Jesus’ hand washing debate and Peter’s kill-and-eat vision aren’t the only New Testament incidents that are either misunderstood or carelessly handled in order to advocate unkosher worldviews. The gap between cleanliness and godliness is also widened by improper interpretation of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and Romans.74
Although the Corinthian and Roman epistles cover different subject matter than do the Mark and Acts accounts, the same illegitimate approach to Bible interpretation is generally used to derive an unclean message from the epistle texts; that is, small excerpts are extracted from the texts, like those cited on the previous page, and interpreted by themselves without due consideration of the surrounding context or earlier Scriptures. In the same way that permission to dine on unclean things is erroneously inferred from Mark and Acts accounts, which were intended to address topics of extra-biblical washing and misappropriated bigotry, the same faulty dining conclusions are indiscriminately drawn from Corinthians and Romans texts, which were written to deal with topics such as idolatry and judgment.
Nevertheless, these dining-related cases extracted from the four different New Testament sources do have something in common—apart from being erroneously interpreted with dispensational biases. Each of these texts, in dealing with eating and food defilement, also deal with a universal theme: dinner company. Thus, to understand New Testament dining doctrines in their entirety, instructions pertaining to mealtime companionship must be considered.
Eating with Sinners or Sinning with Eaters
However discriminating or extreme it may sound from the standpoint of modern Western etiquette and religious norms, Peter wasn’t sure where he was supposed to draw the line between himself and the righteous Gentiles of Antioch. According to the Acts and Galatians accounts, Peter was vacillating between an endearing friendship and a distant and informal religious affiliation. Per Paul’s rebuke and his own subsequent animal vision, Peter learned that he had alienated the Antioch Gentile believers without just cause. However, the Jerusalem council’s advice to Antioch, to abstain from “food polluted by idols,”75 should also be considered in context and factored into interpretation of the texts. Had the Antioch Gentiles been engaged in paganism, worshiping and feasting to idols, Peter and his non-idol-worshiping Pharisaic counterparts would have valid reasons to withdraw themselves from them. Confronted with a populous that had been steeped in idolatry, how was a righteous Jew like Peter to respond? Should he be expected to eat with Gentiles in Antioch if they were eating foods offered to idols?
With Paul’s dilemmas being very similar to those encountered by Peter in Antioch, Paul’s letters to the Corinthian and Roman communities specifically addressed issues of eating and companionship within idolatrous cultures. Hosting two prominent harbors, transient sailors, and the temple of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of love), the city of Corinth was also regarded to be among the most morally degenerate of the Roman Empire, notorious for its pagan festivals and temple prostitutes. Logically, one of the challenges that Paul faced was teaching new Roman believers how to divorce themselves from pagan practices and influences without completely isolating and alienating themselves from rest of society—which would include other new believers.
Of course, the question of who to associate with is no trivial matter, especially given the possible implications of gathering members of mixed political, religious, and ethnic factions. Dining environments with such diversity can be pregnant with tension; it is inevitable that mustering people of drastically different cultural, moral, and hygienic standards will result in some measure of conflict. Consequently, the line between sinning with eaters and eating with sinners might be difficult to perceive.
Kosher Dining Hall Company
Of course, first-century dining-company problems were not unique to pagan places like Antioch or Corinth; similar problems were prominent in regions of Judea and Samaria, where pagan idolatry was scarce and where a number of Jewish factions shaped the religious landscape. Yet even within Israel’s borders, Yeshua had been discredited by religious authorities because he showed hospitality to the “sinners,” the dregs of society.
Although the gospel of Luke does not appear to differentiate between a degenerate Jew and a degenerate Gentile, Yeshua’ remarks to the religious authorities provide guidance on how to qualify an outcast or “sinner” as someone righteous enough to accept as a dinner guest. After being criticized for his choice of company, Yeshua responded with a parable to defend his companions and his relationship with them.
Now the tax collectors and ‘‘sinners’’ were all gathering around to hear him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the Torah muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” Then Yeshua told them this parable: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15:1–7)
Although the content of Yeshua’ dining conversation with his disreputable company cannot be deduced from the short gospel text, his concluding comments suggest that his companions sought him out for his teaching, that his teaching was corrective, and that encouraging repentance was the motive for his relationship with “sinners.” Therefore, anyone open to corrective teaching and willing to repent might be categorized as worthwhile company. Conversely, those blinded by pride and convinced that they had it all together might better be categorized as lost in self-righteousness.
Approved Behavioral Bigotry
Likewise, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul offers a simple listing of qualifications for dining companions, sternly warning his audience about associating with the self-righteous, as Yeshua did.76 Above all, Paul instructed his audience to shun hypocrites who masquerade as fellow believers, especially during mealtime.
“But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” (1 Cor. 5:11)
In contrast to the illegitimate circumcision-based schism that Peter and the Pharisees created in Antioch, Paul did not promote dining division over circumcision or national heritage. Instead, Paul insisted that believers avoid dining with self-righteous hypocrites, including the idolatrous in his listing of unwelcome company. For all practical purposes, Paul’s advice to the Corinthian believers was consistent with the Jerusalem council’s instruction to the Gentiles of Antioch to “abstain from ‘meats’ offered to idols.”77 After his “kill and eat” vision, there is no reason to believe that Peter would have dining standards differing from Paul’s; Peter would not see a religious duty to accept all persons, including idolaters and hypocrites, but rather to accept all persons who did what was right. As Peter learned through unusual circumstances, social expectations were to apply as equally to longstanding Jewish believers as they were to new Gentile believers.
Corinth’s Idolatrous History
Paul’s reference to idolatry in chapter 5 of his first letter to the Corinthians was not an isolated allusion to Corinthian idolatry. In fact, Paul opened his letter by accusing the congregation of idolizing those who were teaching them—be it himself, Peter, Apollos, or even Messiah.78 Moreover, Paul reminded the Corinthian believers of their idolatrous reputation, saying,
“You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.” (1 Cor. 12:2)
Paul's Corinthian admonition, which was cited in the prior chapter to debunk morally problematic “four lone Gentile commandments of Acts” dogma, is also indicative that the congregation was vulnerable to idolatry. As such, idolatry was listed among the deadliest of sins.
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of Elohim? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of Elohim.” (1 Cor. 6:9–10)
The Corinthian congregation, however, had apparently repented of its idolatry. Recalling the Corinthians’ idolatrous behavior as something in the past tense, Paul reminds them in the next verse,
“And that is what some of you were.” (1 Cor. 6:11)
Thus, when Paul began to write about food and idol feasts in his first letter to the Corinthians, he was hardly speaking hypothetically or introducing a topic at random. To the contrary, Paul was addressing a real congregation of immature believers. Among the congregation, there were recovering idolaters who remained immersed in a pagan religious culture—day in and day out. In fact, the Corinthians were so immature and tainted by the culture that they openly tolerated incest within the congregation.79 So, however bizarre the idea of idol feasts might seem to the Western mind, it is important to remember that idolatrous dining celebrations were every bit as real in Corinth as they were when the Israelites worshiped the golden calf at the base of Mount Sinai.
The Corinthian Departure from Idolatry
However, Paul’s Corinthian audience had embarked on a path of repentance; they were departing from pantheistic and pagan idolatry as they were embracing the truth of monotheism. Yet however repentant the Corinthians may have been or hoped to become, their minds would undoubtedly be ingrained with many pagan ideas, and it is highly improbable that they would shed all of their idolatrous reasoning and customs overnight. They needed time to unlearn their pagan doctrines as they learned new scriptural truths from scratch. Given their newfound and limited knowledge, Paul needed to assure the Corinthians that any ceremonial pomp associated with idolatrous feasts and foods was not only meaningless, but without physical or spiritual consequence—provided that they were not participating in such pagan ceremonies themselves. Therefore, Paul explained to the more mature members of the Corinthian congregation,
Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves Elohim is known by Elohim.
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no Elohim but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one Elohim, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live. (1 Cor. 8:1–6)
With his words above, Paul clearly rejects the idols’ ability to corrupt food, but he obviously did not expect all Corinthian believers to instantly arrive at the same conclusion. Instead, he expected it would take time for some of them to shed their superstitions, which had been engrained into their minds over the course of decades by means of subtle traditions and everyday rituals. They needed time to unlearn many things they had mistaken for truth. After figuratively believing for decades that the world was flat, so to speak, they would not all grasp the principles and implications of global geography and spherical geometry in a single day. So, in dealing with indoctrinated believers who had little knowledge or discernment, Paul was particularly sensitive and encouraged patience.
Weak Consciences
For the sake of ignorant and undiscerning Corinthians, Paul continued by reminding the more knowledgeable members of his audience of the impotence of idols, as well as the gullibility of some members in their congregation.
But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to Elohim;80 we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple,81 won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? (1 Cor. 8:7–10)
Once again, Paul was not making appeals on behalf of the indifferent; the people of weak conscience82 to whom he referred were those with poor discernment or limited powers of perception. He did not want those capable of discerning and avoiding idolatry to set a bad example for those who were ignorant or couldn’t tell the difference between right and wrong. Even though it is not possible to defile food with an idol, Paul didn’t want an immature person with a so-called “weak conscience” to be led back into paganism as a result of blasé behavior by those who understood this truth. Paul was instructing the more knowledgeable believers to be sensitive to the superstitious and ignorant, lest they revert to practicing their pagan customs.
Sacred Cows versus Golden Calves
As Paul explained to the Corinthians, there is a profound difference between eating foods offered to idols and offering foods to idols; the real distinction lies in who is doing the offering and worshiping. Idolatry, after all, is in the heart and mind of the beholder. Given this principle, a starving man in India is by no means obligated to refrain from eating what his fellow countrymen believe to be a sacred cow. Misdirected worship won’t pollute the beef of the impoverished, unless the impoverished participates in misdirected worship. In other words, sacred cows can make great steaks.
In a similar manner, Paul said it was acceptable to eat a cow that someone else held to be sacred—as long as doing so didn’t cause a fellow believer grief and as long as it wasn’t construed as a feast in honor of an idol. The congregation of Corinth, much like the congregation of Antioch, was warned against making idolatrous offerings and socially joining themselves to those who did so. However, Paul did not warn against a believer eating or touching foods that someone else had offered to idols, although some ignorant believers incorrectly assumed that such foods were defiled by idolatry.
Polluting Food, People, and Translations
Despite Paul’s clear Corinthian teaching on the distinctions, some still interpret certain New Testament texts with superstitious notions, believing that food can be defiled by idolatry. For example, certain texts in Acts from the New International Version would lead readers to believe that there are indeed sacred cows and that it is indeed possible to pollute food by idols. The erroneous claim that foods are polluted through association with idols appears in the translation of the verse where James offers his opinion to the council in Jerusalem.
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Acts 15:20 NIV)
Nevertheless, Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians does not support the notion that foods can be polluted by idols, nor do other translations of Acts, which better convey the message of the ancient Greek. For example, the same Acts verse in the King James translation excludes mention of food, reading more closely relative to the original Greek.
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:20 KJV)
James’ suggestion, as quoted in verse 20, included the Greek terms αλίσγεμα (al-is'-ghem-ah),83 meaning “defilement” or “pollution,” and είδωλον (i'-do-lon),84 meaning “image,” “idol,” or “heathen god,” but there is no reference to food in the Greek! In this verse, James warns the people to avoid becoming defiled by heathen gods. However, it is of critical importance to note that the Greek text does not mention making offerings to them, nor does James refer to food—or to food becoming corrupt from such offering.
Acts of Idolatrous Worship
While James’ advice to avoid being defiled by foreign gods was profound and remains sound, the Jerusalem council did not reiterate this advice verbatim in their letter. Whereas James was defining what to avoid, as articulated in the Acts quote above, the council went on to more pointedly describe how new believers might avoid the pollution that James described. In other words, where James was advising that the people avoid defilement by idols, the council gave more practical and less theoretical advice to these believers, telling them with greater specificity to stop making offerings to idols.
Unfortunately, compounding the translation obfuscation problems, both the New International Version and the King James text refer to foods in conjunction with pagan sacrifices several verses later, although there is no mention of defilement or pollution made in conjunction with the alleged food reference. Slightly modifying James’ initial recommendation, the Jerusalem council’s advice to Antioch is conveyed as cited below.
That ye 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. (Acts 15:29 KJV)
Although the translations both mention offering “meats” or “foods”85 to idols, it is of greater importance to note that the original Greek text makes no clear reference to meat, food, or eating. This can be deduced from the Jerusalem council’s reference to είδωλόθυτον (i-do-loth'-oo-ton)86 in verse 29, meaning an “idolatrous offering.” Although this term may convey food offerings, it is significant that the term may be used much more generically, encompassing anything offered by means of fire or slaughter.87 Thus, the original Greek of verse 29 contains no particular reference to eating and so does not support the literal King James translation of είδωλόθυτον (i-do-loth'-oo-ton) as an idolatrous “meat” offering. Furthermore, as translated, it might be mistakenly interpreted in an eating sense as “abstain from meats,” as opposed to a worship sense, as in “abstain from offering to idols,” as the Greek more clearly instructs.
Acts of Defilement
With a proper understanding of the Greek terms, the subtle distinctions between James’ suggestion in verse 20 and the council’s official recommendation in verse 29 become useful in discerning a collective meaning. If the people stopped making offerings to idols (regardless of what they offered), they would avoid being corrupted by heathen gods. After all, it is completely reasonable to believe that people might be corrupted by the worship of heathen gods—but to advocate the notion that an idol can defile foods or other objects is to fall victim to superstition. This is essentially the same superstition that Paul was trying to dismantle in Corinth,88 as his letter (cited earlier in the chapter) demonstrates, where some people thought that the object of the idol sacrifice was capable of corrupting a person—not realizing that the true danger was in the act of offering.
Not surprisingly, the same ‘idolatrous food defilement’ dogma inferred by Corinthians and implied by Acts translations is essentially the same as that held by Pharisees in the Mark 7 account; both were formulated by unfamiliarity with the Torah of Moses. After all, the Torah includes specific commandments against idolatry; it also describes a number of ways in which food could be defiled. Food could become defiled by contact with unclean things,89 contact with unclean persons,90 or being in close proximity to the dead.91 In stark contrast, the consequence of idol worship was not food pollution, but destruction and ejection from the land.92 Also, James’ revelations pertaining to corruption from affiliation with heathen gods93 are in perfect agreement with Moses’ warning about evil spirits defiling the soul.94 Therefore, the spiritual implications of eating foods sacrificed to idols should be considered to be just as moot as eating food with unwashed hands.
Ancient Israelite Reruns
While the idol itself, along with food dedicated to it, was rendered harmless by Paul and the Torah, Paul repeatedly warned against participating in idol feasts, as did Moses. Dedicating an entire chapter to discouraging idolatry, Paul admonished the Corinthians by recalling ancient Israel’s golden calf feast at the foot of Mount Sinai,
“Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: ‘The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry’” (1 Cor. 10:7).
Given this context, Paul reiterated his concerns about breaking bread at an idolatrous celebration, as attendees “communed” with one another—as well as with spirits invoked at such festivals. Discouraging people from participating in or even appearing at such festivals, Paul reasoned with his audience,
Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to Elohim, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. (1 Cor. 10:18–21)
So, writing succinctly and exclusively about idolatry to a congregation still repenting from paganism, Paul stated:
Morally Benign Venues
In teaching these many things to the Corinthians, Paul never contends against any of Moses’ dietary teachings. Regardless, from a single excerpt of Corinthians, many dispensationalists have extrapolated God’s line of dining decency to an end point far off Moses’ curve, incorrectly claiming that Paul concludes with anti-kosher rhetoric. Forgetting that Paul is making concluding remarks on idolatry, and failing to consider that Paul makes no mention of the animal types that Moses forbade, the Corinthians citation below is nevertheless assumed to justify indiscriminate diets, where everything from the buffet table is regarded as permissible.
“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake—the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank Elohim for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of Elohim. (1 Cor. 10:23–31)
While maintaining continuity in subject matter, Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians are perfectly congruent with Peter’s words, James’ opinion, the Jerusalem council’s advice, Yeshua’ teachings, and the mandates of Moses. Paul does not undermine dietary laws whatsoever, even though he approves the consumption of surplus food obtained from either idol temples or idolatrous feasts. Thus, Paul permitted believers to eat things that were available in a morally neutral marketplace, which should not be equated to morally deplorable pagan feasts. Likewise, Paul encouraged them to feel at home as they accepted the hospitality of unbelievers—though he wasn’t giving them a green light to eat with idolaters at pagan festivals. Furthermore, Paul remained sensitive to the new believer’s limited perception and discernment of food defilement. He insisted that the food, whatever it might be, and with whomever it might be shared, should be received in thanksgiving to Elohim. Eating with thanksgiving to the one true Elohim guarantees that idol worship is anything but the focal point of the meal.
Distorting Anything and Eating Whatever
Nevertheless, two Corinthians excerpts are commonly used to advocate an unkosher Christian diet. Paul instructed the Corinthians to:
Even if these concluding statements are isolated from their contexts in favor of an unkosher worldview, they still leave the reader with obvious logical problems. After all, if English words like whatever and anything are taken literally and unconditionally, the meaning of the texts could extend into the absurd, beyond the scope of animal meat, even into the realm of inorganic materials. Of course, nobody would be expected to eat a ceramic dish along with the meal, nor would anyone eat metal or wooden utensils often sold in meat markets. Likewise, Paul was neither advocating the consumption of blood nor consenting to cannibalism. Thus, indiscriminately eating “whatever is served” or “whatever you find in the market” is not consistent with the greater context of Corinthians. If conditions are not imposed on “whatever” or “anything,” then eating meat from strangled animals, consuming blood, or even cannibalism would become permissible. Paul isn’t telling the Corinthian congregation to start eating anything and everything that moves or sits. He was not recommending the ingestion of unclean animals any more than he was encouraging believers to try eating animal waste, shards of glass, or poison because these things were available in the marketplace or at their dinner table.
Unclean Teachings of Romans
Like his instructions to the Corinthians, Paul’s letter to the Romans is also mishandled—being twisted and extracted from its greater context. Advocating unkosher dining and a system of moral relativism, dispensational theologians distill teachings into simplistic food arguments, using three verses from Romans.
One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. (Rom 14:2)
As one who is in the Lord Yeshua, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. (Rom. 14:14)
Do not destroy the work of Elohim for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. (Rom. 14:20)
Given the precedent established by kosher exegesis of numerous Mark, Acts, and Corinthians verses, it is unreasonable to surmise that Paul’s teachings to the Romans were ever intended to inspire them to deviate from Mosaic dietary standards. However, in order to arrive at a kosher interpretation of Romans, these verses must also be considered in their greater context.
Judgment, Jews, and Gentiles
The letter to the Romans, written to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, speaks extensively to the topic of judgment. Paul articulates both divine and human expectations therein. He begins by recalling the historical depravity of mankind, declaring God’s wrath to the idolatrous generations.
The wrath of Elohim is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about Elohim is plain to them, because Elohim has made it plain to them. (Rom. 1:18–19)
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal Elohim for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom. 1:22–23)
After introducing his letter to the Romans with a brief overview of a depraved and idolatrous faction of humanity, Paul makes a rather abrupt transition, using the preamble to warn and even accuse Roman believers of hypocritical judgment. He even likened some of them to the idolaters and adulterers of antiquity.
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (Rom. 1:32, 2:1)
As Paul continued his dissertation to the congregation in Rome, his rebuke was mostly directed toward the Jewish believers there. His rebuke was not incited by what the Jews believed or what they were teaching, as was the case in Antioch or Jerusalem; his words condemned their inconsistent behavior. Praising the Jews’ knowledge—but not their behavior—Paul asked rhetorically,
Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the Torah and brag about your relationship to Elohim; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the Torah; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the Torah the embodiment of knowledge and truth—you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the Torah, do you dishonor Elohim by breaking the Torah? (Rom. 2:17–23)
However awkward or even anti-Semitic Paul’s impersonal interrogation of the Jews may seem, he wasn’t obsessed with condemning them in his letter to the Romans, nor did he unconditionally condemn them all. Much like the Hebrew prophets, he made his condemnation conditional. Underscoring God’s justice, Paul reminded the Roman believers of God’s grace, saying that there would be “glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good”95 and that those who obeyed the Torah would be declared righteous in God’s sight.96
The topic of judgment would remain especially pertinent to the Jewish believers, however, as Paul continued his letter. After all, the Jews within the Roman congregation were familiar with the Torah of Moses and therefore knew better, whereas the Gentiles were more likely to be oblivious in their behavior, being biblically illiterate from the start, incapable of applying biblical principles to judicial matters. In other words, the Gentiles were forced to rely on conscience, which might have been numbed97 from neglect or tainted by surrounding customs and peoples, as opposed to the divine and morally absolute Scriptures, with which the Jews were fully acquainted. The majority of Paul’s letter to the Romans is written with such basic Jewish and Gentile differences in mind.
Against the backdrop of such Jew/Gentile schisms, the letter to the Romans is wide in scope—covering God’s autonomy in judgment, faith and faithful living, the Torah of Moses and lawful living, as well as man’s justification and means to salvation. Yet perhaps most pertinent to justice-related matters, it deals with the reconciliation between the Jews and lost tribes of Israel, otherwise referred to as “wild olive branches.”98 So when Paul writes to the Roman congregation, he logically speaks of this reconciliation between the Jews and other “Gentile” Israelite remnants. This is the greater context of Romans.
Roman Rule and Revenge
Paul’s food admonitions, which emerge later in the letter to the Romans, must therefore be considered from greater contexts of judgment and reconciliation. Before making statements about dining expectations, Paul begins by encouraging the Roman congregation in humility and forgiveness.
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith Elohim has given you...
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves...
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says Yehovah.” (Rom. 12:3, 10, 16–19)
After discouraging vengeance, it stands to reason that Paul makes an appeal to submit instead to the governing authorities in such matters, be they secular or religious. Divine justice, after all, must be in the hands of governing officials, who have been appointed within communities to render judgments and prescribe punishments; true justice is not appointed to vigilantes emotionally motivated by vengeance.
Roman Rejection
Thus, Paul’s appeal to governing authorities is particularly relevant in contexts where Torah and judgment are being discussed. In other words, Paul reminded the Corinthian believers of the rule of Torah within a religious and Roman community—just before he introduces his material on eating.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which Elohim has established. The authorities that exist have been established by Elohim. (Rom. 13:1)
Also, before discussing foods that are assumed to be defiled, Paul presents a hypothetical case, making an unusual example of a vegetarian believer.
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for Elohim has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Rom. 14:1–4)
Obviously, Paul’s directions in Romans chapter 14 have more to do with mercy and less to do with food. This overarching mercy principle is consistent given Paul’s social relations emphasis in chapter 12, and is consistent with Paul’s reminder about government responsibilities in chapter 13. Focusing on mercy, Paul does not want the Romans to harshly condemn people for the sake of trivial things.
Roman Vegetarians—Weak in Faith?
Of course, the hypothetical case of veganism described in the opening verses of Romans chapter 14 could be readily correlated with a number of different Scripture passages. First of all, the fact that Moses repeatedly encouraged the consumption of meat as part of the regular diet as well as festive fellowship sacrifices must be considered.99 Moses’ Torah also commanded that animal meat be part of the priests’ diet.100 And lest it be forgotten, the Passover festival required that a family eat a lamb in its entirety.101 So, according to Moses’ writings, vegans or vegetarians might be described as people whose “faith is weak” if their diets are based on moral convictions—as they would not know, accept, nor observe such principles. Also, Paul may well have been alluding to these particular commandments of Moses when he referred to them as “disputable matters,” since there were no consequences outlined in Moses’ Torah for anyone who failed to eat meat, whether in a festive assembly or home setting. Furthermore, the “faith is weak” phrase that Paul uses in Romans to describe the vegans seems to correlate with the “weak conscience” description in earlier Corinthian excerpts, implying a lack of understanding.
The account of Daniel offers another example involving a man who restricted his diet to vegetables, as did his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.102 Yet these four men, especially Daniel, hardly fit Paul’s description of vegans or vegetarians having “weak faith.” To the contrary, it was Daniel’s strong faith that gave him the conviction not to eat the king’s food in the first place—even risking life and limb—lest he be “defiled” by it. Furthermore, Daniel, along with Noah and Job, is described as one of the giants of the faith by the prophet Ezekiel.103 Therefore, it is not fair to draw parallels between Daniel’s dining decisions and Paul’s letter to the Romans about a brother of “weak faith,” especially since Daniel resorted to the vegetarian diet specifically to avoid unclean royal foods.
However, the story of Cain and Abel also seems to encompass a case of vegetarian strife much like the scenario Paul describes in Romans. While Abel brought an animal from the flock, Cain worked the soil and instead brought produce from the earth as an offering. For reasons not identified with perfect clarity, Elohim did not look favorably on Cain’s offering, but he accepted Abel’s. Although the text does not say that Abel expressed disapproval of Cain’s offering of fruits or vegetables,104 the possibility nevertheless does exist. Did Abel criticize Cain’s offering, thereby provoking Cain’s contempt, before being murdered? Regardless of Abel’s actions, it remains safe to say that Cain was the brother of weaker faith—exhibiting vegetarian preferences—similar to what the Romans text describes.
Defiled and Unclean in the Mind of the Beholder
After alluding to Old Testament dietary precepts, Paul continues in his reasoning to the Romans, focusing on the theme of unwarranted judgment or condemnation, while using the vegetarian with weak faith as an example.
You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. (Rom. 14:10)
So it is from the context of illegitimate judgment that Paul mentions unclean food. He continues, maintaining the theme of unwarranted condemnation.
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.
As one who is in the Lord Yeshua, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Messiah died…
Do not destroy the work of Elohim for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. (Rom. 14:13–15, 20–21)
Surely, it is unreasonable to assert that Paul’s concluding remarks on food in these citations are unrelated to the vegetarian condemnation scenario he had presented earlier. Just as the ex-idolater of Corinth was superstitious about foods exposed to idols or idolatrous ceremonies, so too did the vegetarian self-impose illegitimate perceptions, be they moral or religious, about the prudence of the use of animals for food. Therefore, the Corinthian (idol-based) and Roman (animal-based) perceptions of the defilement of food were almost one and the same; such perceptions of defilement were equally unfounded, originating from someone with a weak conscience, having weak faith, or a lack of discernment—not understanding what the Scriptures said about such foods.
Defiled Foods and Defiled Bodies
In his remarks to the Romans as cited above, Paul wasn’t talking about someone who was ignorant of Moses’ kosher instructions, rejecting food based on unfounded superstition. As a point of comparison, the prophet Daniel did not declare all foods clean that were presented to him in Babylon; he did not eat what was set before him without raising questions of conscience. To the contrary, Daniel perceived that the royal Babylonian food was unclean or defiled, and he boldly identified it as such.105 Moses’ Torah provides ample evidence to affirm that Daniel’s perceptions were based on kosher reasoning.106
First of all, the circumstances of Daniel’s protest can be regarded as an ancient science experiment. He and his three friends served as a control group on a restricted diet, whereas the rest of the royal subjects of the experiment would literally eat like kings—that is, uncleanly and irresponsibly! Describing Daniel and his Jewish friends as extremely intelligent and in good physical condition, the account reads,
Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility—young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. (Dan. 1:3–5)
Daniel and friends, educated, bright, and healthy, conscientiously objected to consuming the royal diet for fear of defilement. They understood Moses as well as cause-effect relationships. They were capable of discerning what sort of things were being prepared for dinner in Babylonian kitchens, and they knew they wanted nothing to do with them.
Putting his aptitude, political skill, and even scientific knowledge to good use, Daniel requested a temporary exemption from the king’s food; he even went so far as to propose that a controlled experiment be conducted, along with a third-party physical exam, to measure the success of each diet plan.
‘Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.’ So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days. At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. (Dan. 1:12–15)
As the text indicates, Daniel’s experiment and objection was twofold; not only did he reject the royal unclean food, but he also abstained from the royal beverages. However, the basis for Daniel’s dietary experiment has been the subject of debate, and has been used by vegetarians, vegans, and prohibitionists alike to promote a variety of anti-meat, anti-dairy, and anti-alcohol agendas.
Defiled Kitchens and Defiling Fuel
Regardless, there is no evidence to suggest that Daniel’s decisions were based on vegetarian, vegan, or abstinence convictions. Instead, there is every reason to surmise that Daniel’s actions were a logical response to unclean and unkosher Babylonian dining norms, which were even predicted and prophesied through the prophet Ezekiel. Through vivid imagery of Ezekiel’s prophetic example, Elohim had described exactly what the Babylonian kitchens would be like.
‘Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.’ Yehovah said, ‘In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.’ (Ezek. 4:12–13)
Ezekiel objected to Elohim when presented with such a scenario, much like Daniel objected to the Babylonian chief official, and as Peter did to the voice in his vision more than six centuries later.
Then I said, ‘Not so, Sovereign Lord! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No unclean meat has ever entered my mouth.’ (Ezek. 4:14)
Of course, in the case of Ezekiel, Elohim did relent in response to his objection—allowing him to cook his food over cow dung instead of human defecation.107 While the Ezekiel account might sound unusual in many ways, it does help establish or clarify a couple of interesting kosher principles.
Ezekiel’s prophetic experience demonstrates the possible basis for Daniel’s concerns, as well as offering an explanation for Paul’s point in Romans—that “no food is unclean in itself” or more precisely, “no food can defile itself.” However unpleasant it may be perceived per Western standards, grass-based cow manure is not deemed to be harmful for handling, heating, or cooking purposes according to Moses’ Torah.108 By nature and per Moses, a cow is a clean animal and so is everything inside of its unique system of cud-producing stomachs. Therefore, a cow, sheep, or goat lying in its own vegetation-comprised waste will not be rendered either “unclean” or “defiled”—regardless of the possible perceptions of vegans or vegetarians.109
In contrast, if the clean beef steak, lamb chop, or poultry comes in contact with the bodily fluid or defecation of either omnivores or carnivores, e.g., pigs, horses, rabbits, shellfish, humans, it becomes either “common” or “defiled,” as in the case of Ezekiel’s barley bread. There is every reason to believe that the royal Babylonian chefs did not distinguish between the clean and the unclean in their kitchens. According to Moses, clay pots would become unclean and even impossible to clean once they were defiled with the carcass or “meat” of an unclean animal.110 Given Daniel’s great reverence and faithfulness, it stands to reason that he would not share dishes or counter space in the kitchen with the king’s food—it is even likely that Daniel would object to sharing ovens with the Babylonians. Even if Daniel craved a kosher lamburger, he knew that his food would become defiled if it were cooking adjacent to unclean Babylonian meats, which might release wastes through residues and steam, as would burning unclean fuels such as human fecal matter. Thus it would be easiest, safest, most practical, and least offensive for Daniel to insist on a vegetable diet, at least until he could train the royal kitchen crew how to handle clean foods and dishes.
Defiled Grapes and Defiled Vineyards
In addition to avoiding foods defiled in the royal kitchen, Daniel also abstained from drinking the royal wine. Yet Daniel’s reservations about wine were not coupled to abstinence mandates, as prohibitionists might infer without Scriptural evidence. To the contrary, Daniel knew that properly prepared wine or fermented drink was explicitly permitted by Moses111 according to the Torah. Although Daniel may have been legitimately concerned about the storage vessels used for wine (wineskins may have been a pig stomach instead of a sheep or goat stomachs), Daniel may also have been concerned about the wine’s ingredients.
While there is no obvious reference to the practice of crossbreeding crops in the book of Daniel, it is possible that the practice was commonplace in Babylon, even though it was forbidden by Moses.
Do not plant two kinds of seed112 in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. (Deut. 22:9)
In yet another instance, Moses may have been describing the poisonous result of cross breeding as he described grapes of Sodom and Gomorrah, prior to the Israelite conquest of the land of Canaan.
Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah. Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness. Their wine is the venom of serpents, the deadly poison of cobras. (Deut. 32:32–33 NIV)
While it is credible that Babylon’s wineries may have used grapes that were cross-pollinated with other crops, another and probable explanation exists. In fact, a number of Scriptures all point to narcotic wine additives. For example, the same Deuteronomy verse in the King James Version, like the original Hebrew and other prophets, alludes to the non-grape wine ingredients.
“For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.” (Deut. 32:32–33 KJV)
To liken the grapes113 of Canaan to gall and bitterness is of particular significance. Gall114 is repeatedly listed in the Bible in conjunction not only with bitterness115 but with wormwood,116 a bitter plant or root117 capable of being distilled into an anise-flavored alcohol called absinthe. Such substances were not grown and harvested merely for flavoring.
Defiled Wines and Defiled Minds
Potentially fermented or mixed with wine, wormwood has several uses—including that of a pain-numbing drug. Although used as an anesthetic by many cultures, the substance is also notorious for inviting hallucinations, is capable of attacking the nervous system, and is occasionally responsible for seizures or death. Although outlawed in many countries today, wormwood is still used in occult rituals, witchcraft, shamanism, and pagan religions to induce hallucinogenic effects.
With wormwood legends spanning all the way back to Eden, where it was said to be a product of the serpent’s tail,118 the substance was also known by Daniel’s Babylon and Moses’ Egypt. Relating wormwood’s hallucinogenic effects to ancient idol worship, Moses warned Israel,
Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from Yehovah our Elohim, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood. (Deut. 29:18)
And just as the prophet Ezekiel predicted the defilement of solid foods in exile, so the prophet Jeremiah predicted Judah’s use of wormwood for beverage in Babylon.
Therefore thus saith Yehovah of hosts, the Elohim of Israel; Behold, I will feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink. (Jer. 9:15)
Jeremiah elaborated on the implications of Babylonian wine consumption. Drawing connections between Jeremiah chapters 9 and 51, it is not difficult or far-reaching to connect Babylonian absinthe-wine mixtures with lunacy.
Babylon was a gold cup in the Lord’s hand; she made the whole earth drunk. The nations drank her wine; therefore they have now gone mad. (Jer. 51:7)
Finally, Jeremiah lamented Jerusalem’s fall and Judah’s exile. Speaking on behalf of the people of the Judean kingdom, the prophet grieved,
He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath made me drunken with wormwood… Remembering mine affliction and my misery, the wormwood and the gall. (Lam. 3:15, 19 KJV)
Surely, being an educated young man, Daniel understood the cause and curse of the Babylonian exile; and he was discerning enough to rise above it.
During his crucifixion, Yeshua also was offered wine mixed with gall or myrrh. He was in excruciating pain, nearing death. Two gospel accounts present this occurrence.
There they offered Yeshua wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. (Matt. 27:34)
Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. (Mark 15:23)
Like the prophet Daniel, Yeshua refused to allow himself to be defiled by gall or wormwood. Each man would uniquely avoid the cup of Babylon’s judgment. Their third eye, otherwise known as the mind’s eye—the locus of consciousness and place where the spirit is thought to unite with the body—would not be defiled; it would remain intact until the very moment that their spirits departed from their bodies. Neither Daniel nor Yeshua would welcome the hallucinogenic “Green Fairy”119 of insanity; they would not invite demons into their souls or share their bodies with evil and destructive spirits.
Paul, Daniel, and a Guy Named Webster
Just as Daniel’s dietary behavior cannot be understood without due consideration of context, neither can Paul’s preaching be understood without the proper definition of simple terms. To their own harm, most Christian institutions within English-speaking cultures do not derive the meaning of the word ‘food’ from the Bible; instead, they formulate their beliefs on traditions and secular dictionary definitions. One dictionary, for example, defines food as “material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains or consists of essential body nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life.”120 While such definitions may sound articulate, encompassing, and scientific, they are, in reality, oversimplified and morally benign. In accepting food as “anything ingested for caloric intake or bodily nourishment” in accordance with cultural norms, people fail to make distinction between animal and human diets, just as they overlook the moral components or religious aspects to food. Yet without considering the biblical aspects of food—moral and human—it is inevitable that Paul’s writings to the Corinthians and Romans will be misunderstood.
Of course, Paul did not consult Webster as he wrote Romans or Corinthians any more than Moses did as he began writing the Torah. Yet this didn’t deter anyone—from the patriarchs to the prophets—from arriving at a consistent and working definition of food. New Testament contributors found insight and inspiration in Moses’ Torah, which came directly from Elohim at Mount Sinai. As far as man is concerned, food should not be merely what the dictionary says it is; food was, is, and always will be exactly what an unchanging Elohim says it is—ever since Genesis, as the next chapter illustrates.
While Paul was convinced that all food was clean,121 he wasn’t convinced that everything was created for food. Likewise, Peter didn’t envision that everything was to be killed and eaten. Neither did Yeshua declare all things to be food. And even in the event that Yeshua did declare all animals to be clean food—which he did not—he would be legitimately branded as a false prophet and an apostate teacher in accordance with the words of the prophets Moses and Ezekiel.122
Defiled by Imagination
Is the defilement of food or drink merely a matter of imagination, and are unclean designations arbitrarily established in the mind of the beholder, as inferred by traditional religious institutions and implied by English Bible translations? Absolutely not.
Paul’s letter to the Corinthians merely established that believers were not to eat at idolatrous festivals, or with other believers who were idolatrous hypocrites. Paul empowered believers with freedom and discretion, giving any Christian believer the latitude to eat with any unbelievers not engaged in idolatry. He also clarified that believers can eat food handled by idolatrous people, even if it passes through places engaged in pagan religious rituals, provided the food is eaten by the believer with thanksgiving to the one true Elohim. Along with these clarifications, however, Paul admonished his audience to be especially careful when eating with new believers recovering from idolatry, lest they be inclined to revert back to paganism, some of them being still ignorant, superstitious, and of a “weak conscience.” Obviously, new converts unfamiliar with Moses’ writings would be unable to understand how foods became defiled, erroneously believing that idols had the power to defile food or make it unclean.
Likewise, Paul’s letter to the Romans was written to a mixed audience, which included ignorant converts recovering from pagan influences. In Romans, Paul suggests that believers who were vegetarians or vegans as a result of moral or religious convictions were “weak in faith” or confused in their doctrine. Nevertheless, he also warned the more knowledgeable believers, who did eat meat derived from clean animals, against harshly abusing the new believers who failed to understand biblical dining principles and ordinances related to the defilement of meat. To this end, Paul reiterates that clean foods of any variety are not capable of becoming defiled or unclean in and of themselves, but that such foods could be defiled by mishandling. Likewise, the prophets (including Daniel, Ezekiel, and Moses) taught the same—foods could be defiled when contacting bodily fluids or unclean animal byproducts.
Daniel’s account implicitly demonstrates that kitchens, butcher shops, and dishes that become defiled by processing unclean animals can defile clean food, and that not all living organisms are made for food. In addition to knowing that unclean food would corrupt the body, Yeshua and Daniel also knew better than to defile the mind with poisonous drinks comprised of hallucinogenic substances. They used their God-given senses to make a right judgment and objected to consuming defiled ‘food’ as well as that which had the power to defile — as defined by Moses, not their personal imaginations.
Surely, Paul’s works must be treated as progressive revelation built on complementary precepts as disclosed through earlier texts—not as unique anti-kosher revelations. By treating Paul’s letters as instructions that embody kosher principles, one finds that they easily correlate with all earlier food and eating Bible texts, upholding simple cleanliness-godliness paradigms. Paul’s instructions to “eat anything” are indisputably predicated on Genesis food definition—as described in the next chapter. In the same way, Paul’s remarks that “no food is unclean in itself” and that “all food is clean” are contingent on Moses’ original definitions pertaining to what is by nature impure and unclean, or what is by circumstance defiled.