh was good or unclean. Peter knew better than to break God’s law merely unclean.
for food? There is not a hint in the account that they because a voice from heaven told him to do it.
understood Jesus that way. If they had, they would have Paul was quoting Isaiah, and lest we should be in doubt
needed no hired witnesses against Jesus at His trial. They Peter initially doubted the meaning of the vision. If Jesus, about what Isaiah meant, he later spoke of, “a people that
could have charged Him with speaking against Moses and during His ministry, had taught that meats previously termed provoke me to anger continually to my face; that sacrifice in
the Law. No such charge was made. unclean were now cleansed, Peter could hardly have missed gardens...which eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable
the significance. In that case, his refusal to eat common or things is in their vessels” (Isaiah 65:3, 4). The time setting is
Matthew was present and he records the event as nothing unclean meats could only be seen as stubbornness on his plainly the end time: “For, behold, the Lord will come with fire,
more than a discussion of eating with unwashed hands part. Whatever response we might have expected from Peter, and with His chariots...For by fire and by His sword will the
(Matthew 15:1-20). He offers no indication that Jesus was it seems unlikely that he would have “doubted in himself” Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be
talking about unclean meats. what the vision might mean. Peter’s initial doubt makes no many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves
sense if Jesus had plainly taught the cleansing of all meats. in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s
Peter was present, and years later he still refused to eat flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be
anything common or unclean (koinos or akthartos) even in Perhaps the most important evidence regarding Acts 10 is consumed together, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 66:15-17). God
the face of a direct command from God (Acts 10:9-16). There that Peter’s ultimate interpretation of the vision had nothing to seems to take eating unclean meats rather seriously--even at
can be no mistake about Peter’s understanding or intent, do with meats. He explained to Cornelius, “You know how it is the end time. Even though this law is a health law, it is still the
because the procedure was repeated three times, and three an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or law of God. These people were not accidentally or
times Peter declined to eat. to come unto one of another nation; but God has showed me unknowingly eating pork. They were deliberately eating it,
that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts apparently as a rite of “purification.”
But this is a direct commandment from God. Would God 10:28). This is the only interpretation Peter offers for this
command Peter to do something that was wrong? It’s a valid vision. There is one other reference to this subject in Paul’s letters. It
question, but we must inquire a step further. Is there such a Peter did not understand his vision to authorize any change in is his warning to Timothy about end time apostacy (I Timothy
thing as a metaphorical or rhetorical command? Is there such the law of God, and his personal response to that vision 4:1-5). “Many shall depart from the faith,” Paul says, “giving
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.” One of pork fit to eat, why did He allow such wholesale destruction of
these “doctrines of demons” is “commanding to abstain from valuable private property?
meats, which God has created to be received with
thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” There may also be some symbolism involved in the question.
No animal more symbolizes filth than the swine. Demons are
What, precisely, does this mean? Well, initially it is important called unclean spirits, and are allowed to enter, possess, and
to note that this is not merely a discussion of eating meat. To destroy swine. Babylon is become the hold of every foul
the King James translators, “meat” was not animal flesh, but demonic spirit and every unclean and hateful bird. The
food in general. The Greek word is broma which means unknowing ingestion of unclean meat bears no symbolic
“food.” meaning. The choice to eat swine’s flesh may be quite
symbolic.
Upon taking a closer look, this cannot refer to a command not
to eat the “unclean meats” of Leviticus 11. If it did, it would be Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not come to destroy any
tantamount to calling Leviticus 11 a doctrine of demons! part of God’s law, including the health and dietary laws. He
came to redeem those who had broken the law, and to
Additionally, the doctrine specifically refers to a command to magnify the law (Isaiah 42:21). Jesus said that not the
abstain from those foods which God created to be received. It smallest letter nor stroke of the pen would pass from the law
may be presumed that He created things which were not to until heaven and earth passed. The Christian should not look
be received as food. for laws which have been done away. There aren’t any.

Paul continues: “For every creature of God is good, and However, the Christian is justified in asking how Jesus Christ
nothing is to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for would administer the law. And since Jesus Christ lives in
it is sanctified [set apart] by the Word of God and prayer” (I each of us, each of us is fully responsible before God to obey
Timothy 4:4, 5). Where in the Bible are foods “set apart” for the law, not as some Pharisees might demand, but as Jesus
human consumption? In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Christ would have us to do.
Paul did not say that everything created by God was good for
food without qualification. Some things created by God are
not fit for human consumption. Paul was condemning those The author is a long time Elder and Evangelist of the Church
who go beyond the Word of God to prohibit clean foods. of God, founder of Christian Educational Ministries and
speaker of Born to Win broadcast, carried on many radio
The apostle John was also present when Jesus made His stations in the US. Access his website at:
statement about eating with unwashed hands. Very late in www.cemnetwork.com
John’s life, he received an apocalyptic vision. In this vision he
saw an angel descend from heaven and heard him cry, Distributed free by:
“Babylon the great is fallen, and has become the habitation of
devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every
unclean and hateful bird” (Revelation 18:2). Here, late in the
first century, there is apparently still such a thing as an
unclean bird.

There is one other incident in Jesus’ ministry that may shed

some light on His intent relative to unclean meats. When He Mustard Seed Evangelistic
Evangelistic Work (MSEW)
encountered a man possessed with a “legion” of demons, the For Inquiries, email: [email protected]
demons pleaded with Jesus to allow them to enter a herd of
swine feeding nearby (Mark 5:1-13). If Jesus had declared